Other Cases Finding These Costs Nonrecoverable Are Distinguishable.
There are two important principles at play in the next case we discuss with respect to recovery of routine costs by a prevailing party: (1) the lower court has a large latitude of discretion to award costs “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’’ (rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation), with the caveat that they be reasonable in amount (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2), (c)(3)); and (2) the lower court’s determination on the “reasonably necessary” fit is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice, placing a heavy burden on the challenging appellant (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 52 (2012)).
Parks v. Port of Oakland, Case Nos. A131903/A132101 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 22, 2012) (unpublished) involved a losing party’s challenge to a lower court award granting winner recovery of expedited deposition transcript fees, litigation support expenses, messenger fees for handling deposition transcripts, and deposition reporter expenses such as parking, a holiday per diem, fees for different transcript formats, and transcript production fees.
Port of Oakland. 1939. Library of Congress.
Appellant could not surmount the heavy burden of showing an abuse of discretion under the circumstances, especially in light of the lower court’s finding that the costs were “recoverable and reasonable.”
Appellant’s reliance on Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems, Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 1330 (2005) was found distinguishable, given that the trial court in Parks found the costs were reasonable while the Hsu court did not–Hsu never implied that expedited transcript fees are never recoverable as statutory costs, but depends on the circumstances during the litigation left to be adjudged by the lower court presiding over a particular case. Similarly, Science Applicatons Internat. Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1194 (1995)–holding that costs for a litigation database and electronic deposition transcript copies were only convenient rather than necessary–has been tempered by the observation in El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 620 (2007) that Science Applications involved a situation where the trial court found that less expensive means could have been used to create or develop the items in dispute, but these items could properly be awarded in the discretion of the lower court where reasonable means of production/development were used.
Costs award affirmed.