It is not uncommon for litigants to challenge costs that were incurred by the other side in connection with a successful anti-SLAPP motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), provides that except as otherwise provided by statute, “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Such costs generally “shall be as determined by the court in its discretion.” CCP 1033(a). While the Code of Civil Procedure sets forth which categories of costs are allowed and which are not, courts have discretion to award certain costs. Id. at 1033.5(c)(4); see Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.
The test in determining whether a discretionary cost is allowable is whether the item is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” CCP 1033.5(c)(2); see Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 361, 364. “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. 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.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 764 (E.g., electronic filing of documents with court allowed under CCP 1033.5(a)(1); cost for service of process for UPS overnight mail allowable to serve reply brief under Foothill-DeAnza Community Colle Dist. V. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30; cost for court reporter fees allowed under Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58-59 (allowing $2,250 in court reporter fees): Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858 (same).