On January 13, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Williams, Edwin,
Wilson, Desabian Keith,
and
Button, Donjonique,
Cooper, Ashley,
County Of San Bernardino,
County Of San Bernardino, A Public Entity,
Deputy Brown, Individually And In His Official Capacity,
Deputy Chambers, Individually And In His Official Capacity,
Deputy Frias, Individually And In His Offical Capacity As,
Deputy K. Rodriguezindividually And In His Official Capacity,
Deputy Lim, Indivually And In His Official Capacity As,
Deputy Silva, Individually And In His Official Capacity,
San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Department,
San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Department A Public Entity,
Sergeant Thornburg,Individually And In His Official Capacity,
West Valley Detention Center,
West Valley Detention Center, A San Bernardino County Jail,
Frias, Juan,
Rodriguez, Kenneth,
Silva Jr., Joseph,
for Miscellaneous Petition
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
x, x, GSNNVCbS
ADAM L. MIEDERHOFF, ESQ. (CA State Bar No. 261913) swmgéwgéngfimw
Deputy County Counsel SAN BERNARDINO DfSTRICT
ELYSE s. OKADA, ESQ. (CA State Bar No. 337481)
JAN 2 3 2024
ORIGINAL Deputy County Counsel
TOM BUNTON (CA State Bar No. 193560)
UIAWN
County Counsel fl
385 North Arrowhead Avenue, Fourth Floor WfiifiNg. DEPUTY
San Bemardino. California 92415-0140
Telephone: (909) 387-5446
Facsimile: (909) 387-4069 Exempt per Government Code § 6103
Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, KENNETH RODRIGUEZ, JUAN
FRIAS, and JOSEPH SILVA, JR.
OOOONON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CENTRAL DIVISION
11
l2 EDWIN WILLIAMS, an individual Case No. ClVDSl600447
l3 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
l4 v.
15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a public
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
entity, Date: January 30, 2024
l6 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Time: 8:30 a.m.
WEST VALLEY DETENTION CENTER, a Dep’t: 8-3]
17 San Bemardino County Jail; SERGEANT
THORNBURG. individually and in his Official
l8 Capacity as Sheriff 0f San Bemardino County;
DEPUTY BROWN. individually and in his
l9 Official Capacity as Sheriff 0f San Bemardino Honorable Judge John M. Pacheco
County; DEPUTY CHAMBERS. individually Department: S31
20 and in his Official Capacity; DEPUTY FRIAS,
individually and in his Official Capacity as
21 Sheriff of San Bemardino County; DEPUTY
LIM, individually and in his Official Capacity
22 as Sheriff of San Bemardino County;
DEPUTY K. RODRIGUEZ. individually and
23 in his Official Capacity as Sheriffof San
Bemardino County; DEPUTY SILVA,
24 individually and in his Official
Capacity as Sheriff of San Bemardino County;
25 and DOES 1 to 25 inclusive,
26 Defendants.
27
28
l
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff‘s lengthy opposition wastes valuable court time trying to circumvent the issues, and
added to this includes self-serving declarations that do nothing other than self-proclaim that certain costs
are reasonable. The objections and reductions to Plaintiff‘s costs stand without qualified challenge. It
goes without question that the Court can only award those costs that are reasonably necessary to the
litigation as allowed by statute. Plaintiff‘s Memorandum of Costs should be taxed at least $22,984.22.
II. ARGUMENT
Inextricably, Plaintiff‘s attorney attacks as conclusory Defendants’ challenge to his requested
10 costs as not reasonably necessary, and in the same breadth makes a conclusory claim that the costs are
11 reasonable. This is likely because the question of reasonability can only be determined by the Court in its
12 discretion. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion in his opposition, Defendants never said that with the current
I3 verdict that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover some costs under statute. The focus is whether those costs
l4 are statutorily recoverable and whether they are reasonable, including whether the claimed costs were
15 “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient 0r beneficial t0 its
16 preparation.“ (Code ofCiv. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2)).
17 Defendant challenged the filing fees that were either unreasonable or unrelated to the outcome of
18 the case. Plaintiff’s opposition is to argue that because they chose to use a filing service rather than fax
19 file that Defendants should bear that cost, even if it far outweighed the actual filing fee.
20 The same applies to the challenges t0 the claimed costs for the depositions 0f Chambers, Lim, and
21 Dr. Geli. Not only did they not testify at trial. but their testimony played n0 role in any cause 0f action at
22 trial. Defendants Chambers and Lim were dismissed for a waiver of costs, which makes Plaintiff‘s claim
23 for costs of their depositions even more nonsensical. Neither supplied testimony related to the issues of
24 civil rights claims against the remaining defendants at trial. Dr. Geli’s deposition was taken on issues
25 relevant to a Wrongful Death cause of action that was added after the original plaintiff passed away. This
26 cause of action was then summarily adjudicated by way 0f motion for summary judgment.
27 The very same principles applies t0 the remaining items of costs t0 be taxed. Defendants
28 challenged the items as either not recoverable 0r unreasonable and not reasonably necessary to the
2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF‘S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
Document Filed Date
January 23, 2024
Case Filing Date
January 13, 2016
Category
Miscellaneous Petition
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
x, x, GSNNVCbS ADAM L. MIEDERHOFF, ESQ. (CA State Bar No. 261913) swmgéwgéngfimw Deputy County Counsel SAN BERNARDINO DfSTRICT ELYSE s. OKADA, ESQ. (CA State Bar No. 337481) JAN 2 3 2024 ORIGINAL Deputy County Counsel TOM BUNTON (CA State Bar No. 193560) UIAWN County Counsel fl 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, Fourth Floor WfiifiNg. DEPUTY San Bemardino. California 92415-0140 Telephone: (909) 387-5446 Facsimile: (909) 387-4069 Exempt per Government Code § 6103 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, KENNETH RODRIGUEZ, JUAN FRIAS, and JOSEPH SILVA, JR. OOOONON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CENTRAL DIVISION 11 l2 EDWIN WILLIAMS, an individual Case No. ClVDSl600447 l3 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS l4 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a public SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY entity, Date: January 30, 2024 l6 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Time: 8:30 a.m. WEST VALLEY DETENTION CENTER, a Dep’t: 8-3] 17 San Bemardino County Jail; SERGEANT THORNBURG. individually and in his Official l8 Capacity as Sheriff 0f San Bemardino County; DEPUTY BROWN. individually and in his l9 Official Capacity as Sheriff 0f San Bemardino Honorable Judge John M. Pacheco County; DEPUTY CHAMBERS. individually Department: S31 20 and in his Official Capacity; DEPUTY FRIAS, individually and in his Official Capacity as 21 Sheriff of San Bemardino County; DEPUTY LIM, individually and in his Official Capacity 22 as Sheriff of San Bemardino County; DEPUTY K. RODRIGUEZ. individually and 23 in his Official Capacity as Sheriffof San Bemardino County; DEPUTY SILVA, 24 individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of San Bemardino County; 25 and DOES 1 to 25 inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 28 l DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff‘s lengthy opposition wastes valuable court time trying to circumvent the issues, and added to this includes self-serving declarations that do nothing other than self-proclaim that certain costs are reasonable. The objections and reductions to Plaintiff‘s costs stand without qualified challenge. It goes without question that the Court can only award those costs that are reasonably necessary to the litigation as allowed by statute. Plaintiff‘s Memorandum of Costs should be taxed at least $22,984.22. II. ARGUMENT Inextricably, Plaintiff‘s attorney attacks as conclusory Defendants’ challenge to his requested 10 costs as not reasonably necessary, and in the same breadth makes a conclusory claim that the costs are 11 reasonable. This is likely because the question of reasonability can only be determined by the Court in its 12 discretion. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion in his opposition, Defendants never said that with the current I3 verdict that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover some costs under statute. The focus is whether those costs l4 are statutorily recoverable and whether they are reasonable, including whether the claimed costs were 15 “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient 0r beneficial t0 its 16 preparation.“ (Code ofCiv. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2)). 17 Defendant challenged the filing fees that were either unreasonable or unrelated to the outcome of 18 the case. Plaintiff’s opposition is to argue that because they chose to use a filing service rather than fax 19 file that Defendants should bear that cost, even if it far outweighed the actual filing fee. 20 The same applies to the challenges t0 the claimed costs for the depositions 0f Chambers, Lim, and 21 Dr. Geli. Not only did they not testify at trial. but their testimony played n0 role in any cause 0f action at 22 trial. Defendants Chambers and Lim were dismissed for a waiver of costs, which makes Plaintiff‘s claim 23 for costs of their depositions even more nonsensical. Neither supplied testimony related to the issues of 24 civil rights claims against the remaining defendants at trial. Dr. Geli’s deposition was taken on issues 25 relevant to a Wrongful Death cause of action that was added after the original plaintiff passed away. This 26 cause of action was then summarily adjudicated by way 0f motion for summary judgment. 27 The very same principles applies t0 the remaining items of costs t0 be taxed. Defendants 28 challenged the items as either not recoverable 0r unreasonable and not reasonably necessary to the 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF‘S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS