WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Janet Wellborn’s ('Plaintiff') motion to strike the memorandum of costs filed by Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 27, 2023, alleging violations of the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1791 et seq.) and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301) arising out of her purchase of certified pre-owned 2019 Honda Pilot. Plaintiff alleged that she was provided with an express warranty regarding the vehicle, and that Honda violated that warranty and the state and federal warranty statutes in failing to properly repair or replace her vehicle or refund her purchase price should the vehicle fail to operate properly and reliably.

Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle was subject to multiple repair attempts, which were unsuccessful, but that Defendant refused to replace her vehicle or refund her money when requested. The matter was assigned for trial in this Department, with an assigned trial commencement of February 18, 2026. Following several days devoted to pretrial matters, including evidentiary disputes, jury selection, and other matters, the jury trial commenced on February 27, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the jury reached a verdict, finding in favor of Defendant.

On March 25, 2026, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Costs (MOC) seeking a total of $51,537.64 in costs, including the following MOC categories:  Category 1: Filing and motion fees totaling $2,375.60  Category 4: Deposition costs totaling $7,260.75  Category 9: Court-ordered transcripts totaling $3,988.86  Category 13: Models, enlargements, and photocopies totaling $19,212.36  Category 15: Other costs totaling $18,700.07 (MOC, p. 1.) On April 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike some of those costs.

The Court has reviewed the MOC and its attachments, the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and now issues the following ruling.

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

LEGAL STANDARD Generally, the prevailing party in a lawsuit is entitled to recover allowable costs. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 1032 (b) ['[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding'].) Section 1033.5 specifies the items 'allowable as costs under Section 1032.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a).) A party seeking costs must file a memorandum of costs, verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) Copies of bills, invoices, statements, or other documentation need not be attached to the memorandum. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Still, the memorandum must provide enough detail to determine that the cost sought is statutorily awardable. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.) On a motion to strike or tax costs, the burden of proof shifts between the parties. 'If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.

On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. [Citations.] Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute [Citation], a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. [Citations.]' (Ladas v.

Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) The Court notes that, technically, a motion to strike challenges the entire costs bill, whereas a motion to tax challenges only particular items or amounts. (Fairbank et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Guide 2024), § 17.517.) 'Unless objection is made to the entire costs bill, the motion to strike or tax must be directed to particular items in the costs memorandum and state why each is objectionable.' (Id., § 17.518 [emphasis original].)

Considering these principles, the Court addresses Defendant’s requested costs and Plaintiff's specific objections thereto, including the reasonableness and necessity of the items for which costs recovery is sought.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

ANALYSIS Section 998 Offer As an initial matter, it appears that Defendant made an offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The offer was served on January 12, 2024. (Opp. Exh. A.) According to the terms of the offer, Plaintiff could choose between Defendant repurchasing the vehicle, Defendant paying Plaintiff $20,000 but Plaintiff keeping the vehicle, or Defendant repurchasing the vehicle subject to proof of expenses. Plaintiff either rejected the offer or failed to respond and it expired.

Code of Civil Procedure section 998(c)(1) provides, in relevant part: “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover their postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, 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.” Plaintiff acknowledges that a section 998 offer was made (see Reply at 3:7-8), but seems to argue that only costs related to post-offer expert witness fees are recoverable.

Defendant, on the other hand, seems to argue that all post-offer costs are per se recoverable. In addition, Plaintiff argues that all invoices and costs sought must still be reasonable; the Court agrees with this point. Under section 1033.5(c) any cost awarded to a prevailing party – including those awarded pursuant to section 998 cost-shifting provisions – remains subject to a threepart test: the costs must be actually incurred, they must be necessary to the litigation, and they must be reasonable.

Filing and Motion Fees

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a) permits the recovery of filing, motion, and jury fees to a prevailing party. In addition, section 1033.5(a)(14) permits recovery for the “[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.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

Here, Plaintiff objects to $280.70 out of $2,375.60 requested, which Plaintiff identifies as being rush fees, service fees, fees related to the withdrawal of a motion to compel, and “waiting time.” Plaintiff objects on the grounds that these costs were not necessary to the litigation. Defendant merely responds that they were reasonably necessary and part of defending the case. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff should not be required to compensate Defendant for these specific amounts sought.

While Defendant fails to explain the nature of these costs, in the Court’s experience, recovering costs related to “wait time” or “rush fees” are essentially costs that arise due to circumstances of Defendant’s own creation, and not costs that are reasonably necessary. Moreover, requiring Plaintiff to pay for Defendant’s own decision to withdraw a motion also is improper because there is no showing that the cost was reasonably necessary, or that it is in any way covered within the categories of section 1033.5.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to this category and costs are taxed in the amount of $280.70. Deposition Costs Here, Defendant seeks $7,260.75 in costs related to deposition. Plaintiff argues that $3,160.00 in expert witness deposition costs should be stricken. Plaintiff argues that these witnesses were not “ordered by the court” (Mot. MPA at 3:8) and that the invoices purporting to support the claimed fees are too vague to allow recovery (id. at 3:8-10). In opposition, Defendant identifies these specific costs as being related to the deposition of Defendant’s expert, Marcus Schnell. (Opp. at 7:15-16.)

Defendant reports that Mr. Schnell spent 12.7 hours preparing for, attending, and “analyzing” his inspection of the vehicle, which resulted in fees of $2,857.50. Mr. Schnell also reportedly incurred $303.30 in travel expenses to attend the inspection. In support of this claimed fees, Defendant cites to page 393 of MOC Exhibit A in support of its Opposition. As an initial matter, the Court takes issue with the evidence that Defendant submits in support of the Opposition. It appears that Defendant has simply taken every possible receipt or invoice potentially related to this case, and dropped it into a single exhibit, devoid of Bates numbers or even specific categorization, and expects the Court to comb through the documents to locate the evidence it cites.

It is not the obligation or responsibility of the Court to do Defendant’s work or search the record to find evidence (see Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545), and the Court declines to do so here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

Beyond that, there is nothing in Defendant’s Opposition argument to even suggest that these costs are related to a deposition – the very category in which the costs are sought. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)(3)(A) specifically provides for recovery of costs related to “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.” (Emphasis added.)

Rather, it appears that these costs may be related to attendance at an inspection, but they are not, by Defendant’s own argument and admission, deposition costs. While section 998(c)(1) allows the court discretion to award expert fees, Defendant has sought these sums as deposition-related costs. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to strike in the amount of $3,160.00 Court-Ordered Transcripts Here, Defendant seeks to recover $3,988.86 in transcript costs. Section 1033.5 allows for recovery of costs arising from “[t]ranscripts of court proceedings ordered by the court.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1033.5(a)(9).) Plaintiff moves to strike these costs on the grounds that there is no evidence that the Court ordered any of the transcripts for which Defendant seeks recovery. In Opposition, Defendant contends that these costs arise out of the “deposition transcripts” (Opp. at 8:4) memorializing the deposition testimony of Plaintiff, experts designated by both parties, and Defendant’s designated Person Most Qualified, Jennifer Pacheco. Defendant argues that the “transcripts were reasonably necessary for purposes of trial and were provided to the Court during each witness’s testimony at trial for purposes of impeachment or to defend against impeachment.” (Opp. at 8:8-11.)

While Defendant may have utilized these transcripts during trial, it does not change the fact that the Court never ordered or requested the transcripts. The plain language of the statute makes clear that the costs are recoverable where the Court orders the transcript; the Court made no such order in this case. While it may be sound practice to have deposition transcripts present at trial for exactly the purposes that Defendants describe, there is no statutory basis for recovery unless those transcripts are ordered by the Court.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted in the amount of $3,988.86. Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits Here, Defendant claims costs of $19,212.36 related to photocopies, arguing that the costs are related to trial binders and are reasonable and necessary to the litigation of the case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

For her part, Plaintiff cites the last page of Defendant’s Exhibit A and argues that that it is unclear why Defendant needed $20,000 worth of copied materials (including $918.00 for binders). Defendant provides little explanation in its Opposition. First, Defendant simply recreates the same table that was included in the vendor invoice from FirstLegal. (See Opp. at 8:18-27 and Exh. A. at p. 678.) Defendant then explains that $14,890.50 pertains to “color printing, hole punching, and stapling exhibits for [Defendant’s] five (5) trial binders.” (Opp. at 9:1-2.)

Defendant further states that the color images consisted “primarily of five (5) sets of [Defendant’s] four hundred and thirty-six (436) expert witness photographs marked as Exhibit 282 at trial.” (Id. at 9: 2-4.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) allows for recovery of costs related to “[m]odels, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits.” As a general principle, the Court acknowledges that trial binders are reasonable and necessary to litigation, assisting counsel in conducting a trial and organizing exhibits in a meaningful fashion.

However, in this case, it seems that Defendant overshot the mark. The Court first notes that the invoice on Exhibit A page 678 supporting the cost request contains items that are not models, enlargements, or photocopies of exhibits. Instead, and included within Defendant’s cost request, are office supplies: exhibit tabs ($654.50), cardstock ($51.00), two types of binders ($680.00), five flash drives ($300.00), and a delivery fee ($250.00). None of these costs are recoverable under the statute and the Court strikes these costs in the amount of $1,935.50.

In addition, Defendant provides no reason that five trial binders were necessary for trial, particularly since the Court’s own Minute Orders regarding the daily trial summaries reflect that there were only two counsel representing Defendant at trial. Even assuming arguendo that all the actual copies pertained to exhibits, the Court does not find the amount to be reasonable or necessary to the litigation. Accordingly, the Court subtracts the amount of the office supplies (see above) from the overall amount and then divides the difference by five, which is the number of sets Defendant has identified: $19,212.36-$1,935.50 = $17,276.86 ÷ 5 = $3,455.38 Based on the above calculation, each set of photocopies is valued at approximately $3,455.38.

Allowing for three copies (two for each counsel, and one extra in reserve), the Court finds the maximum allowable for the photocopies themselves to be $10,366.12. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion as to the photocopies in the amount of $6,910.74. Overall, in this category, the motion is granted in part and costs are stricken in the amount of $8,846.24.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

Other Expenses Finally, Defendant claims “other” expenses in the amount of $18,700.07. The MOC identifies these costs as “Food, Travel, Lodging, Parking, Records Retrieval, Messenger Service, Online Research, Miscellaneous, trial exhibits.” (MOC at p. 3.) Plaintiff objects, simply stating that the charges are not reasonably necessary to the litigation or not reasonable in amount. (Mtn. at 3:27-28.) Defendant provides no additional explanation in the Opposition, other than to argue that the Court has discretion to award the costs. (Opp. at 9:16-22.)

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff cannot simply conclude the costs are not reasonable and necessary, but must “prove that the costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” (Opp. at 9:26-27.) The Court disagrees, as this is not how the Court undertakes an evaluation of costs under section 1033.5, regardless of whether those costs are provided for by statute or may be permitted by the Court as an exercise of discretion.

“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.” (Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29–30.) If the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed therein were necessarily incurred by the defendant and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the objecting party. (Nelson v.

Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131; Foothill-De Anza, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 29; see Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [“If the items in the cost bill appear to be proper and reasonable, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.”].) If, however, the submitted items seem improper, unreasonable, or their necessity is doubtful and the opposing party properly objects, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs to establish their propriety. (Nelson, 72 Cal.App.4th at 131; Foothill-De Anza, 158 Cal.App.4th at 29.)

The mere filing of a motion to tax costs can be a proper objection if the challenged costs appear doubtful or improper on their face. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Whether a claimed cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774; see also Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 71.)

In light of Defendant’s failure to properly categorize the costs and combining items that could be recoverable (e.g., travel and lodging) with items that clearly are not (e.g., records retrieval, online research, miscellaneous), as well as duplicative items (trial exhibits), the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objection, while not a model of clarity and detail, is nevertheless sufficient to raise the objection to the costs at issue.

The Court would be well within its authority to simply strike all costs in this category due

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

to Defendant’s failure to properly identify and categorize these costs. Nevertheless, examining the worksheets attached the MOC, the Court permits travel, lodging, and food expenses related to trial, which are discernible by date, and strikes only the following because they are either improper requests or it is unclear to what activity the charges relate:  Amazon, obtain Trial Demonstration, 02/19/26. LLV $18.31  Amazon, obtain Trial Demonstration, 02/19/26. LLV $43.00  West Group, Westlaw Searches Performed In January 2026.

Llv $1,346.00  West Group, Westlaw Searches Performed In February 2026. Llv $1,723.00  Lillo Engineering Inc, pay direct invoice sent for matter 54659, 12/11/25. ARH $3,160.80  CARFAX, obtain reports, 12/31/23. CRE $16.49  CARFAX, obtain records, 10/31/23. CRE $17.49  Target, obtain records re Trial, 01/19/26. LLV $25.84  Carfax, obtain records, 01/31/2026. CRE $17.49  First Legal Digital, obtain records and deliver to Sacramento County Superior Court, 02/20/20. BB $918.00  Carfax, obtain vehicle records, 02/28/2026.

CRE $17.49  Travel Expense, LLC, Rancho Cordova, CA. 11/18/25, lunch Attendee(s) - L. Vault $20.07  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/20/26, lunch Attendee(s) - T. Dorenkamp, L. Vault $40.80  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, meals other Attendee(s) - T. Dorenkamp $11.19  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/20/26, meals other Attendee(s) - T. Dorenkamp $17.27  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, hotel - dinner Attendee(s) - T. Dorenkamp $36.54  Travel Expense, LLC, Rancho Cordova, CA, 11/18/25, 9 miles $6.30  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/2026 - 01/21/2026, car rental/fuel $268.62  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/21/2026 - 01/21/2026, car rental/fuel $40.16  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/2026 - 01/19/2026, car rental/fuel $45.87  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/20/2026 - 01/20/2026, car rental/fuel $51.26  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/2026 - 01/21/2026, lodging

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

$195.97  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, hotel - parking $50.00  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, taxi/car service $54.26  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/22/26, taxi/car service $76.49  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, taxi/car service $9.99  Travel Expense, TD, Los Angeles, CA, 01/19/26, taxi/car service $9.99  Travel Expense, LV, Sacramento, CA, 01/19/2026 - 01/21/2026, car rental/fuel $10.95  Travel Expense, LV, Sacramento, CA, 01/19/2026 - 01/21/2026, car rental/fuel $149.09  Travel Expense, LV, Sacramento, CA, 01/20/2026 - 01/20/2026, parking $46.55  Amazon, trial exhibits, 03/02/26. JM $30.94 (MOC Worksheets pp. 5-9.) In total, the Court strikes $8,476.22 in this category.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to strike or tax costs is granted in part and denied in part. The Court taxes costs in the amount of $24,752.02. Defendant is awarded $26,785.62 in costs.

NOTICE: To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 133 at 916-875- 2533 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.) Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date. If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012236: WELBORN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept133 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 160 1961 8560 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.