58 THF: SUPREMF COURT OF TEE STATF, OF MONTANA 

MICHAEL McGINLEY, 

P1aj.nt.i ff anc3 Appellant, 

-vsOLE'S COUNTRY STORES, INC., 

Defendant and Respondent.. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Fonorahle Edward McI,ean, Juclge presidi nq. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Christopher Daly, Missoula, Montana 

Bruce Rarrett, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Paul C. Meismer; Gar1 ington, Imhn & Rohi.nson, 

ssoula, Montana 

- ----- ------- 

Suhrnitted on Briefs: Nov. 21, 1989 

Decided: January 30, 1990 

Filed: r? 

i i fl' ,j E .a 
Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of the 

Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, awarding respondent 

costs. Subsequent to a jury trial and verdict in favor of 

respondent on May 8 and 9, 1989, respondent filed a memorandum of 

costs as set forth below: 

Clerk's Fee: 

Appearance Fee $ 40.00 

Judgment Fee 25.00 

Steno Fee 3.00 

$ 68.00 

Witness Fees: 

Laurel Kaysen $ 10.00 

Robert Bj ornstad 10.00 

Mark Olson 10.00 

$ 30.00 

Deposition Expenses: 

Michael McGinley $ 282.00 

William A. Gromko, M.D. 248.00 

$ 530.00 

Exhibits : 

Photographs used as 

Exhibits at trial, 5 

photos at $11.00 each $ 55.00 

$ 55.00 

TOTAL $ 683.00 

Over appellant's objection to certain itemized costs, the 

District Court on June 8, 1989, issued an order awarding respondent 

all costs set forth above. Appellant appeals from that order. We 

reverse. 

Appellant first contends the District Court erred in awarding 

respondent a witness fee for the appearance of Mark Olson who sat 

at counsel table as the defendant during the trial and testified 

as the sole stockholder of respondent corporation. Respondent 
concedes this issue, therefore we need not address the substantive 

matters contained therein and thus reverse the order of the 

District Court. 

Secondly, appellant cites as error respondent's recovery of 

costs for its deposition of him. The prevailing party may properly 

recover the costs of depositions. Section 25-10-201, MCA. 

However, when the purpose of the deposition is merely to assist the 

requesting party in compiling its case, the cost of that deposition 

is not taxable. Semenza v. Leitzke (Mont. 1988), 754 P.2d 509, 

512, 45 St.Rep. 829, 832. The District Court thus erred in the 

instant case in awarding respondent its cost incurred in deposing 

appellant. We reverse. 

Appellant's third specification of error is the lower court's 

award of costs to respondent for pictures taken at the accident 

site. Appellant contends these are not reasonable and necessary 

expenses within the meaning of 5 25-10-201. We agree. In this 

case, the District Court denied respondent's motion requestingthat 

the jury view the premises. The parties instead introduced 

photographic evidence of the site. It is in the discretion of 

district courts to permit jurors to view the physical location 

under consideration. State Highway Commission v. Cooper (1974), 

164 Mont. 272, 277, 521 P.2d 190, 192. Thus photographs of the 

scene are not a llnecessaryw expense within the meaning of the 

statute. We reverse. 

Lastly, appellant contends the District Court erroneously 

compelled it to pay respondent's costs incurred in transcribing Dr. 
Gromko's audio-visual deposition. Rule 30(h), M.R.Civ.P. is 

dispositive of this issue: 

Any party may make at his own expense a 

simultaneous stenographic, audio record or 

tape recording of the deposition. Upon his 

request and at his own expense, any party is 

entitled to an audio-visual or tape recorded 

copy of the deposition. On motion the court, 

for good cause, may order the party taking, or 

who took, a deposition by audio-visual or by 

tape recording to furnish, at his expense, a 

transcript of the deposition. 

Rule 30(h), M.R.Civ.P. 

Although respondent provided transcriptions for use during 

viewing of the audio-visual deposition at trial, such does not rise 

to the level of good cause contemplated by Rule 30(h). Respondent 

obtained the transcription for its own use and convenience and as 

such must bear the cost of the same. We reverse. 

Reversed. 

We concur 

Justice w%