Shen v. Albany Unified School District

Background

Defendants submitted a bill of costs seeking $62,368.51 from plaintiffs Kevin Chen and C.E. Chen and C.E. objected. They were among several Albany High School students disciplined for posting online comments about fellow students and school personnel that the opinion describes as racist and derogatory. The students challenged the discipline on First Amendment grounds, among other grounds. Defendants settled with several other plaintiffs.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that costs other than attorney’s fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. A losing party may overcome that presumption by showing why costs should not be awarded. The court has discretion to deny costs. The opinion identified relevant considerations including the public importance of the case, the closeness and difficulty of the issues, the possible chilling effect on similar lawsuits, the plaintiff’s financial resources, and the economic disparity between the parties. The listed considerations are not exhaustive.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that an award of costs was not warranted. It said the dispute was not frivolous and presented a serious constitutional question involving schools and student speech, although it did not accept plaintiffs’ characterization of the case as close and difficult or as involving largely novel legal issues. The litigation received substantial public attention and required several motions before governing law provided clear answers to the constitutional question and related claims. The court viewed the case as having substance and public interest, and found that plaintiffs handled it within professional expectations.

The court also relied on the financial circumstances of Chen and C.E. They said defendants were seeking all of their litigation costs from just those two plaintiffs, rather than from the several plaintiffs involved. C.E. stated that he was a community college student earning $20,000 per year from a part-time job, with $8,600 in debt and ongoing monthly expenses. Chen stated that she was a full-time university student who earned $1,500 in 2019 and expected no earnings in 2020, when her declaration was made. Defendants did not contest this evidence or respond to the objection. The court found that the record established Chen and C.E. could not pay the costs.

The court was also concerned that imposing substantial costs in these circumstances could discourage future plaintiffs from bringing nontrivial constitutional challenges, particularly against a government entity with substantially greater resources. Finally, the court criticized defendants’ cost itemizations as frequently unclear and unhelpful, citing entries such as “Billed Units,” “Case review -- User Licensing,” and “Warm Storage.” Because it denied costs as a matter of discretion, it did not review every individual item.

Disposition

The court sustained Kevin Chen and C.E.’s objection to the bill of costs. No costs were imposed.