United States District Court, D. Hawaii
JONATHAN K. SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
STATE OF HAWAII; COUNTY OF HAWAII-HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1-100; DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10; BRYSON MIYOSE, and KIMO VEINCENT, in their official capacities and individual person, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY
IN PART DEFENDANT KIMO VEINCENT'S LOCAL RULE 54.3 MOTION
FOR RELATED NON-TAXABLE COSTS
S.C. CHANG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Kimo Veincent's (“Defendant
Veincent”) Local Rule 54.3 Motion for Related
Non-Taxable Costs (“Motion”), filed on September
27, 2018. Defendant requests an award of $8, 488.16 in
Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing pursuant to Local Rule (“L.R.”) 7.2(d) of
the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii. Based on the following, and
after careful consideration of the submissions and the record
in this action, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that
Defendant's Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Jonathan Kimo Santiago (“Plaintiff”) filed this
action in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of
Hawaii on October 20, 2016 against Defendants County of
Hawaii-Hawaii Police Department, State of Hawaii, Bryson
Miyose and Kimo Veincent (collectively,
“Defendants”). Defendant County of Hawaii-Hawaii
Police Department filed a Notice of Removal to the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii on October
28, 2016. On December 20, 2017, Judge Derrick K. Watson
issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims.
This Order granted summary judgment “with respect to
all claims against all Defendants, other than Santiago's
Section 1983 excessive force claim as to Officer
Veincent.” ECF No. 123.
began on September 10, 2018 and a jury verdict in favor of
Defendant Veincent was reached on September 13, 2018. Also,
on September 13, 2018, judgment was issued in favor of
Defendant Veincent. ECF No. 211.
September 27, 2018, Defendant Veincent filed the instant
Motion. ECF No. 222. Defendant Veincent seeks an award of $8,
488.16 for non-taxable expenses pursuant to Rule 54 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), L.R.
54.3, and Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”)
§607-9. On October 10, 2018, Defendant Veincent filed a
Statement of Consultation. ECF No. 224. Plaintiff's
Opposition to the Motion was filed on October 11, 2018.
Defendant Veincent did not file a Reply Memorandum.
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1) provides that costs,
other than attorneys' fees, “should be allowed to
the prevailing party.” The Local Rules provide that
“[t]he party entitled to costs shall be the prevailing
party in whose favor judgment is entered . . ..” L.R.
54.2(b). Courts have discretion to award costs to the
prevailing party. See Yasui v. Maui Elec. Co., 78
F.Supp.2d 1124, 1126 (D. Haw. 1999). The burden is on the
losing party to demonstrate why costs should not be awarded.
Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079
(9th Cir. 1999). HRS § 607-9 authorizes, the
recovery of “[a]ll actual disbursements, including but
not limited to, intrastate travel expenses for witnesses and
counsel, expenses for deposition transcript originals and
copies, and other incidental expenses . . . sworn to by an
attorney or party and deemed reasonable by the court.”
Id. Moreover, L.R. 54.3(d)(3) mandates that,
“[i]n addition to identifying each requested
non-taxable expense, the moving party shall set forth the
applicable authority entitling the moving party to such
expense and should attach copies of invoices and receipts, if
undisputed that Defendant Veincent is the prevailing party in
this action. Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute the
recovery of non-taxable costs, only the reasonableness of the
Court will assess the reasonableness of the requested costs
by grouping the requests into three categories: (1)
Attorneys; (2) Defendant; and (3) witnesses.
Attorneys Andrew D. Son and Laureen Martin
Veincent seeks a total of $4, 984.49 in costs for Attorneys
Andrew D. Son and Laureen Martin, this includes airfare, car
rentals, lodging, and meals. These expenses have been
adequately documented by Attorney Son's Affidavit and
receipts. See Exhibits B and C of the Motion. Plaintiff's
main argument is that the costs sought are excessive because
two attorneys were not necessary for the Final Pre-trial,
Motions in Limine and Trial. Plaintiff also objects to the
use of a rental car instead of a taxi service. Plaintiff has
not produced any authority ...