Reply In Support of Greenfields Motion To Strike And Tax Jp Morgan Memorandum of CostsReplyCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.June 17, 2014Electrp 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/05/2019 05:38 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk DURIE TANGRI LLP BENJAMIN B. AU (SBN 237854) bau@durietangri.com 530 Molino Street, Suite 111 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: 213-992-4499 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 DURIE TANGRI LLP VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD (SBN 267499) vweatherford @durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC A. KATHERINE TOOMEY, pro hac vice JACK B. GORDON pro hac vice TARA J. PLOCHOCKI (SBN 257234) katherine.toomey@lbkmlaw.com jack.gordon@lbkmlaw.com tara.plochocki@lbkmlaw.com 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 202-833-8900 Facsimile: 202-466-5738 Attorneys for Plaintiff GREENFIELD, LLC GREENFIELD, LLC, Plaintiff, Vv. AYMAN KANDEEL, KIRKWOOD JAMES DREW, et al., Defendants. 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT Case No. BC548794 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS RESERVATION NO. 213931582963 Date: March 12,2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 51 Judge: Honorable Dennis J. Landin Complaint Filed: June 17, 2014 Judgment Entered: January 23, 2019 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ITT RCITYTTC ET css 0555555354555 40 50555, 05505585. 05 R20 55.50.5850 4 ARGUMENT Loot este eh eieeb teeta e eet ete sbeebs testes tenses best ebe ete ene anes 6 Filitrg ariel TrCTEIONT TREE sm sense. mmm sn sin mem5550555. 505505085558, 5590555, 5556 F555 SS FAT AR 6 B. DEPOSITION COSES. 1.vivrieuiiiiniieitie etait testis sete eit esate t ee staeetbe este esasee sae esbe esse eneeesee sabe ssseanseeesaens 7 C. STAGE GIL TTIIEEE msc 5000500050555, 0 045.5505 A555 AS50885, STS FAV 55 5 8 D. WINESS EES. ..iuveiite cites este sate sees beebbe shee ste et estaba 9 E. Models, enlargenients, and photocopies Of EXWIDIS. ou vummssnssssssasn sosn sou ss sume ss sasmsss sussss 9 F. COU TEPOTEET TES. ..eevieeiiieiieitie cites ete etter ee stteetbeeie eases sbae este esse e esses esse enna anneas 10 Transeripts of heatings ordered], BY The GOUT: usc mss sums sams mss sms moms ismmsin mm 10 CONCLUSION... etter eet ete sees st ete eb esse este e este se esas stabs eb ease este ne este naenbesseseeneane 12 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Barkly v. Copeland (1890) BO Cal. 493... eee ete ete e eee eae eases eats ae eats ae eane ae eaae ee etae ee eaae ee eabe ee eaae ee eneas 11 Benach v. Cnty of L.A. COT) 149 Cal AIDA: BE cs. men. mms ns n,n 055.50 575508550. F005... 55500555. 555 AG 565 S358 585.0055 11 El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Serv., Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.APP-Ath 612 o.oo sb ae sabe eee ete e sabe sabe ene eeneaes 11 Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n. (1993) 19 Cal APP.ALh TOL eons sa ee sabe esse e see e seas 4,6,8,9 Michell v. Olick C1996) 48 Cal SEE ATH, 1192 omens mmm omen simu men moms es as sams S10 assess a 11 Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal APP.ALI TO16 «cnet etcetera eee eee sabe sabe e eee ns ae esae enna enns 8 Sci. Apps. Int’l Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 39 Cal. APP.ALh T0905 eee eee eects ete setae sabe ense eet ee esas sabe anseeensaes 10 Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena (1934) 1 Cal.2d 87 eee eee eee eee eee eae eras eae esate ae eaae ae sabe e esate ee stae ee saae ee nanes 11,12 Warren v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. (2018) 30 Cal. APP.STI 24 eee eee ete eee ete este sete sees tee sbae sabe e sees bee ebae sabe anneeenraes 11 Statutes Code of Civ. Proc. § 27 ca eee ae eee tate e eh ae eee a aa-- te ee a a-ae eee --t ae ea aaat tees eaaae ae antte eee rae ae ee asnnans 11 § T033.5(@) 1eeeurreeeeeeiitie eect eee eee ee eee eee eee seat eee eet aa tee e a bae ae ea hatte eee na ae eeeanaae ee aaaabeae ee ennraeae enn 4,6 § 1033.5(D)(3) 1 eurieeiiie t reae eee e eet e aah ae eb ae esas ear ae eat ae eae ee err aeeareeeeareeenaaeeas 6,8 © TBD TUE irri omnes sm 0550005000050 0500.00 58, 5 ES AER AS, ET, SAE. 0 4,8,10 3 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION The JP Morgan Defendants concede their Memorandum of Costs mischaracterizes several categories of claimed costs and bundles numerous other costs together. As a result, Greenfield has been unable to properly determine which claimed costs are statutorily permitted as of right (but must still be reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation and reasonable in amount), which costs may be awarded in this Court’s discretion, and which costs may not be recovered by statute. To be clear, Greenfield does not dispute the JP Morgan Defendants are entitled to recover their statutorily authorized costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a) and other certain costs in the discretion of this Court under section 1033.5(c). But, once challenged, the burden falls on the JP Morgan Defendants to demonstrate the costs they seek are permissible, reasonable, and necessary. Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761. Instead, the JP Morgan Defendants ask this Court to gloss over their admittedly inaccurate and opaque Memorandum of Costs and grant them all the costs they seek without meeting their burden to provide this Court with a true, accurate, and detailed accounting. The JP Morgan Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof, numerous claimed costs are not permissible or reasonable in amount, and Greenfield’s Motion to Tax should be granted. To assist the Court, Greenfield outlines the various costs claimed by JP Morgan and the status of the amount in dispute as of the date of this Reply. JP Morgan Greenfield Greenfield No JP Morgan Still In Claim Tax Tax Response Dispute Filing & $11,626.64 | $8.526.64 in $3,100.00 Concedes are $8,526.64 Motion Fees messenger and messenger fees rush fees Deposition $171,830.10 | $171,830.19 - Refuses to $171.830.18 Costs [incl. $10k provide [subtracting excess London itemization or | SUNK depo costs] for state no rush or | excessive failure to mail costs London hotel itemize or included; estimate] indicate not nonopposition claiming to excessive improper fees London hotel fees (SUNK?) Service of $2,824.13 $2.824.13 in - Concedes are $2,795.13 Process fees for mail not service of service on the process but is parties service of papers on the 4 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties: concedes $29 is duplicative Witness Fees $809.15 $772.15 as not statutory witness fees but apparent subpoena costs $37 Concedes are not process: refuses to provide detail for misallocated process server charges $772.15 Exhibits & Trial Graphics $369,225.02 $257.529.61 as excessive $111,695.41 $5521.78 are (more) exhibit copies; argues full amount of ProMotion incl. (more) exhibit copies were necessary $257,519.61 Court Reporter Fees $19,012.65 $9.724.31 as improper transcript costs $9,288.34 Concedes are transcript costs not court reporter fees $9.724.31 Translation Services $25,608.52 $25,608.52 Court Ordered Transcripts $14,795.90 $14,795.90 as improper transcript costs Concedes transcripts are not court ordered; invoices show $8620 in reporter costs including one $395 double- counted and two totaling $825 not in Memorandum of Costs $7,395.90 Total $615,732.20 $466,002.93 $149,729.27 $29 + UNK London Hotel + $1220 duplicate and waived court reporter costs $458,132.05 5 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IL ARGUMENT A. Filing and motion fees. Greenfield moved to tax $8,526.64 in claimed filing and motion costs, on the basis that the claimed fees on their face did not reflect actual filing fees charged by the Superior Court, and that the descriptions provided indicated the fees claimed were express delivery or postage fees, the latter of which is expressly not recoverable by statute. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(b)(3). The JP Morgan Defendants now admit the costs Greenfield challenges are not, in fact, for court-imposed filing fees as their Memorandum of Costs represents. (Opp. at 6). Yet the JP Morgan Defendants still have not provided a revised break-down of their claimed costs! that would allow Greenfield or this Court to determine what additional portion of the challenged costs (if any) are filing fees (which they are entitled to recover under section 1033.5(a) so long as they are reasonably necessary to the litigation, a fact Greenfield does not dispute for the $3,100 in itemized filing fees not taxed) what portion are various service fees related to the filing (which may be awarded in this Court’s discretion under 1033.5(c)), and what portion, if any, are mailing or postage related fees that may not be recovered under 1033.5(b). And while Greenfield does not dispute that this Court may, in its discretion, award service fees related to the filing of documents with the Court that are necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount, the JP Morgan Defendants defiantly assert they do not have to provide a detailed accounting of costs because other courts in other cases have at times discretionarily awarded such fees. (Opp. at 6.) JP Morgan Defendants misunderstand their burden, which is to show in their Memorandum of Costs that the costs they seek are allowed at the outset, and, upon challenge by Greenfield, to present evidence they are permitted and reasonable. Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th 761. Instead, JP Morgan Defendants continue to stonewall and obfuscate. The Motion to Tax should be granted. ! Greenfield’s own Memorandum of Costs, on the other hand, does provide a transparent and descriptive break-down of claimed costs for the Court, including by breaking down invoices into their component charges, and making clear in detailed entries which costs are court-imposed filing fees and which costs are service charges related to the filing of various documents with the Court. Greenfield does not seek fees related to mail service of documents on the parties, as postage or mailing fees are not allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(3). However the Court decides the issue of service fees related to the filing of documents with the Court, Greenfield simply requests it do so uniformly for all parties claiming such costs. 6 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Deposition costs. Greenfield moved to tax $171,830.19 in claimed deposition costs, on the basis that the level of detail provided by the JP Morgan Defendants was inadequate for Greenfield to properly examine their claimed costs. Again, the JP Morgan Defendants not only refuse to provide this Court with a detailed accounting of the line items for which they are seeking costs, they refuse to even say whether any shipping, rush, or other fees that are either not statutorily permitted or are discretionary have been included in any of the broad categories of fees they do outline-although their Opposition certainly indicates that may be the case. (See Opp. at 7-8.)> In essence, the JP Morgan Defendants claim Greenfield has not proven that they are seeking impermissible costs, but of course JP Morgan has not provided Greenfield with the invoices to verify if that is the case. Furthermore, as the JP Morgan Defendants repeatedly concede in their Opposition, numerous other portions of the JP Morgan Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs mischaracterize the costs sought and lump together various allowable, discretionary, and non-allowable costs. Greenfield has properly challenged the claimed costs, and JP Morgan has responded with telling silence. The costs should be taxed. As regarding the excessive DiFrawy deposition expenses (which Greenfield estimates at $10,000 because the Memorandum of Costs does not itemize), the JP Morgan Defendants admit they chose to send Mr. Gail to London to take Mr. DiFrawy’s deposition as a matter of their convenience. (Opp. At 8.) Indeed, JP Morgan Defendants’ Opposition makes Greenfield's point-that one lawyer could have (and in this case, should have) taken Mr. DiFrawy’s deposition. Here, according to the JP Morgan Defendants, the lawyer apparently most qualified to do so was Mr. Bertzyk, who made the trip but did not ask a single question. Greenfield should not have to pay for the JP Morgan Defendants choosing to send two lawyers to London, to stay in one of the most luxurious hotels in town, when only one lawyer was necessary. Finally, Greenfield notes the JP Morgan Defendants are silent as to the excessive hotel expenses (which Greenfield cannot compute because the JP Morgan Defendants have refused to itemize), and accordingly asks that this Court grant that portion of the Motion to Tax as unopposed. 2 Once again, Greenfield’s Memorandum of Costs removes any doubt and states that it is not seeking to recover costs related to RealTime connections, expedited transcripts or video, shipping and handling, and administrative and archival fees. I REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Service of process. Greenfield moved to tax $2,824.13 in service of process costs on the basis that none of the costs for which JP Morgan sought to recover were related to process-that is, subpoenas or a Summons or Complaint. Rather, JP Morgan appeared to be seeking to recover costs for mail service of documents on the parties in this case. JP Morgan now admits Greenfield is correct and that these charges have nothing to do with service of process as they initially claimed. (Opp. At-11.) Instead, JP Morgan ambiguously asserts these are more “messenger and service fees” for serving copies of documents on the parties in this case. (Opp. at 9).> According to JP Morgan’s own Opposition, however, these must be mail, FedEx, or other postage-related charges, as JP Morgan used personal service for only “some points in time” of the case. (Opp. at 9.) But postage charges are expressly disallowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(3) and cannot be awarded by this Court even as a matter of discretion. Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal. App.4th 1616, 1627 (“[ T]he expenses of copying documents, Federal Express and postage charges, and telecopy/fax charges . . . are expressly disallowed as costs unless expressly permitted by law.”); see Opp. at 9 (stating that at “some points in time” JP Morgan used personal service to serve documents on the parties (which would be allowable in the Court’s discretion) and not disputing Greenfields assertion that the claimed charges appear to be for improper mail service charges). Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, cited by the JP Morgan Defendants, does not hold otherwise and indeed supports Greenfield’s Motion to Tax. As the JP Morgan Defendants themselves quote, the costs at issue in Ladas involved “filing documents with the court,” (which the JP Morgan Defendants are already seeking in Attachment 1(g)) and “transporting exhibits to and from the courtroom” (which falls under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(3)’s express carve-out for trial exhibit-related expenses and is not mail or postage in any event). While some of the messenger charges in Ladas were also related to delivering documents produced in discovery (which, if performed by courier, may be permissible in the Court’s discretion under section 1033.5(c)), the JP Morgan Defendants 3 To the extent any of the claimed fees are charges incurred related to filings with the Court (and JP Morgan has not explained which, if any, are filing or court service fees), they should be taxed as duplicative. JP Morgan appears to concede at least one $29.00 entry is duplicative (Opp. at 9.) 8 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 do not purport to claim any such costs. Furthermore, the Ladas Court held that facsimile charges were not permitted by 1033.5(b), even though fax charges are not specifically enumerated, because “[f]ax expenses contain elements of all three of the above nonrecoverable items, and it is unlikely that the Legislature intended to allow attorneys to circumvent the statutory bar by using a fax machine instead of the mail, the telephone or a photocopier charges for faxing document.” Id. at 775. The same holds true for any “messenger” or other third-party service charges incurred by the JP Morgan Defendants to effect mail service of documents on the parties. Confronted with their facially improper and unclaimable costs, the JP Morgan Defendants have refused and failed to meet its burden to demonstrate all of the costs they seek under this attachment are proper, reasonable, or necessary. The entire $2,824.13 should be taxed. D. Witness fees. Greenfield moved to tax $772.15 in witness fee costs on the basis that the claimed fees on their face did not appear to be for statutory witness and mileage fees, but rather various fees related to serving subpoenas. Once again, the JP Morgan Defendants concede their Memorandum of Costs is inaccurate, and admit the taxed costs are related to the service of subpoenas as Greenfield suspected. (Opp. At 10). As Greenfield stated in its Motion, Greenfield will not dispute the portion of these costs that are for service of process, but moved to tax these claimed costs on the basis that Greenfield could not determine whether any portion of these claimed costs included other non-allowable or discretionary charges. JP Morgan has not provided either the invoices or a more detailed accounting. Greenfield stands by its motion to tax these costs. E. Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits. Greenfield moved to tax $257,529.61 in trial graphics costs, out of nearly $370,000 in claimed costs, on the basis that these are facially excessive and not reasonable in amount. While the JP Morgan Defendants assert the full amount of the ProMotion trial graphics costs are necessary and reasonable, they reveal that some significant portion of these fees are related to the electronic and physical copying of exhibits. (Opp. at 12-13.) But the JP Morgan Defendants have already sought to recover $14,106.61 in trial exhibit costs from Keystone incurred in February 2018, which Greenfield did not challenge, and an additional $3,147.16 and $2,734.72 in additional exhibit photocopying in November 2018 from 9 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keystone. (See Opp. At 12-13.) Furthermore, any marginal changes that would have been made to the JP Morgan Defendants’ trial preparations from February to October, by the addition of three witnesses and some additional documents, cannot possibly justify a more than $250,000 “do over” of their trial graphics and exhibits. Finally, while the JP Morgan Defendants argue their sophisticated trial graphics assisted the Court and sped trial along, in order to be recoverable, discretionary costs must be more than “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of the litigation-they must be “reasonably necessary.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2). Again, while Greenfield does not challenge the JP Morgan Defendants’ entitlement to over $110,000 in trial graphics and exhibit costs, the amount claimed far exceeds their necessary value to the case. See Sci. Apps. Int’l Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 39 Cal. App.4th 1095 (disallowing various trial graphics and presentation costs, because “the existence of the alternative but mundane method [of presenting the evidence] strongly suggests the editing ‘was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” however ‘convenient or beneficial’ it may have been”). Indeed, the JP Morgan Defendants claim more than four times the amount in trial graphics and exhibit costs as Greenfield, which incurred approximately $82,000 as shown in its Memorandum of Costs. While Greenfield recognizes trial graphics costs may be recoverable in the court’s discretion, they must be reasonable in amount. By any measure, the full amount claimed was not “necessary” nor is it “reasonable in amount.” The costs should be taxed as excessive. F. Court reporter fees. Greenfield moved to tax $9,724.31 in court reporter fees on the basis that those fees improperly were transcript fees (which are not allowed unless ordered by the court). The JP Morgan Defendants admit these are transcript costs and these should be taxed in full. Greenfield addresses JP Morgan’s points regarding the recoverability of transcripts in Section G, below. G. Transcripts of hearings ordered by the court. Greenfield moved to tax $14,795.90 in transcript costs, on the basis that none of the claimed transcript costs were related to transcripts ordered by the Court. JP Morgan has since provided invoices 10 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 demonstrating $7,400 of these costs are permissible court reporter fees* and admits the remaining costs are related to transcripts that have not been ordered by the Court (in fact, some of the costs are impermissible mailing costs as well as parking expenses that may be recoverable in this Court’s discretion). Greenfield will therefore seek to tax only the remaining $7,395.90 under Attachment 16. While the JP Morgan Defendants paint the issue of what section 1033.5(b)(5)’s prohibition on costs for “Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court,” as one of first impression, in fact numerous courts have, over the past one hundred and twenty years, described this longstanding statutory prohibition exactly as Greenfield has-that, in order to be recoverable, the transcript must be ordered by the court (rather than the hearing). See Benach v. Cnty of L.A. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858 (awarding “costs incurred for court-ordered transcripts’); Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal. App.4th 1194 (describing 1033.5(a)’s allowable costs as including “transcripts ordered by the court”); Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena (1934) 1 Cal.2d 87, 100 (discussing predecessor Code of Civil Procedure section 274 thus: “The right to recover costs is purely statutory, and it is only when the trial court has ordered the transcript to be prepared that the statute (section 274, Code Civ. Proc.) allows the cost thereof to be recovered.”); Barkly v. Copeland (1890) 86 Cal. 493, 493-494 (quoting section 274, which provided for cost recovery “in causes where a transcript has been ordered by the court”); see also Warren v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42 (holding that another statute in that case applied to permit the recovery of “trial transcripts which are not court-ordered” which would otherwise not be recoverable under 1033.5); El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Serv., Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 (in describing procedural history, noting that trial court reduced cost award for what appeared to be “trial transcripts claimed to be, but never actually, ordered prepared by the court”). Furthermore, even if this Court were to accept the JP Morgan Defendants’ view of 1033.5(b)(5) that the hearing must be ordered by the Court for the transcript to be recoverable, the JP Morgan Defendants have again fallen short of their burden to prove each hearing for which they seek to recover a * Invoice No. CA3272393 (invoice date 3/13/2018; hearing date of 3/8/2018) for $395 is double counted in the JP Morgan Defendants’ calculation of $8,620 and appears twice in their Exhibit 4. Furthermore, two invoices attached to Exhibit 4 (TSG invoice Nos. 013117-345044 ($250 court reporter fee) and 091916-458290 ($575 court reporter fee) appear nowhere in the Memorandum of Costs, and are accordingly waived. The JP Morgan Defendants have accordingly demonstrated $7,400 in court reporter fees. 11 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 transcript was ordered (as opposed to merely consented to be heard) by the Court. See Sunny Slope Water, 1 Cal.2d at 100 (“Respondent contends, however, that the trial judge said “Very well.” It is not contended that any order in reference to the daily transcript was made by the trial court other than this observation. Such statement falls far short of an order requiring the preparation of a daily transcript.”). The claimed transcript costs are not allowed under section 1033.5, and Greenfield’s Motion to Tax should be granted for the full $7,395.90 in improper transcript costs. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Greenfield’s Motion to Tax should be granted in full, with the exception that Greenfield reduces its request relating to Attachment 16 Part 2, which should be taxed in the amount of $7,395.90. Dated: March 5, 2019 DURIE TANGRI LLP By: Fy Th - “BENJAMIN B. AU VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD Attorneys for Plaintiff GREENFIELD, LLC 12 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in Los Angeles County, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 530 Molino Street, Suite 111, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On March 5, 2019, I served the following documents in the manner described below: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS [x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Durie Tangri’s electronic mail system from rduran@durietangri.com to the email addresses set forth below. [x (BY ESERVICE) By electronic submission through One Legal, the Court’s approved vendor for electronic service and filing of documents pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, On the following part(ies) in this action: Jerry S. Phillips Daniel Friedman Crystal Law LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: jphillips@loeb.com dfriedman@loeb.com crystallaw@loeb.com Counsel for the Pi Capital Defendants Scott Bertzyk Adil Khan Karin Bohmholdt GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: Bertzyks@gtlaw.com Khanad@gtlaw.com BohmholdtK@gtlaw.com Counsel for JP Morgan REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amber Henry EISNER, APC 9601 Wilshire Blvd., 7" Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Email: ahenry@eisnerlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Courtney Jean La Bau Bryan Freedman FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: bfreedman@ftllp.com Counsel for Kirkwood James Drew, Jordan Udko, Nathan Wang, OTVC Holdings, LLC, and Judko MG, Inc. Leonard A. Gail Massey & Gail LLP 50 East Washington Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: Igail@masseygail.com Counsel for JP Morgan I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 5, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. A Lo 14 ROXANA DURAN REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GREENFIELD’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX JP MORGAN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS / CASE NO. BC548794