Considers Expert Depositions, Subpoena Rush Costs, Expert Witness Fees, Exhibit Copying, Court Call Expenses, and Prejudgment Interest.
The prevailing party in civil litigation is entitled to routine costs. However, the trial court does possess discretion to determine if the expense was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (in which case it is awardable) as opposed to merely being convenient/beneficial to the litigation’s preparation (in which case it is not awardable). The trial court in Roman v. Cleland, Case No. A124786 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 30, 2010) (unpublished) granted and denied certain costs, determinations that were affirmed on appeal.
Here is how the costs litany broke down in this decision, along with why the lower court was correct in its conclusions:
- Defense expert witness deposition costs—These were properly not awarded, because the costs statute only allows for recovery of deposition costs for court-appointed experts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(b); Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 111 Cal.App.4th 592, 598, 601 (2003).)
- “Rush” service expenses for subpoenas—Plaintiff did not justify these expenditures as needing to be expedited, which meant that they were merely convenient/beneficial rather than reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2); Republic Indemnity Co. v. Schofield, 47 Cal.App.4th 220, 229 (1996).)
- Plaintiff’s expert witness fees—Because plaintiff served no Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, there was no statutory basis for recoupment of these expenses.
- Costs of models and exhibit copying—The trial court did award many of these costs, but did not allow recovery of some copying costs for exhibits not used at trial and capped the reimbursement for proper exhibit copying to a lower per-page cost. Nothing wrong with those determinations. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5(a)(12), (b)(3); Seever v. Copley Press, Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1556, 1558-1559 (2006).)
- Court call costs—These expenses are not analogous to mandatory filing, motion, or jury fees, but are closer to expenses that are merely convenient for plaintiff’s counsel—who did not travel out to court but merely called from a home or an office. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2); Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (1993) [whether a costs item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a factual question for the trial court, reviewed for an abuse of discretion].)
- Prejudgment interest—A cost bill is not the appropriate vehicle for requesting claimed liquidated prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287. Rather, a request for such prejudgment interest must be made before entry of judgment, either before the jury or before the court (with a stipulation needing to be reached if the court is to adjudge the issue). (North Oakland Medical Clinic v. Rogers, 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 830 (1998).)