1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACY BEASLEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00326-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

13 v. PART DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS 14 TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL (ECF No. 83)

INSURANCE COMPANY,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Travelers Commercial Insurance 18 Company’s Bill of Costs.1 (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff Tracy Beasley has filed objections, and 19 Defendant has filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 85, 86.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court 20 submits this motion upon the record and briefs on file. For the reasons that follow, the 21 Court recommends Defendant’s Bill of Costs be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On July 29, 2025, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending 24 Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. 7/29/2025 Findings and Recommendations 25 (ECF No. 78). On August 22, 2025, the assigned district judge adopted the July 29, 2025 26 findings and recommendations in full and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 27 1 On September 8, 2025, the assigned district judge referred this matter to the 28 undersigned for further proceedings. 9/8/2025 Order (ECF No. 84). 1 No. 81.) On August 25, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. (ECF No. 2 82.) On September 8, 2025, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 3 seeking $3,000.06 in total costs. (ECF No. 83.) On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed 4 objections, and on September 15, 2025, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 85, 86.) 5 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a 7 lawsuit “should be allowed” to recover its costs “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or 8 a court order provides otherwise.” As Rule 54(d)(1) suggests, “the rule creates a 9 presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party,” but vests in the district 10 court discretion as to whether to award costs. Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State 11 of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). If the district court declines to award 12 costs to the prevailing party, the Court must “specify reasons for its refusal to award 13 costs.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the district court 14 need not “specify reasons for its decision to abide [by] the presumption and tax costs to 15 the losing party.” Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) 16 (emphasis omitted). A prevailing party’s ability to recover costs under Rule 54(d)(1) is 17 limited to those costs defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and in this district, by Local Rule 18 292(f). See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (specifying taxable costs); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 292(f) 19 (same). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Defendant is seeking to recover costs in the amount of $3,000.06 pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (ECF No. 83.) The costs sought by Defendant include filing fees 23 ($624.00), fees incurred in connection with subpoenas ($2,171.06), and fees for delivery 24 of documents ($205). 9/8/2025 Aaron C. Agness Declaration ¶¶ 2-4 (ECF No. 83-1). On 25 September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendant’s Bill of Costs arguing 26 Defendant had not provided a reasonable explanation for its costs, the case had been 27 closed, and the Court did not award costs. (ECF No. 85.) The Court addresses each 28 request in turn. 1 A. Filing Fees 2 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) allows a prevailing party to recover “[f]ees of the clerk and 3 marshal.” See also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 292(f)(1) (clerk’s fees are taxable costs). Here, 4 Defendant seeks reimbursement for filing fees incurred in this action, including $402 for 5 removing the matter to this Court and $222 for filing a Notice to Adverse Parties of the 6 Filing of the Notice of Removal in state court, for a total of $624 in filing fees. Agness 7 Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A. The Court finds Defendant is entitled to $624 in filing fees. 8 B. Business Record Subpoena Fees 9 Fees for the service of summons and subpoena are generally recoverable 10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) also allows for the recovery of 11 “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the 12 copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” See also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 13 292(f)(5) (same). Here, Defendant seeks to recover $2,171.06 for fees incurred in 14 connection with business record subpoenas served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 45. Agness Decl. ¶ 3. Defendant submits 10 invoices for costs incurred from 16 April 2023 to March 2025 for service and printing of business record subpoenas issued 17 in this action. Agness Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. B. The Court finds the fees for the service of 18 business record subpoenas were reasonably required and actually incurred, and that the 19 copying costs associated with the subpoenas were reasonable and necessarily obtained 20 for the use in this action. The Court finds Defendant is entitled to $2,171.06 for service 21 and copying fees incurred in connection with business record subpoenas. 22 C. Delivery of Document Fees 23 Defendant also seeks to recover $205 for delivery of a chambers copy of a status 24 report and declaration (ECF Nos. 49, 49-1) to this Court, which Defendant argues are 25 costs taxable pursuant to Local Rule 292(f)(11). Agness Decl. ¶ 4. See also E.D. Cal. 26 Local Rule 292(f)(11) (“Other items allowed by any statute or rule or by the Court in the 27 interest of justice.”) However, costs for delivery of documents are not authorized under 28 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Kings River Packing LP v. WKS AG Consultants Inc., 2025 WL 1 2879326, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 2 3143122 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025) (declining to award costs for delivery and service of 3 documents, including a mailing of a courtesy copy to the Court, as such costs are not 4 authorized under Section 1920); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Allied 5 Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 3529980, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2014) 6 (“Communication charges like courier, mail, telephone, telex and fax costs cannot be 7 taxed.”); Cooper v. United Air Lines, Inc., 2015 WL 3548572, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 8 2015) (Declining to award costs for service of chambers copies because ‘”[o]vernight 9 delivery and courier charges are not one of the enumerated categories of recoverable 10 costs in § 1920.”). Accordingly, the Court will recommend Defendant’s request for $205 11 in delivery fees be denied. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends granting in part and denying in 13 part Defendant’s Bill of Costs and recommends that the district court tax costs in favor of 14 Defendant for $2,795.06. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based upon the findings above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Defendant’s Bill of Costs (ECF No. 83) be GRANTED in part and DENIED 18 in part; and 19 2. Defendant be awarded $2,795.06 in costs. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 22 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 23 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 24 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 25 reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 26 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 27 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 28 / / / 1 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 3 || Dated: December 9, 2025 C S \U 4 CHI S00 KIM 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 || 4, beas0326.23 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28