Peter Geddes Md vs. Ko'S Anaheim Professional Inc

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 9, 2013

© J \ O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOAN E. COCHRAN, ESQ. - SBN 128251 JEFFREY T. BOLSON, ESQ. SBN 99139 COCHRAN, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 36 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite 206 Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 (310) 373-0900 - telephone (310) 373-0244 - facsimile Attorneys for Defendants, KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. (i/s/h/a KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL CENTER, INC., KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC., and KO’S PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC.), ROBERT KO, NANCY KO, and DACEL, INC. dba KO’S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (i/s/h/a KO’S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER ELAHEH FARSHIDI, M.D.; STEVEN Case No.: 30-2013-00661277-CU-BC-CJC GOODMAN, D.D.S.; JOSEPH H. . 1s : CT ) Assigned to the Hon. William Claster, Judge DRVINER, D.D.S.; JEONG OK LEE, ) Presiding, Department CX-102 D., ) ) Complaintfiled on July 9, 2013 Plaintiff, ) Trial Date: January 13, 2017 v. DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC; AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX ROBERT KO; ) COSTS: Defendants. ’ AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. y MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CORINNE L. CORTES; EXHIBITS A-B Reservation No.: 72577469 Hearing: June 23, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: CX-102 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 23, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department CX-102 of the above-entitled court, located at 751 Ww. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendants KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC., a California corporation, and ROBERT KO, an individual (collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700(b) and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1032 and 1033.5, will move the Court to tax specific items of costs enumerated in the Memorandum of Costs filed by Plaintiffs on April 11, 2017. The motion ismade onthe following grounds that Plaintiffs’ claimed costs should be taxed because they include items that are not allowable under the Code of Civil Procedure and/or include items which are unreasonable, unnecessary, or excessive. This motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Corinne L. Cortes, the attached exhibits, all records and file on the court in the action, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion. . DATE: April 26, 2017 COCHRAN, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: JOAN E. COCHRAN, ESQ. JEFFREY T. BOLSON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants, KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. and ROBERT KO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS v n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek to recover $73,260.15 in costs from Defendants. That amount should be reduced by $18,303.32, as detailed below: Costs | Amount That Should Not Be Charged To Defendants Deposition/Testimony $4,217.89 Service of Process $1,211 21 Trial Witness Fees $353.34 Exhibits $5,480.88 Mediators/Referees $7,040.00 Total | $18,303.32 The costs of numerous items sought by Plaintiffs are not allowable or appropriate. Plaintiffs seek to recover over $18,000 for expenses that are excessive and/or unnecessary. Plaintiffs’ counsel inflated deposition costs by requesting ten (10) unnecessarily expedited copies of deposition transcripts for a total of $3,862.89. Plaintiffs’ unnecessarily served the same business entities twice at different California addresses rather than previously determining the correct address these business entities, expending an additional $536.21. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent $675.00 for a “stake-out” to serve a trial witness, yet failed to call the witness at trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel paid trial witness fees to witnesses that were never called as trial witnesses for a total of $353.34. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent exorbitantly for reproduction of models, documents, and exhibits for a total cost of $19,832.37, of which $5,480.88 should not oo | DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be charged to Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to recover costs for mediators and discovery referees in the amount of $11,003.75, of which $7,040.00 for mediator fees is not recoverable. The mediations were not court-ordered. Plaintiffs’ recoverable costs should be reduced by at least $18,303.32, for a total amount of allowable costs of $54,956.83. (Cortes Declaration, 1) IL. LEGAL STANDARD The amount requested by Plaintiffs far exceeds what the law permits or the Court’s exercise of discretion should reasonably allow. A substantial portion of Plaintiffs’ $73,260.15 costs requested should be disallowed under the governing legal standards. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 narrowly defines the categories of costs that are recoverable by a prevailing party. Some costs that are specifically designated in Section 1033.5(a) are presumptively recoverable, if reasonable and necessary; costs designated in Section 1033.5(b) are not recoverable; and under Section 1033.5(c)(4), all other costs are recoverable or not in the discretion ofthe trial court. All costs, even those that are allowable by statute, must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation,” and must be “reasonable in amount” to be recoverable. Section 1033.5(c)(2) & (c)(3); Perko’s Enteprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4"™ 238, 244-245. These strictures notwithstanding, Plaintiffs seek to recover a large sum in costs that were not allowable or that were excessive or unnecessary to the conduct ofthe litigation. The cost bill should be taxed accordingly, as further detailed below andin the chart set forth in Exhibit A. (Cortes Declaration, §2) If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the 2 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. Onthe other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the butden ofproofis on the party claiming them as costs. Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624; Oak Grove School District v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698- 699. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court. Lubetzsky v. Friedman (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 35, 39. However, the right to costs is governed strictly by statute. Hogan v. Ingold (1952) 38 Cal 2d 802, 814. A court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. Parker v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 556, 566. III. AT LEAST $17,892.07 IN PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED COSTS SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO DEFENDANTS BECAUSE SUCH COSTS ARE NON-RECOVERABLE, UNREASONABLE, UNNECESSARY, OR EXCESSIVE A. Deposition and Trial Testimony Costs Should be Reduced by $4,217.89 To Eliminate Unnecessary Costs Incurred Merely for Attorney Convenience Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(2), “allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Here, Plaintiffs*counsel attempts to charge Defendants for expedited deposition transcripts, deposition “binders,” and an affidavit of non-appearance totaling $4,217.89 ($3,862.89 + $130.00 + $225.00 = $4,217.89) under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 4, Deposition Costs. (Cortes Declaration, §3) “The reasonable cost of 1) taking and transcribing a deposition, and 2) one copy of such deposition, are proper items of costs.” Howard v. Howard & Smith, Inc. (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 172, 173. See also, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(3)(A). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel chose to inflate deposition costs by requesting ten (10) y DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r p e e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unnecessarily expedited copies of deposition transcripts for a total of $3,862.89. There was no need to expedite the transcripts, and Plaintiffs have not established how or why they were necessary. (Cortes Declaration, 4) Those items should be disallowed. Plaintiffs’ counsel further inflated deposition costs by paying $20.00 for certain depositions for “binders,” for a total of $130.00. Defendants shouldnot be charged for those items. It is unclear from the invoices if the “binder” costis a cost for the physical binder. If so, that charge is excessive as no binder, such as a 3-ring binder, costs $20. If for something else such as organization of the deposition exhibits, that added costs is not necessary to the litigation. (Cortes Declaration, 5) Plaintiffs’ counsel further inflated deposition costs by taking an affidavit of non-appearance for the deposition of Albert Siordia, on January 12,2015, in the amount of $225.00. There was no exigency that required the affidavit of non- appearance by this third party witness. This is a superfluous cost that Defendants should not be required to reimburse to Plaintiffs. Mr. Siordia did not testify at trial. (Cortes Declaration, 96) The cost for binders, expedited deposition transcripts, and an affidavit of non- appearance were unnecessary to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s litigation preparation, though they may have been beneficial or a convenience. Therefore, these costs should not be charged to Defendants and Plaintiffs’ total costs under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 4, Deposition Costs, should be reduced by $4,217.89, B. Service of Process Costs Should Be Reduced by $1,211.21 As Unnecessary To . Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Preparation of the Litigation As to the costs of items, “if items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden ofproofis on the party claiming them as costs.” Ladas v. California State 4 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS [ r T a Ne l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 3 9 O N D n Automobile Association (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774,citing Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624; Oak Grove School District v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699. Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel chose to serve the same business entity at different California addresses rather than determining the correct address for each business entity, unnecessarily expending $536.21. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Global Technical Services, and Cal/OSHA Elevator Unit, identical business entities, were each served twice, at different business addresses on the same date of June 15, 2015, or on a date one or two days later. Defendants should not have to reimburse Plaintiffs for duplicate service of process fees to the same business entity on or about the same date. It was a mere convenience to Plaintiffs to serve the same business entity at different addresses rather than determining the correct address once. (Cortes Declaration, 7) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel also expended $675.00 for nine (9) hours of stake outs at $75.00 hourly to serve Christine Kang as a trial witness,yet failed to call Ms. Kang as a trial witness. Defendants should not be ordered to reimburse Plaintiffs for the unnecessary expense of stake-outs for a witness that was never called at trial. (Cortes Declaration,98) Plaintiffs spent $1,211.21 in excess for service of process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs service of process costs under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 5, Service of Process, should be reduced by $1,211.21 ($536.21 + $675.00 = $1,211.21). C. Defendants Should Not Be Charged For Trial Witness Fees Paid to Witnesses Who Did Not Testify at Trial “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact.” Foothill-De Anza Community College District v. Emerich (2008) 5 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r r 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30,citing Ladas 19 Cal.App.4th at 774. Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel paid trial witness fees to six witnesses not called to testify at trial. These witness fees total $353.34 for Michael Chung, Christine Kang, Jill Howard, Judy Griffith, Tamara Mellem, and Gail Henry. (Cortes Declaration, §9) Payment of trial witnessfees to persons who never acted as trial witnesses is an unnecessary expense which should not be charged to Defendants. Plaintiffs’ witness fee costs under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 8, Witness Fees, should be reduced by $353.34. D. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to RecoverExpenses For Trial Exhibits Unless the Cost of Such Exhibits Was Reasonable and Necessary; Plaintiffs’ Request for Exhibit Costs Should Accordingly Be Reduced by $5,480.88 “If a party litigant chooses unwisely to expend moniesin trial presentation in excess of the value of the case, utilizing advanced methods of information storage, retrieval and display, when more conventional if less impressive methods are available, the party must stand his own costs.” Science Applications International Corp. v. Superior Court 1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1106. Furthermore, a prevailing party is “not entitled to recover costs of preparing trial exhibits that were not used.” Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557-1560. Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to charge Defendants $4,791.10 for blowback printing, that is, printing electronic files, from 40,084 previously scanned pages, into electronic form. The cost for the blowback process may have been quick and convenient for Plaintiffs’ counsel but it was unreasonable and unnecessary. Plaintiffs counsel could have printed the scanned documents in their own office instead of 6 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS have not shown this cost was for exhibits on the Exhibit List, or documents used at trial.The purpose for such hard copies of electronic documents is unknown. Also, Plaintiffs’ B= 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 incurring this vendor expense. It also seems unlikely that Plaintiffs would have required 10,084 previously scanned pages in preparation for litigation. (Cortes Declaration, 10) Plaintiffs also attempt to charge Defendants for optical character recognition (OCR) brocesses performed by a business named Advanced Discovery in the amount of $689.78. Plaintiffs’ counsel could have performed this process in their own office, without the hdditional vendor expense. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not present evidence at trial in electronic format. They opted to use hard copies of documents and the ELMO. Therefore, the cost fo OCR documents was unnecessary and unreasonable. (Cortes Declaration, §11) Plaintiffs claim for reimbursement of $19,832.37 for models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 11, Models, Blowups, and Photocopies of Exhibits, should be disallowed as excessive and as neither reasonable nor necessary. Defendants should not be required to pay for these optional exhibit costs totaling $5,480.88 ($4,791.10 + $689.78 = $5,480.88). Plaintiffs must show that these expenses were reasonable and necessary. Plaintiffs’ exhibit fee costs under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 11, Models, Blowups, and Photocopies of Exhibits, should be reduced by $5,480.88. E. Costs for Mediator Fees Should Be Reduced in the Amount of $7,040.00 Because These Costs Were Not Court-Ordered Mediator fees are not an enumerated category of recoverable costs under Section 1033.5(a), yet Plaintiffs attempt to recover $7,040.00 for mediator fees under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 13, Other. Courts are not authorized to order parties to private mediation. “A trial court exceeds its authority by mandating that the parties attend and pay for private mediation.” Jeld- Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 536, 541. Though mediation exists through various programs now in 7 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r = 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 effect, a trial court may not order parties to mediation absent the agreement of the parties to mediate. “The court has no power, however, to order parties to attend and pay for private mediation over their objections.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group) Ch. 13-A, 3.[3.11] Courts may, however, make orders “governing the mediation process,” as shown in Foxgate Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Bramalea California, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1, 14. Thatis different from ordering the parties to attend a mediation. Based on the agreement ofthe parties to participate in another mediation, this Court on January 9, 2017, put the following on the record (Reporters Transcript, December 28, 2016, 75:18-23): And my understanding is the parties’ joint preference is to have a second mediation before retired Judge Romero on Monday, January 9. And then the trial would start - assuming the case doesn’t get resolved - on Tuesday, January 10". And the Court will approve that with the order that all parties - and that means the four remaining Plaintiffs and the, I guess, other two Defendants, currently two defendants - are ordered to appear at the mediation with Judge Romero on January 9™. The parties had agreed to participate in a further mediation, agreed on the mediator, and agreed on the mediation date. The Court’s statements above should thus be interpreted as an ancillary order governing the mediation process, not an order mandating the parties participate in private mediation. (Cortes Declaration, §12-13; Exhibit B) Cases such as Gibsonv. Bobroff(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1210, awarding costs for court- ordered mediation, are not applicable to Plaintiffs’ request for the recovery of mediation fees in this case. Plaintiffs should not be awarded $4,375.00 for the cost of the January 9, 2017, mediation before Judge Romero. For the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ claimed cost for the mediation with Hon. Alexander Williams in the amountof $2,665.00 should not be awarded. 8 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS p g i m a 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs can point to no court order related to the mediator fees to allow the mediation with Hon. Alexander Williams and/or Hon. Enrique Romero making those claimed mediation fees recoverable cost items. The claimed amounts of $2,665.00 and $4.3 75.00 should be rejected as non-recoverable items. (Cortes Declaration, 14) Accordingly, Plaintiffs claimed costs as to themediator fees under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 13, Other, should be reduced by $7,040.00. IV. CONCLUSION | For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs should be granted as requested. Plaintiffs’ Memo of Costs should be reduced by $18,303.32. DATE: April 26,2017 COCHRAN, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: (rump L.Goleoly JOAN E. COCHRAN, ESQ. JEFFREY T. BOLSON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants, KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. and ROBERT KO 9 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CORINNE L. CORTES I, Corinne L. Cortes, declare: I am one ofthe attorneys for Defendant KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC., a California corporation, and ROBERT KO, and an individual (“Defendants”). Iam an associate at Cochran, Davis & Associates, P.C., and an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of California. Cochran, Davis & Associates, P.C., is counsel of record for Defendants. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. If called and sworn as a witness herein, I can and will competently testify to the following: 1. The costs of numerous items sought by Plaintiffs are not allowable or appropriate. Plaintiffs seek to recover over $18,000 for expenses that are excessive and/or unnecessary. Plaintiffs’ counsel inflated deposition costs by requesting ten (10) unnecessarily expedited copies of deposition transcripts for a total of $3,862.89. Plaintiffs’ unnecessarily served the same business entities twice at different California addresses rather than previously determining the correct address these business entities, expending an additional $536.21. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent $675.00 for a “stake-out” to serve a trial witness,yet failed to call the witness at trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel paid trial witness fees to witnesses that were never called as trial witnesses for a total of $353.34. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent exorbitantly for reproduction of models, documents, and exhibits for a total cost of $19,832.37, of which $5,480.88 should not be charged to Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to recover costs for mediators and discovery referees in the amount of $11,003.75, of which $7,040.00 is not recoverable because it was not court-ordered. Plaintiffs’ recoverable costs should be reduced by at least $18,303.32, for a total amount of allowable costs of $54,956.83. 10 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. A true and correct copy of Defendants’ chart enumerating amounts to be reduced is attachedhereto as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to charge Defendants for expedited deposition transcripts, deposition “binders,” and an affidavit of non-appearance totaling $4,217.89 ($3,862.89 + $130.00 + $225.00 = $4,217.89) under Memorandum of Costs, Item No. 4, Deposition Costs. 4. Plaintiffs’ counsel chose to inflate deposition costs by requesting ten (10) unnecessarily expedited copies of deposition transcripts for a total of $3,862.89. There was no need to expedite the transcripts, and Plaintiffs have not established how or why they were necessary. 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel further inflated deposition costs by paying $20.00 for certain depositions for “binders,” for a total of $130.00. Defendants should not be charged for those items. It is unclear from the invoices if the “binder” cost is a cost for the physical binder. If so, that charge is excessive as no binder, such as a 3-ring binder, costs $20. If for something else such as organization of the deposition exhibits, that added costs is not necessary to the litigation. 6. Plaintiffs’ counsel further inflated deposition costs by taking an affidavit of non-appearance for the deposition ofAlbert Siordia, on January 12, 2015, in the amount of $225.00. There was no exigency that required the affidavit of non- appearance by this third party witness. This is a superfluous cost that Defendants should not be required to reimburse to Plaintiffs. Mr. Siordia did nottestify at trial. 7. Plaintiffs’ counsel chose to serve the same business entity at different California addresses rather than determining the correct address for each business entity, unnecessarily expending $536.21. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Global 11 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Technical Services, and Cal/OSHA Elevator Unit, identical business entities, were each served twice, at different business addresses on the same date of June 15, 2015, or on a date one or two days later. Defendants should not have to reimburse Plaintiffs for duplicate service of process fees to the same business entity on or about the same date. It was a mere convenience to Plaintiffs to serve the same business entity at different addresses rather than determining the correct address once. 8. Plaintiffs’ counsel also expended $675.00 for nine (9) hours of stake outs at $75.00 hourly to serve Christine Kang as a trial witness, yet failed to call Ms. Kang as a trial witness. Defendants should not be ordered to reimburse Plaintiffs for the unnecessary expense of stake-outs for a witness that was never called at trial. 9. Plaintiffs’ counsel paid trial witness fees to six witnesses not called to testify at trial. These witness fees total $353.34 for Michael Chung, Christine Kang, Jill Howard, Judy Griffith, Tamara Mellem, and Gail Henry. 10. Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to charge Defendants $4,791.10 for blowback printing, that is, printing electronic files, from 40,084 previously scanned pages, into electronic form. The cost for the blowback process may have been quick and convenient for Plaintiffs’ counsel but it was unreasonable and unnecessary. Plaintiffs have not shown this cost was for exhibits on the Exhibit List, or documents used at trial. The purpose for such hard copies of electronic documents is unknown. Also, Plaintiffs’ counsel couldhave printed the scanned documents in their own office instead of incurring this vendor expense. It also seems unlikely that Plaintiffs would || have required 40,084 previously scanned pages in preparation for litigation. 11. Plaintiffs also attempt to charge Defendants for optical character recognition (OCR) processes performed by a business named Advanced Discovery in the amountof 12 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r r c o 3 O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 $689.78. Plaintiffs’ counsel could have performed this process in their own office, without the additional vendor expense. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not present evidence at trial in electronic format. They opted to use hard copies of documents and the ELMO. 12. Based on the agreement ofthe parties to participate in a further mediation, this Court on January 9, 2017, stated on the record (Reporters Transcript, December 28, 2016, 75:18-23): And my understanding is the parties’ joint preferenceis to have a second mediation before retired Judge Romero on Monday, January 9" And then the trial would start - assuming the case doesn’t get resolved - on Tuesday, January 10™. And the Court will approve that with the orderthat all parties - and that means the four remaining Plaintiffs and the, I guess, other two Defendants, currently two defendants - are ordered to appear at the mediation with Judge Romero on January 9™. The parties had already agreed to the date, January 9"and the mediator, Judge Romero. The Court’s orderas reflected on the transcript quoted above should be interpreted as an ancillary order governing the mediation process, not an order mandating private mediation. 13. A true and correct copy of the Reporters Transcript, December 28, 2016, page and line 75:18-23,is attached hereto as Exhibit B 14. Defendants are unaware of any court order related to the mediator fees of Hon. Alexander Williams and/or Hon. Enrique Romero. Those claimed mediation fees are not recoverable cost items. The claimed amounts of $2,665.00 and $4,375.00 should be rejected as non-recoverable items. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26™ day of April, 2017, at Palos Verdes CORINNE L. CORTES Estates, California. 13 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS p p ‘Exhibit “A” 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Categoryof Cost Amount Requested|MinimumAmount| - Minimum - oe |ToBeTaxed | Allowable Amount| A. Deposition Costs $21,647.75 $4,217.89 $17,429.86 1. Expedited transcripts 1. $3,862.89 2. Binders: 2. $130.00 3. Affidavit 3. $225.00 Nonappearance B. Service of $8,598.95 $1,211.21 $7,387.74 Process 1. $536.21 1. Duplicate service of 2. $675 process 2. Stake-out fees C. Witness Fees $1,930.64 $353.34 $1,577.30 D. Models, $19,832.37 $5,480.88 $14,351.49 Blowups, and Photocopies of 1. $689.78 Exhibits 2. $4,791.10 1. OCR 2. Blowback printing E. Other: $11,003.75 $7,040.00 $3,963.75 Mediator/Discovery Referee Fees TOTAL: $73,260.15 $18,303.32 | $54,956.83 14DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS r e e Exhibit “B” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER DEPARTMENT CX-102 PETER GEDDES, M.D.; ARTHUR Y.W. LEE, D.D.S.; IN HAING HUR; KEONG AI DO; TIMOTHY A. LIM, M.D.; KEIICHIRO OMORI, M.D.; ELAHEH FARSHIDI, M.D.; STEVEN GOODMAN, D.D.S.; JAGMINDER S. BHALLA, M.D.; WSM HEARING CENTERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.; ROHANI DENTAL, INC,; MIKE OUYNH BUI; UNITED IMAGING, LLC; PACIFIC CANCER MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; HARINDER GOGIA, M.D.; JORGE M. MANDELBAUM; PAUL KRASNER; LEONARD SHAPIRO; JOSEPH H. GREINER, D.D.S.; JEONG OK LEE, M.D., PLAINTIFFS, VS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KO'S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC.;) KO'S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL ) CENTER, INC.; KO'S ANAHEIM ) PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC. ; ) KO'S PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC.;) ROBERT KO; NANCY KO;KO'S ) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; AND DOES 1 ) THROUGH 50, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. KO'S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ROBERT KO, AN INDIVIDUAL; NANCY KO, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DACEL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA KO'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CROSS-COMPLAINANT, VS. CASE NO. 30-2013- 00661277-CU-BC-CJC T T T 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 75 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2016 MORNING SESSION * x kk * (WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD. IN THE OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION, THE PARTIES AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING CONDUCTING A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE OR A MEDIATION PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL FOLLOWING THE COURT'S RULINGS ON THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DISCUSSIONS REGARDING JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE LIKE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PARTIES' JOINT PREFERENCE IS TO HAVE A SECOND MEDIATION BEFORE RETIRED JUDGE ROMERO ON MONDAY, JANUARY STH. AND THEN THE TRIAL WOULD START --- ASSUMING THE CASE DOESN'T GET RESOLVED -- ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10TH. AND THE COURT WILL APPROVE THAT WITH THE ORDER THAT ALL PARTIES -- AND THAT MEANS THE FOUR REMAINING PLAINTIFFS AND THE, I GUESS, OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, CURRENTLY TWO DEFENDANTS -- ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AT THE MEDIATION WITH JUDGE ROMERO ON JANUARY 9TH. OKAY? AND THEN -- MR. BOLSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WHETHER THE CASE SETTLES OR m r 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 27 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ~~) [ am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 36 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite 206, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274. On April 26, 2017, I served the document(s) on the party(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CORINNE L. CORTES; EXHIBITS A - B James G. Damon Attorneys for Plaintiffs VOSS, COOK & THEL LLP 895 Dove Street, Suite 450 pel: (949) 02s Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: jdamon@vetlaw.com 0) (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Underthat practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 0) (BY FACSIMILE). I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by telecopier at approximately to the addressee(s) whose facsimile machine telephone numbers are indicated below. The above-described transmission was reported as complete without “error by a transmission report issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was made immediately following the transmission. 0) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I personally served said document on Plaintiffs’ counsel while in/outside Dept. CX 102 of the Orange County Superior Court, Civil Complex, located at 751 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701. xX) (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused said envelope(s) to be sent by Federal Express [Priority Overnight] to the offices of the addressee(s). 0) (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Per Court Order, I delivered such documents by electronic mail. Executed on April 26, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correcte Natalie J. Cortum Nhl(ih "Print Name Signature 1 PROOF OF SERVICE c r