Diaz v. Los Angeles County MTA, Case No. 236856 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 5, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates that appellate courts will not flinch from reinstating a reduction in appellate printing expenses as a routine costs if the reduction was arbitrary in nature.
Here, the lower court reduced a printing cost because it apparently felt that a cheaper printing could have been obtained, but then added on another unexplained substantial reduction. The appellate court reversed, finding that the fact a cheaper printer might have been found is not controlling where the printing expenses were actually incurred and not way out of line. (Johnson v. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd., 37 Cal.3d 235, 243 (1984). It then reinstated the requested printing cost figure, except it did sustain the trial judge’s minor $1,000 reduction in this area.