Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2018-01016568, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Tax Costs, as against defendants Thomas W. Savino and Savino Advisory Group, is granted in part. The court hereby taxes Savino’s costs in the amount of $24,426.78. Savino’s costs are therefore allowed in the amount of $55,368.75 ($79,795.53 from the Memorandum of Costs minus the $24,426.78 taxed).
Plaintiffs have withdrawn their challenge to Savino’s filing and motion fee costs. Savino’s costs for producing subpoenaed records from third parties, Kaiser Permanente and E-Trade, were miscategorized as service of process fees, but are recoverable as costs that were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Costs that are not specifically enumerated under CCP §1033.5(a) as recoverable, and not listed under CCP §1033.5(b) as not allowable, are recoverable if, in the court’s discretion, they are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation”. CCP §1033.5(c)(2); Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774.
As to deposition costs, Savino has withdrawn its request for $4,190 for attorney time for appearing at depositions via Zoom. Plaintiffs also object to the $1,485.60 sought for ordering the rough transcript for Steven M. Roth. Savino asserts that the deposition was taken days before trial, so a rough transcript was a necessary cost. Plaintiffs argue that opening statements did not begin until two weeks later and Roth’s testimony was not until over a month later, and point out that no other party sought recovery of this cost. Since this rush request was for the convenience of counsel, the court will tax this cost. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their objection to the $751.55 spent on a deposition transcript for Tucker’s expert witness. Savino claimed court reporter fees of $16,129.18, and plaintiffs move to tax $8,122.96 of them. In its opposition, Savino lowers its request to $8,560.96, $6,798.00 for per diem appearance fees and $1,762.96 for Realtime software access. Plaintiffs object to the cost for using Realtime technology at trial. However, the court concludes that for attorneys to have access to Realtime technology at a lengthy jury trial with a lot of money at stake is common, and is reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Thus, its cost is allowable. Total taxed court reporter costs are therefore $7,568.22.
Plaintiffs contest $1,582.00 in CourtCall fees for remote appearances. However, the court in LandWatch San Luis Obispo County v. Cambria Community Services Dist. (2018) 25 Cal. App. 5th 638, 646, affirmed the trial court’s award of CourtCall fees for telephonic appearances because they were reasonably necessary for the conduct of litigation. This court agrees that CourtCall fees were reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs next challenge all $10,808.06 in travel costs claimed by Savino. While travel costs for depositions fall under the statute, travel costs for trial and other court appearances do not. This court concludes that while for Savino to hire out-of-county counsel is fine, it is not “reasonably necessary”, but rather “convenient or beneficial”. Thus, the costs of counsel staying at a hotel while attending trial will not be recoverable. Since even local counsel must pay for parking at the courthouse, this court will allow the $330 in parking charges that are isolated in Savino’s Memorandum of Costs on pp. 9-10. Thus, this court taxes $10,478.06 of Savino’s travel costs. Even though mediating this case was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, Savino’s $66.40 mileage and parking expenses for the mediation are not recoverable in the court’s discretion. Of the $1,209.07 for other miscellaneous costs, $384.05 and $254.45 are for transcripts of hearings not ordered by the court, and not recoverable under CCP §1033.5(b)(5). The other three charges are related to records depositions and will be allowed as reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Total taxed other miscellaneous costs are therefore $638.50.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Tax Costs of Defendant Fusion Investment Advisors, is granted in part. The court hereby taxes Fusion’s costs in the amount of $77,390.43. Fusion’s costs are therefore allowed in the amount of $55,004.96 ($132,395.39 from the Memorandum of Costs minus the $77,390.43 taxed).
Plaintiffs’ contention that Fusion’s Memorandum of Costs was untimely lacks merit. The time to file a Memorandum of Costs began not when the court granted Fusion’s nonsuit motion, but when the Judgment in Fusion’s favor was entered. CRC Rule 3.1700(a)(1). Plaintiffs have withdrawn their challenge to Fusion’s deposition costs. Plaintiffs move to tax all of Fusion’s claimed court reporter fees of $42,598.79. The court will allow only the establish per diem fees of $6,798.00 and Realtime software access fees, which appear excessive in the bills, and so the court will allow $1,000 for Fusion’s reduced trial time. Total taxed court reporter costs are therefore $34,800.79. Fusion fails to address the motion as to courier fees, and the court will tax the entirety of these costs in the amount of $1,114.50. Plaintiffs contest $2,162.00 in CourtCall fees for remote appearances. However, the court in LandWatch San Luis Obispo County v. Cambria Community Services Dist. (2018) 25 Cal. App. 5th 638, 646, affirmed the trial court’s award of CourtCall fees for telephonic appearances because they were reasonably necessary for the conduct of litigation. This court agrees that CourtCall fees were reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation.
Plaintiffs next challenge all $41,773.99 in travel costs claimed by Fusion. While travel costs for depositions fall under the statute, travel costs for trial do not. This court concludes that while for Fusion to hire out-of-state counsel is fine, it is not “reasonably necessary”, but rather “convenient or beneficial”. Thus, the costs of counsel staying at a rented house or a hotel while attending trial will not be recoverable. Since even local counsel must pay for parking at the courthouse, this court will allow the $352 in parking charges that are isolated in Fusion’s Memorandum of Costs on pp. 10-11. Thus, this court taxes $41,421.99 of Fusion’s travel costs. Finally, Fusion does not address the miscellaneous costs for “document retrieval”, and so the court will tax the entire $53.15 for these costs.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.