Julianne Wurm v. James Pitkow et al

costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) To be recoverable, costs must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation. (§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(1)-(3).)

If the items listed in the memorandum of costs appear proper on their face, then the verified statement is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by that party, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that an item is not allowable or is not reasonable or necessary. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266-67; Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 243; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-99.)

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Otherwise, the objecting party must set forth specific facts to support its motion to tax, and mere allegations, unsupported by evidence, that an item is unreasonably costly or unnecessary are insufficient to carry the burden. (County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-14.)

C. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion does not dispute that Defendants are the prevailing parties entitled to their reasonable costs under section 1032.

The Costs Memo reports $32,167.99 broken down into seven categories. Plaintiff seeks to strike or reduce the costs in all categories, except for Jury fees, for which Defendants report $987.73 in costs.

1. Item 8 - Witness fees

The Costs Memo reports $7,250 in expert witness fees. Plaintiff does not dispute that the expert fees are reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation. Rather, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not established that their expert fees are recoverable under section 998.

Fees for experts not ordered by the court are not allowable as costs, except as specifically authorized by law. (§ 1033.5, subd. (b)(1).) Where an offer of settlement is made by a plaintiff, is not accepted, and where defendant thereafter fails to obtain a more favorable result, judgement or award, the court may, in its discretion, “require the defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover post-offer costs of the services of expert witnesses ... actually incurred and reasonably necessary” in preparation for and/or during trial. (§ 998, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have made no evidentiary showing that the requirements for a valid 998 Offer have been met and, absent that showing, expert fees must be denied. This argument fails.

First, it misplaces the burden. The Costs Memo lists $7,250 as “Expert fees (per Code of Civil Procedure section 998)” and attaches proof of Defendants’ payment for each expert. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 3 and PDF pp. 24-26.) Thus, the Costs Memo is prima facie evidence that the expert costs are proper, and the burden is on Plaintiff to show that the item is not allowable or is not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff has not met that burden. The mere filing of a motion to tax costs, without specific facts and evidence to support the motion, is insufficient to carry Plaintiff’s burden. Notably, Plaintiff does not contend or offer evidence negating that a valid 998 Offer was made and rejected in this matter. Plaintiff only takes issue with the lack of evidentiary showing by Defendants.

Second, Defendants in Opposition argue and make an evidentiary showing that: (1) on July 1, 2024, they made a valid 998 Offer; (2) Plaintiff did not accept the 998 Offer; (3) Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable result at trial; and (4) Defendants’ listed expert fees were incurred after the 998 Offer was made. (Opposition, pp. 2-4; Declaration of Flash Gordon, filed 4/9/26, ¶ 2, Exh. A (“Gordon Decl.”).) Plaintiff implicitly concedes the foregoing by failing to file anything by way of a Reply.

Thus, the Motion to Tax the Item 8 costs is DENIED.

2. Item 13 - Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits

The Costs Memo reports $8,379.73 incurred for preparing three copies of exhibit binders. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 3.)

Costs for “[m]odels, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (§ 1033.5, subd. (a)(13).)

Plaintiff argues that these costs were not reasonably necessary to litigation as they reflect mere administrative overhead and convenience expenses. This argument fails, as it ignores the plain text of section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(13).

Moreover, Defendants in Opposition argue that, other than one exhibit offered by Plaintiff, Defendants provided all exhibits in the case; thus, Defendants’ cost to prepare the exhibits was reasonably necessary. Moreover, Defendants argue that the exhibits were helpful to the jury in their deliberations. Defendants further explain that a portion of the listed cost was incurred to retain an outside contractor to put together the multiple copies of the binders, and that the contractor charged $6,000. (Opposition, p. 4; Gordon Decl., ¶ 3.)

Here, the Court is confident that the exhibit binders were helpful throughout the trial and that at least three copies are reasonably necessary to trial for use by the court/jury, witnesses, and the parties’ counsel. Plaintiff’s motion does not dispute the reasonableness of the amount, nor does Plaintiff file anything by way of a Reply to dispute the amount incurred for the outside contractor.

Thus, the Motion to Tax the Item 13 costs is DENIED.

3. Item 4 - Depositions costs

The Costs Memo reports $3,743.37 for the taking, transcribing, travel, and/or videotaping of two witnesses—Plaintiff and James Pitkow. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 1 and PDF pp. 13, 16-17.)

Costs for “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary deposition, including an original and one copy,” are expressly allowable, as are “[t]ravel expenses to attend depositions.” (§ 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).)

Plaintiff argues that the costs for videography in addition to stenographic transcripts, expedited processing fees, and administrative and service charges are not recoverable. This argument fails to meet Plaintiff’s burden.

As noted, videography is expressly allowable. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to direct the Court to the specific expedited processing fees or purportedly administrative and service charges, and the Court has located none from its review of the invoices attached to the Costs Memo.

Thus, the Motion to Tax the Item 4 costs is DENIED.

4. Item 11 - Court reporter fees as established by statute

The Costs Memo reports $6,700 in court reporter fees. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 3 and PDF pp. 27-31.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to demonstrate necessity for each charge and that the invoices reflect multiple entries and deposits that appear duplicative and administrative rather than essential to trial proceedings.

Fees incurred by a party for a court reporter to attend and take notes regarding court proceedings are recoverable, pursuant to subdivision (a)(11), up to the statutory rate of compensation provided for under Government Code section 69948.

Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants have failed to demonstrate necessity for each charge again misplaces the burden. The Costs Memo is prima facie evidence that the court reporter costs are proper, and the burden is on Plaintiff to show that the item is not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff has not met that burden. The mere filing of a motion to tax costs, without specific facts and evidence to support the motion, is insufficient to carry Plaintiff’s burden.

Plaintiff’s argument about the duplicative and administrative charges, without making specific references to the invoices that were attached to the Costs Memo, also fails to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden that the charges were unreasonable or unnecessary.

Moreover, Defendants in Opposition argue that Plaintiff is well aware of the court reporter costs, as the parties stipulated and were ordered to share in one-half of that cost. (Opposition, p. 5.) Plaintiff implicitly concedes the foregoing by failing to file anything by way of a Reply.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Tax the Item 11 costs is DENIED.

5. Item 1 - Filing and motion fees

The Costs Memo reports $4,107.16 in filing and motion fees. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 1 and PDF pp. 7-10.) Filing and motion fees are expressly allowable under section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1).

Plaintiff generally argues that not all filing fees are recoverable as they must be reasonably necessary to litigate the case. The mere restatement of the standard for costs is woefully inadequate to meet Plaintiff’s burden as it fails to identify any specific filing or motion practice, for which Plaintiff challenges the cost.

As such, the Motion to Tax the Item 1 costs is DENIED.

6. Item 10 - Attorney fees

The Costs Memo reports $1,000 in attorneys’ fees “[p]er the lease.” (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 3.) Plaintiff argues that attorneys’ fees cannot be recovered unless authorized by contract or statute. (Support Memo, p. 4, citing section 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)

While Plaintiff identifies an accurate provision of law governing attorneys’ fees as costs, Plaintiff’s argument fails because it ignores the Costs Memo’s assertion that reimbursement is requested “[p]er the lease.” To meet Plaintiff’s burden, she would be expected to affirmatively argue or show how the lease does not make attorneys’ fees recoverable. Moreover, Defendants in Opposition make an evidentiary showing of the attorneys’ fee provision of the lease. (Opposition, p. 6 [citing ¶ 36 of the Residential Lease, admitted at trial as Exhibit 234]; Gordon Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff implicitly concedes the foregoing by failing to file anything by way of a Reply.

As such, the Motion to Tax the Item 10 costs is DENIED.

Angela Stefenoni et al v. Pacific Boat Services, Inc. et al 25CV002287

[1] MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ANDREW STEFENONI TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROVIDE PRIVILEGE LOG, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni is ordered to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and/or a privilege log as appropriate, within 10 Court days of Notice of Entry of the instant Order. Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendant is directed to provide Notice of Entry of the instant order.

Defendant Pacific Boat Services, Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Subject Discovery), provide a privilege log, and for monetary sanctions.

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds as follows.

1. On December 4, 2025, Defendant propounded the Subject Discovery on Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni. (See Declaration of Michael Fluetsch at ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

2. On January 8, 2026, Andrew Stefenoni served unverified responses to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, Ex. B.) Thereafter, however, Plaintiff did provide verifications for the responses. (See id. at ¶ 9.)

3. As of the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiff has not produced any documents or any privilege log in response to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni appears to concede the foregoing by failing to file anything in opposition to the instant motion.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request for an order compelling compliance, by the production of documents and/or production of a privilege log, as appropriate, is GRANTED.

With exceptions having no apparent relevance here, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) However, “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.

[2] MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ANGELA STEFENONI TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROVIDE PRIVILEGE LOG, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Angela Stefenoni is ordered to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and/or a privilege log as appropriate, within 10 Court days of Notice of

22