Mandujano v. Geithner, 4:10-cv-01226

Mandujano sued Geithner in the Northern District of California; the court granted Geithner summary judgment and denied Mandujano’s cross-motion on June 27, 2011.
Geithner filed a bill of costs seeking $2,748.70 on July 7, 2011.
Mandujano filed objections to the costs on July 20, 2011; the clerk taxed costs on July 27, 2011.
The court denied Mandujano’s objections as procedurally flawed, but proceeded to address merits and defenses on the substance.
The court concluded Geithner is the prevailing party and awarded costs, overruling objections to specific costs under local rules and controlling authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural compliance with cost rules	Mandujano complied with neither motion practice nor meet-and-confer rule.	Mandujano failed to provide required motion and failed to confer as local rule requires.	Objections denied for procedural flaws.
Prevailing party status	Mandujano contends Geithner is not prevailing while the court had not ruled on post-judgment motions.	Geithner is the prevailing party after judgment and denial of post-trial motions.	Geithner is prevailing party.
Discretionary factors favoring denial of costs	Limited resources and chilling effect justify denying costs.	No indicia of indigence or chilling effect; case not close or complex.	Discretionary factors do not justify denying costs.
Objections to specific costs – transcripts	Deposition transcripts were unnecessary since opposing counsel attended.	Transcripts were necessary and used; costs allowable per local rule.	Transcript costs permitted.
Objections to other specific costs	Medical records, video, MSB records, and per-page CD costs lack proper use or applicability.	Costs recoverable under local rules for discovery, imaging, and electronic production.	Costs approved; objections overruled.

Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) (presumption in favor of costs to prevailing party; discretionary denial limits)
Subscription Television, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Theater Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230 (9th Cir. 1978) (court must state reasons when denying costs)
Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1999) (consider financial resources and chilling effect in determining costs)
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholds cost awards where no chilling effect shown)
National Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard for costs and prevailing party implications)