Modern Technology Notwithstanding, Reasonably Necessary Versus Convenience Is Judgment Call, With Deference Given to Trial Judge.
Complementary to our contemporaneous post on Parks v. Port of Oakland is the appellate court’s affirmance of a decision to disallow certain high technology trial costs in Dodds v. Meng, Case Nos. D058766/D059409 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 23, 2012) (unpublished).
There, a lower court granted defendants’ motion to tax costs, disallowing $6,051.14 of $11,840.27 sought for the cost of digitally scanning exhibits and creating graphics (although some projector expenses were allowed), finding they were only convenient (nonrecoverable) rather than reasonably necessary for the litigation (recoverable, see Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2)).
On appeal, the reviewing court found that the trial judge’s disallowance decision did not fall outside the range of permissible options. El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 620 (2007), although encouraging the use of modern technology and countenancing recovery of such expenses, did not stand for the blanket proposition that disallowance of costs is necessarily an abuse of discretion. The particular trial circumstances have to be taken in account, with the disallowance in this cause not resulting in an abuse of discretion.
BLOG UNDERVIEW–This case also has interesting discussions on the right to a jury trial and proper measure of damages recovery in California shareholder derivative actions.