. . . And Other Issues.
With respect to routine costs recoverable by a prevailing party in California state courts, the issue is governed pretty much by statute. The general methodology is that routine costs are a matter of right if expressly allowed by statute, cannot be recovered if expressly excluded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, and items not expressly mentioned/excluded are allowable if reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable in amount. However, even within these dictates, some issues are still in controversy under split intermediate appellate thinking on the subject.
Colman v. Feintech, Case No. B264485 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 16, 2016) (unpublished) dealt with several routine costs issues, with many of the trial judge’s rulings affirmed but a couple of which were reversed. Also, the appellate court did not condone a lower court using a “tit for tat” approach in denying one costs request but granting another based on such a random methodology—the trial judge cannot say “well, I denied costs on that one” so “I grant costs on this one” unless the statutory authority so dictated.
First, the split in appellate authority involved whether models, exhibit blowups, and exhibit photocopies were recoverable as routine costs even if they were never used at trial—especially in a case dismissed before a trial could occur. Two courts have said “yes” if necessary/reasonable in amount. (Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church, 23 Cal.App.4th 361, 363-364 (1994); Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 856 (2007).) Two other courts have said “no,” (Ladas v. California State Auto Assn., 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-775 (1993); Seever v. Copley Press, Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557-1559 (2006).) The Colman panel agreed with Ladas and Seever, finding the trial judge has no discretion to award costs for exhibits not used at trial.
Second, the same day service process fees were not recoverable as routine costs where the party claiming them as costs failed to show why they were necessary in a case.
Third, the prevailing party was entitled to an award of the costs of a trial technician given that the use of technology in the courtroom is now commonplace.
Last, the defense cost of videotaping plaintiff’s deposition was a necessary cost under the circumstances of the case.