REYES, ET AL. v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

4. REYES, ET AL. v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, SC20200027

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs

On January 15, 2026, defendant State of California Department of Transportation

(“defendant”) filed a Memorandum of Costs, claiming a total of $66,325.48.

On February 2, 2026, plaintiffs Maria Reyes and Fernando Gonzalez (collectively,

“plaintiffs”) jointly filed the instant motion to tax costs in the amount of $33,266.39.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b).) On March 9, 2026, defendant filed a timely

opposition. On March 13, 2026, plaintiffs filed a timely reply.

1.

Background

This action was filed on February 20, 2020. On July 12, 2023, both defendants –

Nicholas Hudspeth and the Department of Transportation – made a settlement offer

under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Plaintiffs did not accept the offer.

On December 31, 2025, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire

action with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.

Defendant’s memorandum of costs requests a total amount of $66,325.48, as

follows: (1) $975.00 for filing and motion fees;1 (2) $150.00 for jury fees; (3) $12,034.50

for deposition costs; (4) $22,193.79 for service of process; (5) $5,200.00 for witness

fees;2 (6) $4,827.29 for court reporter fees as established by statute; (7) $6,482.62 for

1 Defendant seeks reimbursement to the court for fees waived by the court under

Government Code section 6103.5, due to the fact that defendant is a public agency. Government Code section 6103.5 provides that the clerk entering judgment shall include as a part of the judgment the amount of the filing fee, and the amount of the fee for the service of process or notices which would have been paid but for Government Code section 6103, designating it as such. (Gov. Code, § 6103.5, subd. (a).) “When an amount equal to the clerk’s fees and the fees for service of process and notices is collected upon a judgment pursuant to [Government Code section 6103.5,] subdivision (a), those amounts shall be due and payable to the clerk and the serving officer respectively.” (Gov. Code, § 6103.5, subd. (b).) 2 Defendant’s opposition brief indicates that defendant is withdrawing its request for

witness fees in the amount of $5,200.00. Therefore, with respect to witness fees only, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion as moot.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits; (8) $4,003.28 for electronic filing or

service fees; and (9) $10,459.00 for “other.”

2. Legal Principles

A prevailing party is entitled to recover its costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 creates three categories of costs—allowed,

prohibited, and discretionary. (Rozanova v. Uribe (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 392, 402

[question presented was which category covered the claimed item].) First, Code of Civil

Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) lists the items specifically allowed as recoverable costs. Second, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b) lists

items that “are not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law[.]”

(Ibid.) Third, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4) provides that an

item neither specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor explicitly prohibited under

subdivision (b) may be allowed or denied in the discretion of the court if certain

requirements are satisfied. (Id., subd. (c)(4).) In particular, the item must be

(1) “incurred, whether or not paid;” (2) “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the

litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation;” and

(3) “reasonable in amount.” (Id., subd. (c).)

“ ‘In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether

the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its

face. “If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” [Citation.] Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the

burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and

necessary.’ ” (Rozanova, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 399; see Berkeley Cement, Inc. v.

Regents of University of Cal. (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1139.)

3.

Discussion

The parties do not dispute that defendant is a “prevailing party” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

3.1. Deposition Videos

Plaintiffs argue that defendant’s claimed costs for videorecording3 each plaintiff’s

deposition were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation and/or the

amounts of costs claimed are unreasonable. Plaintiffs point out that the videotaped

deposition testimony was not presented to the trier of fact and was “merely convenient

or beneficial” to defendant’s trial preparation. (Pltfs.’ Mem. of Points & Authorities

(“MP&A”) at 11:23–28.)

The court rejects plaintiffs’ arguments. First, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A) expressly allows costs for videorecording necessary depositions.

The record does not show that the videorecording of plaintiffs’ depositions in this

instance was unnecessary or unreasonable. Plaintiffs both claim personal injury.

Arguably, they were the most important witnesses in plaintiffs’ case. By videorecording

their depositions, defendant was able to capture their demeanor – which the jury could

use in assessing their credibility if any portion of the videos were played for the jury at

trial – and better prepare for cross-examination at trial. The court denies plaintiffs’

motion to tax the videorecording costs.

3.2. Deposition Cancellation/Non-Appearance Fees

Plaintiffs’ motion challenges the cancellation/non-appearance fees for the

depositions of Priscilla Prieto (plaintiffs’ adult child who was present in the vehicle at the

3 Plaintiffs challenge the costs to videorecord their depositions only; plaintiffs do not

challenge the other costs associated with their depositions (i.e., transcripts, interpreting services). Plaintiffs’ notice of motion indicates plaintiffs seek to tax costs in the amount of $262.50 for videotaping plaintiff Reyes’s deposition and $350.00 for videotaping plaintiff Gonzalez’s deposition. Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities, however, indicates plaintiffs seek to tax costs in the amount of $543.72 for videotaping plaintiff Reyes’s deposition and $725.00 for videotaping plaintiff Gonzalez’s deposition. Because, as discussed below, the court’s tentative ruling is to deny plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs for video-taping plaintiffs’ depositions, the court need not address the discrepancy in amounts claimed in plaintiffs’ notice of motion versus their memorandum of points and authorities.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

time of the incident and resided with plaintiffs throughout the pendency of litigation)

and Michael Lyons, M.D. (plaintiffs’ medical provider). Plaintiffs allege the claimed costs

were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and, at most, “merely

served [defendant’s] convenience.” (Mtn. at 2:23–28.) The claimed non-appearance fee

for Ms. Prieto is $547.50 and the claimed cancellation fee for Dr. Lyons is $941.75.

A late cancellation fee paid to a reporter may be recovered as an expense related to

taking a deposition. (Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th

819, 825.) Here, the court concludes that defendant’s depositions of these fact witnesses were reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation. Thus, the late

cancellation fee for their cancellation and/or nonappearance is allowable under Code of

Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3). On its face, the fees are not

unreasonable in amount. Plaintiffs’ motion to tax these costs is denied.

3.3. Service Fees for Sending Medical Records to Defendant’s Expert

Plaintiffs object to defendant’s claimed cost of $95.00 for serving medical records

upon its expert on the ground that this cost was not reasonably necessary to the

conduct of litigation and, at most, it merely served defendant’s convenience.

Additionally, plaintiffs claim the amount is unreasonable. (Mtn. at 3:13–18.) Service fees

are expressly allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4).

On its face, $95.00 is not an unreasonable amount. Therefore, the court denies

plaintiffs’ motion to tax $95.00. 3.4. Witness Fees

As previously mentioned, defendant’s opposition indicates defendant is withdrawing

its request for witness fees. (Opp. at 5:28–6:4.) Therefore, with respect to the claimed

witness fees only, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion as moot.

///

/// ///

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

3.5. Court Reporter Fees

Plaintiffs object to court reporter fees in the sum of $4,827.29 related to hearings in

this case on the following dates: (1) April 1, 2025; (2) April 11, 2025; (3) August 27, 2025;

(4) October 24, 2025; (5) December 5, 2025; and (6) December 12, 2025. Plaintiffs assert

the costs are not allowable because the court did not order any transcript of said

hearings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(9) [allowable costs include “[t]ranscripts of

court proceedings ordered by the court”].)

The court notes, however, that the claimed costs are not “transcript fees” but rather “court reporter fees.” Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(11)

provides that court reporter fees are allowable “as established by statute.” (Ibid.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 269, an official reporter “shall take down in

shorthand testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, ... and

statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial

officer ... (1) [i]n a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 269, subd. (a)(1).)

The court finds that the claimed court reporter fees are allowable. Plaintiffs’ motion

to tax these costs is denied.

3.6. Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits

The trial court may award costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,

subdivision (a)(13) for “[m]odels, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits ..., if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Ibid. [emphasis

added].) Here, the exhibits were not presented to the trier of fact; therefore, the court

finds they are not allowable costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,

subdivision (a)(13).

Defendant argues, however, that these costs are recoverable under Code of Civil

Procedure section 998. (Opp. at 8:9–15.) Code of Civil Procedure section 998 provides in pertinent part: “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

obtain a more favorable judgment or award, ... the court ... may require the plaintiff to

pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who

are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in

either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the

case by the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (c)(1) [emphasis added].) The

court finds that the claimed costs do not relate to the services of any expert witness.

Therefore, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion to tax $6,482.62 for models, enlargements,

and photocopies of exhibits. 3.7. Electronic Filing and Service Fees

Plaintiffs argue that defendant’s claimed electronic filing and service fees are not

recoverable because this court did not mandate e-filing from February 20, 2020,

through June 30, 2025. (Pltfs.’ MP&A at 15:24–16:2.) Code of Civil Procedure

section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(14) allows a prevailing party to recover “[f]ees for the

electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider if a

court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents.” (Ibid.) While not

expressly allowed under this subdivision, the court exercises its discretion under Code of

Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4) to allow the claimed fees. As defendant

points out, these fees were incurred during the period of COVID-19. Plaintiffs’ motion to

tax these costs is denied.

3.8. Sanctions Paragraph 15 (“Other”) of defendant’s memorandum of costs identifies $10,459.00,

the total amount of monetary sanctions imposed upon plaintiffs by this court. Code of

Civil Procedure section 1033.5 does not expressly allow or prohibit previously-imposed

sanctions as a recoverable cost. Because the previous sanction orders are valid orders of

the court, the court declines to allow said costs under Code of Civil Procedure

section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4). Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to tax these costs is granted.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

3.9. Service Fees for Serving Papers upon Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Plaintiffs object to the claimed $459.20 of service fees on the grounds that the fees

were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and, at most, merely

served defendant’s convenience. (Mtn. at 7:1–5.) Further, plaintiffs claim that the

amount is unreasonable. (Mtn. at 7:5.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,

subdivision (a)(4)(B) allows for service fees by a registered process server. On its face,

the amount of service fees are not unreasonable. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to tax

these costs is denied.

TENTATIVE RULING # 4: THE MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART. THE COURT GRANTS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX A TOTAL OF $16,941.62

CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING:

(1) $6,482.62 FOR MODELS, ENLARGEMENTS, AND PHOTOCOPIES OF EXHIBITS; AND

(2) $10,459.00 IN MONETARY SANCTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ORDERED BY THE

COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT OF COSTS IN

FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AGAINST BOTH

PLAINTIFFS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $49,383.86.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19

CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE

DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO

APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID

NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.