### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON April 21, 201 0 S es sio n ELL A G. ALEXANDER WADE v . FELI CE A. VABNICK, M.D. D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T - 006324- 03 Jam es F . R uss el l , Judge

N o. W 2009- 02273- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M ay 24, 2010

T hi s i s an appe al fr om t he tr i al cour t ’ s aw ar d o f d iscreti onarycos t s . A ppel l ant/ Pl ai nt i ff vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed hercl ai m w i t houtpr ej udi ce pr i ort o t r i al , and A ppel l e e / D efe ndantfi l ed a mot i on fordi s cr et i onarycos t s , w h ich m o t i on t he tr i al cour tgr ant ed. Fi ndi ng t hat A ppel l ee/ D efe ndant di d notm eetherbur den of pr oof, and thatt he tr i al abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng cert ai n di s cr et i onar ycos t s t hatar e not cont empl at ed byT enn. R
. C i v. P. 54. 04, w e m o d ifythe a w ard t o r efl ecta t ot al di s cr et iona r yfee aw ar d of $3, 851. 15. A ffi r m ed as m odi fi ed her ei n. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; J u d g m e n t o f th e C irc u it C o u r t A ffir m e d in P art and R ever s ed i n P art J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch D AV I D R. F ARMER , J
. , and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J
. , j oi ned. W
. L ew is Jenki ns , J r . , D y er s bur g, T ennes s ee, and W endel l L
. H os ki ns , I I , C arut her s vi l l e, M i s s our i fort he appe l l ant , E l l a G
. A l exande rW ade. W i l l i am D
. D om i co, K ather i ne L
. Fr azi er , J es s i ca M
. H acke t t , M emphi s , T ennes s ee, fort he a p p e lle e , F e lic e A . V a b n ic k

. OP I NI ON A ppel l ant , E l l a G
. A lexa n derW ade ( “M s . W ade” ) , fi l ed thi s m edi cal m al pr act i ce a c t i o n o n No v e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 3
. S h e n a me d F e r n a n d o A. He r r e r a , M
. D. , Ap p e l l e e F e l i c e A. V abni ck, M
. D
. ( “D r . V abni ck”) , J ohn D oe O ne, J ohn D oe Tw o, J ohn D oe Thre e, J ane D oe On e , J a n e Do e Two, J a n e Do e T h r e e , a n d S a i n tF r a n c i s Ho s p i t a l a s d e f e n d a n t s . On D ece m ber2, 2003, M s . W ade fi l ed an amended compl ai nt addi ng A M I SU B ( SFH ) , I N C
. as a d e f e n d a n t.We no te that there is a mathematical error in Dr. Vabnick ’s m otion. Base d on the to tal exp ert fees 1 an d to ta l c ourtr ep orte r fe es req ue st ed , the tot aldis cr et io nary cos ts sou ght

sho ul d b e $3 1, 35 1. 27
. Th is e rr or , how ev er, did n ot affec t the trial court’s findin g s. It also does not a ffect this opinio n. -2- O n A u g u st 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , th e tr ia l c o u rt e n ter e d a n O rd e r o f V o lu n tar yN o n su it as to defe ndantFer nando A

. H er r er a, M
. D
. only

. O n Ju n e 19, 2006, t he tr i al cour tent er ed a C ons entO r derof N ons ui tas t o Sai nt Fr anci s H os pi t al and A M I SU B
. O n A pr i l 1, 2009, an Or d e ro f Vo l u n t a r yNo n s u i t W i t h o u t P r e j u d i c e wa s e n t e r e d , d i s mi s s i n g M s . W a d e ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t D r. V a b n ic k

. D r . V abni ck fi l ed a m ot i on for di s cr et i onarycos t s on A pr i l 8, 2009. I n t hi s m ot i on, s he r eques t ed di s cr et i onar y cos t s i n t he amount of $31, 357. 27. A ccor di ng t o t he mot i on, t he $ 3 1 , 3 5 7
. 2 7 inclu d ed $ 2 6 , 8 1 2
. 4 9 fo r ex p ert fe es an d $ 4 , 5 3 9
. 2 3 fo r co u rt rep o rt er f ee s. D r. 1 V a b n ick ’s a tto rn e yf

iled a n a f

f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f th e re q u e ste d e x p e n se s, w h ich a f f id a v it w a s a tta c h e d to h e r m o tio n . O n Ju ly2 , 2 0 0 9 , M s. W ad e f il ed a re sp o n se to D r. V ab n ick’s m o ti o n fo r discre ti o n ary cos t s . I n herr es pons e, M s . W ade obj ect ed t o t he cos t s r eques t ed and ar gued t hatnone of the exper tw i t nes s fees , and onl ys om e of the courtr epor t erfee s , w er e cove r ed byT ennes s ee R ule of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 54. M s . W ade a l s o r eques t ed thatt he tr i al cour tus e i t s di s cr et i on t o decl i ne an a w ar d of di s cr et i onar ycos t s . I n s uppor tof t hi s r eques t , M s . W ad e not ed t hat t h e c a s e h a d b e e n r e - f i l e d i n Uni t e d St a t e s Fe d e r a l Cou r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n Di s t r i ct of T ennes s ee, and s peci fi cal l yt hatt he part i es had sti pul at ed t o t he us e of the depos i t i ons o b ta in e d in th e s ta te p ro c e e d in g in th e f e d e ra l p ro c e e d in g . O n A ugus t3, 2009, D r . V abni ck’ s couns el fi l ed a s uppl ement al aff i davi t , i n w hi ch s he s t at ed thats he had r ece nt l yr ece i ved anotheri nvoi ce f r om an expert for $1, 009. 70. C ouns el st at ed that$5 50 of t he i nv oice w as f or tr i al w ork, and t he rem ai ning $4 59
. 70 w as for the co st of a non- r efunda bl e ai rpl ane t i ckett o at t end the t r i al

. B as ed on thi s i nvoi ce, D r . V abni ck request ed thatt he t ri al cou rt i nclude $55 0 of this i nv oice i n it s aw ard of d i scr et i on arycost s, m a k in g th e to ta l d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts re q u e s te d $ 3 1 ,9 0 1 .7 2
. M s . W ade f

i l ed a s uppl ement al r es pons e t o D r . V abni ck’ s m ot i on on J ul y28, 2009. In th is re sp o n se , M s. W a d e a sk e d th a t th e trial c o u rt d e n yth e m o tio n f o r d isc re tio n a ryc o sts as D r . V abni ck had f

i l ed a mot i on for t axat i on of cos t s and t o s t ay t he pr ocee di ngs pur s uant to F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 4 1 (d ) in th e f e d e ra l ac tio n . M s. W a d e n o ted th a t th is m o tio n h a d b e e n w ith d ra w n , b u t ar g u e d th a t th e trial c o u rt s h o u ld c o n sid e r th is a c tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n f

o r d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts
. A ft er a heari ng , t he tr i al cou rtgrant ed D r. V abn i ck’s m oti on for dis cret i on arycost s,-3-

aw ar di ng hert he t ot al amount of di s cr et i on ary cos t s r eques t ed ( $31, 901. 72)

. A s s t at ed by t he tr i al cour ti n i t s or der , t he courts peci fi cal l yfound:

[T]ha tD r . V abni ck i s ent i t l ed t o rec o verfr om [M s . W ade] r eas onabl e and nece s s ary expens es i ncurr ed i n t he l i t i gat i on of t hi s caus e i n t he amount of $31, 901. 72 , i ncl udi ng cos t s r el at ed t o expert w it n esses i n t he amount of $27, 362. 49 a s o u tli n e d in [D r. V abn i ck’s] i t em i zed an d v e rifi ed b i l l of co st s and co st [s] r el at ed t o cour tr epor t erfee s i n t he amount of $4, 53 9. 23 as ou t l i ned i n [D r. V abn i ck’s] i t em i zed an d v eri fi ed b i l l of co st s. (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)

. I n it s r u lin g , the trial c o u rt sp e c if ica llysta ted th a t itf

o u n d a ll ex p en ses re q u ested in th e a f f id av itto b e a ll o w ab le un d er T en n . R
. C iv. P. 54

. 0 4
. F u rt h er, t he tr i al cour tnot ed thatt he nons ui tw as t aken on A pr i l 1, 2009, one m ont h befor e the tr i al w as s chedul ed t o begi n. T he t r i al cour t s t at ed on t he r ecor d t hatM s . W ade de ci ded t o t ake a vol unt arynons ui ti n t he mi ddl e of a pr etr i al hear i ng, aft ert he tr i al cour thad made s ever al rul i ng s that w ere not i n M s. W ade’s favor. T he tr i al cou rtrecogn i zed thatt here w as a s t i pul at i on i n t he fe der al cour tt o al l ow t he use of t he deposi t i ons fr om t he s t at e ac t i on, but s t at ed thatt he s t i pul at i on di d nots peci fyw hi ch depos i t i ons w oul d be us ed i n t he fe der al cas e, a n d d id n o t in d ica te w h e th e r a n y d e p o sitio n s w o u ld b e re tak e n . T h e trial c o u rt f o u n d th a t it had j ur i s di ct i on t o aw ar d di s cr et i onarycos t s des pi t e th e fa ct th at t he ca s e had be en r efi l ed i n fede r al cour t
. A n O r derr efl ect i ng t hes e fi ndi ngs w as ent er ed on O ct ober13, 2009. M s. W ad e f

il ed a n o ti ce o f ap p ea l o n N o v em b er 2, 2 0 0 9 , ap p ea li n g the tri al co u rt ’s aw ar d of di s cr et i onar ycos t s t o D r . V abni ck. M s . W ade r ai s es t he fol l ow i ng i s s ues forour revi ew , w hich w e res t at e as foll ow s: 1. W het hert he tr i al cour terr ed i n t he amount of di s cr et i onarycos t s aw ar ded by inclu d ing g en era l or p rep ar a tio n c h arg es b yex p ert w itn esse s an d ch arg es f o r co u rt report ers for pret ri al heari ng s? 2. W hethert he tr i al cou rtm ayi nclude, i n an aw ard of d i scr et i on ary cost s, exp ertw i t ness f e e s th a t a re n o t s h o w n to in v o lv e d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yto b e u se d a t trial, av a ilab ili ty f o rt r i a l o rt r i a l t e s t i m o n y? 3. W het hera tr i al cour t m ay i ncl ude, i n an aw ar d of di s cr et i onarycos t s , cour tr epor t er fees for pret ri al heari ng s? 4
. W h ethe r t h e tri al co u rterred in aw ard ing d iscreti o n aryco sts i n this m att er f o r co u rt report er fees i n an yam ou nt, i ncludi ng t ho se r el at ed to dep osi t i on s?There is n ot an issue on app eal as to which party

is the “p rev ailingparty ,” nor an iss ue a s to whe ther 2 the fee s w ere “rea sonab le and nec essary .” -4- P u rsua n t to R u le 5 4
. 0 4 (2) of the T en n esse e R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, th e tri al co u rt m a ya w a rd d isc re tio n a ryc o sts to th e p re v a ili n g p a rty . R u le 5 4 .0 4 p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

(2) C o sts no t inc lud ed in the b il l of co sts prep are d b ythe c lerk a re a llo w a b le o n ly in th e c o u rt' s d isc re tio n . D isc re tio n a ryc o sts a llo w a b le a re : r eas onabl e and nec es s ar y cour tr epor t er expen ses f

or dep osi t i on s or tri als , rea so n a b l e an d n ecessary expe r tw i tnes s f

ees f ordeposi ti ons (

ors t i pul at ed r epor t

s ) and fo r tr ia ls , r eas onabl e and ne ces s aryi nt erpr et erfee s for depos i t i ons ort r i al s , and guar di an ad l i t em fe es ; t r avel expens es a re n o t a llo w a b le d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts
. ( emphasi s added)

. T he part ys eeki ng an aw ar d of di s cr et i onary co sts be ar s t he bur den of d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t it is e n title d to s u c h a n a w a rd

. Car penterv. K

eppler , 205 S. W
. 3d 474, 489 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2006)

. T hi s C our t r evi ew s any s uch aw ar d underan abus e of di s cr et i on s ta n d a rd

. I

d . A tr ial co u rtab u ses its discreti o n w h en itap p li es a n inco rrect l eg al st an d ard orhas r eac hed a de ci s i on w hi ch i s agai ns t l ogi c orr eas oni ng t hatcaus ed an i nj us t i ce t o t he p a rt yc o m p la in in g . E ldr i dge v. E ldr i dge , 4 2 S
. W
. 3 d 8 2 , 8 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ). O n appea l , t he p a rty c h a l l eng i ng t he aw ard has the burden of show i ng t hat t he tri al cou rt abu sed its d is c re tio n . Car

penter , 2 0 5 S .W .3 d a t 4 8 9
. I n det er m i ni ng w hethert o aw ar d di s cr et i onarycos t s , t he tr i al cour ts houl d: ( 1) det er m i ne w hether the part yr eques t i ng t he cos t s i s t he ‘p re v a ili n g p a rty ,’ ( 2 ) lim it aw a rd s to th e c o sts sp e c if ica lly id e n tifie d in th e ru le, (3 ) d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re q u e ste d c o sts ar e nec es s aryand r eas onab le and ( 4) det er m i ne w hethert he pr evai l i ng par t yhas engage d i n conduct dur i ng t he l i t i gat i on t hat w ar r ant s depr i vi ng i t of t he di s cr et i onary cos t s t o w hi ch i tm i ght o th e rw is e b e e n title d

. Mas s . Mut ual

L i f e I ns. C o. v. Jef

f ers on , 1 0 4 S
. W
. 3 d 1 3 , 3 5 -36 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l r ev iew the a w ard in tha t ord er. 2 C os t s A l l ow ed by R ul e 54. 04-5-

M s . W ade c ont ends t hatt he tr i al cour t erred i n aw ar di ng D r . V abni ck al l of t he r eques t ed cost s as s om e of the courtr epor t erfee s , and al l of t he expe r tfee s , ar e notal l ow ed b yR u le 5 4 .0 4 . W e w ill r e v ie w th e s e s e p a ra te ly. C our tR epor t erFees T h e trial c o u rt a w a rd e d D r. V a b n ick $ 4 ,5 3 9 .2 3 f o r c o u rt re p o rte r f

e e s. A c c o rd in g to couns el ’ s aff

i davi t , $688. 08 of t hi s amount w as for cour t r epor t er fee s r es ul t i ng fr om pr etr i al h ea ri n g s h eld o n issue s related to d ep o sit ion s. R u le 54

. 0 4 all o w s the aw ard o f d iscreti o n ary cos t s for“r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar ycour tr epor t erexpens es fordepos i t i ons or t r i al s . ” The rul e do es not perm i tt he recov eryo f c o u rt r epo rt er fees as soci at ed w i t h p retri al heari ng s. D u r a n v . H

y u n da i Mo to rA m e r ic a , I n c ., 2 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 1 7 8 , 2 1 6 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). D r. V abni ck ar gues t hat , beca us e t he pre t r i al hear i ngs w er e on i s s ues r el at ed t o t he t aki ng of a depos i t i on, s he i s ent i t l ed t o r ecove r t hes e expens es . W e have not been pr ovi ded, norhave w e f o u n d , a n y a u th o rity p ro v id in g f o r su c h a n e x ten sio n o f R u le 5 4 .0 4 . C o n se q u e n tly , this C o u rtfin d s tha t th e tri al co u rterred in aw ard ing D r. V ab n ick d iscreti o n ary co sts fo r t h e c o u rt r epor t erexpens es i ncurr ed for pr etr i al hear i ngs . A ccor di ngl y , t he amount aw ar ded s hal l be re d u c e d b y$ 6 8 8 .0 8
. E xper tFees M s . W ade a l s o su b m it s tha tt he expe r tfee s al l ow ed byt he tr i al cour tw er e not r ecove r abl e underR ul e 54. 04. A s s et for t h i n couns el ’ s aff i davi t , t he fe es r eques t ed w er e as foll ow s: D at e D e s c r i pt i on A m ount Bi l l e d A m ount Pai d/ T o b e P a id 1/ 26/ 2009 E xper tW i t nes s Fees of D r . H us ani

D w eik; $ 3 5 0 /ho u r fo r 44
. 5 h o u rs $15, 662. 50 $15, 662. 50
10/ 6/ 2008 E xper tW i t nes s Fees forD r . K aut en;

$ 5 0 0 /ho u r fo r 6.3 h o u rs $3, 249. 99 $3, 249. 99 12/ 23/ 2006 E xper tW i t nes s Fees forD r . K aut en;

$ 5 0 0 /ho u r fo r 13 h o u rs $6, 500. 00 $6, 500. 00

9/ 28/ 2005 N on- t es t i fy i ng C ons ul t ant

C ar di ovas cul arSur geon; $350/ hour fo r 4 h o u rs $1, 400. 00 $1, 400. 00At the ti m e of Lock R ule 5 4.0 4provided: 3 (1 ) E xc ep t whe n expr es s pr ovis io n th er ef or is mad e ei th er

in as tatute o r in these rules, costs shall b e allow ed a s of course to the prev ailingparty un less the co urt oth erwise directs.. .; (2 ) Ap arty

who d es ir es to r ec ov er

d is cret ion ar

y c os ts o r any

r ec ov er ab le co st s no t i nc lu de d in th e bi llo f co st s pr ep ar ed b y th e cl erk o f th e tr ia l c ourt shall mov e the court to ass ess discretionary cost s a nd attach thereto an it emiz ed and v erif ie d bi ll of co st s. The af

fi dav its ha llb e m ad e by

th e party or his duly authoriz ed attorney or ag ent hav ing k now ledg e of the f

a c ts, certify ingth a tsuc h item s of costs are ac curate and were reasona ble an d necessary to preparatio n and trial of the case and that the serv ices fo r which such fees h av e been charg ed were actually perform ed. T he m otion shall b e filed as a po st- trial motion pursuant to Rule 59 .01
. Lock , 8 09 S.W. 2d at 48 9. -6-

T ot al E xper tW i t nes s Fees $26, 812. 49 $26, 812. 49 A l s o, on A ugus t3, 2009, couns el s uppl ement ed heraff i davi t t o i ncl ude an i nvoi ce r ece i ved fr om D r . J ames K aut en i n t he amount of $1, 009. 70, w hich am ounti ncl uded $550 fort r i al w or k and $459. 70 fora non- r efunda b le pl ane t i cketpur chas ed t o at t end tr i al

. B as ed upon th e a d d iti o n a l in v o ice , D r. V a b n ick re q u e ste d th a t sh e a lso b e a w a rd e d $ 5 5 0 in a d d iti o n to t he amount pr evi ous l yr eques t ed. T he tr i al cour t aw ar ded di s cr et i onary cos t s for al l of t he e x p e rt f e e s re q u e s te d

. O urSupr eme C our tand t hi s C our thave r evi ew ed R ul e 54. 04 and di s cussed w hi ch ex p e rt f e e s are r ecov erabl e un der t he rul e nu m erous t i m es. T he di s cus s i on on expertfee s al l ow abl e as d iscr et i onarycos t s began i n Loc k v. N ati ona l Fi r e I ns . Co. O

f Pi tt s bur gh, P e n n ., 809 S. W
. 2d 483 (Tenn. 1991)

. I n L ock , the A p p ell an t app ea led th e tri al co u rt ’s 3 g ran t of di s cr et i onar ycos t s forcour tr epor t erfee s fordepos i t i ons and tr i al , and expert w itn e s s f

e e s f o r a p p e a ra n c e s a t d e p o s itio n s . I d . at 48 9
. In a ff

irm in g th e tri al co u rt ’s deci s i on, ourSupr eme C our tdi s cus s ed the hi s t or yand r eas oni ng behi nd R ul e 54. 04, not i ng t hat t he i ntent beh i nd t he ad op t i on of R ule 54. 04 , w as “t hat r easona ble and n ecessarycost s, i n t he pr epar at i on and t r i al of a c as e coul d be as s es s ed as di s cr et i onaryco sts b yt he tr i al cour t
. ” I d . a t 4 9 0
. In 199 3, R ule 54. 04 w as am end ed. A ccordi ng t o t he adv i sorycom m i ssi on com m ents , R ul e 54. 04 w as amended t o m ake i tcons i s t ent w i t h t he L ockdeci s i on and t o “def i ne[] di s cr et i onar ycos t s , pr ovi de[] fora t i m el ym ot i on, and make[] cl eart h at a not i ce of appea l w ill n o t d e p ri v e th e tr ia l c o u rt o f ju ri s d ic tio n to e n te rt a in a m o tio n f o r d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts .”Rule 54 .04 has also been am ended to prov ide that interpreter fees for deposition s an d trial m ay be 4 award ed a s disc retionary

cos ts. -7- U n d er the 1 9 9 3 am en d m en t, d iscreti o n ary co sts w ere d ef ined as: “rea so n ab le an d n ec essa ry cou rtreport er expen ses for deposi t i on s or tri al s, reas on able and n e c essaryexp ertw i t ness f e e s f o r d e p o sitio n s o r tria ls, a n d g u a rd ian a d lit e m f e e s; tra v e l e x p e n se s a re n o t allo w a b le d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts .” T h e ru le h a s n e v e r b e e n a m e n d e d to p ro v id e f o r f e e s as so c iate d w ith 4 tr ia l p re p a ra tio n . O u r S u p re m e C o u rt re v iew e d th e a m e n d m e n t an d its a p p lica tio n to e x p e rt f e e s in Miles v. Mars hall C

. Voss Heal

th C ar e Center , 896 S. W
. 2d 773 ( T enn. 1995)

. I n Miles , t he tr ial co u rtasse ssed d iscreti o n aryco sts ag ains t th e d ef en d an t- em p loy er in a w o rke r’s compensa t i on cas e. Speci fi cal l yati s s ue w er e cha r ges i ncurr ed bya voca t i onal r e h a b i l i t at i on e x p e rt i n e x a m i n i n g t h e in ju re d e m p lo y e e a n d in te s tif y in g a t tr ia l. Id
. at776. T he Miles cour tdi s cus s ed the hi s t or ybehi nd R ul e 54. 04, i ncl udi ng i t s deci s i on i n L ockand the 1993 a m e n d m e n t. I

d . T he cour t r ei t er at ed i t s i nt entbehi nd R ul e 54. 04 as s t at ed i n L o c k e, and h e ld th a t th e e x p e rt w a s n e c e s s a ry a n d th a t h is f e e s f o r t e s tif y in g w e re re c o v e ra b le

. I d . “H o w ev er, [ R u le 5 4 .0 4 ] sp e c if

ica llyli m it s d isc re tio n a ryc o sts w ith re g a rd to e x p e rt w itn e ss e s to th e ir fee s fort es t i fy i ng. ” I

d . B as ed on thi s expl i ci thol di ng, t he Supr eme C our tfound t hatt he t r i al cour tcoul d notaw ar d di s cr et i onar ycos t s forfee s as s es s ed fo r e xami ni ng t he empl oy ee or re v ie w in g m e d ic a l p ro o f p ri o r t o tr ia l. I

d . O u r S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o t ad d re ss e d th e iss u e o f d isc re tio n a ryc o sts a s th e yre late t o expertfee s s i nce Miles . H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt h a s d isc u ss e d th e iss u e m u lti p le tim e s. T h is C our thas cons i s t ent l yhel d t hat e xper tfee s i ncurr ed forw or k, ot hert han t es t i fy i ng at d e p o s itio n s o r tr ia ls , a re n o t r e c o v e ra b le a s a d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts
. D uran v. H yundaiMotor A m er i ca, I

nc. , 2 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 1 7 8 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 )(pe rm . ap p . d en ied A u g . 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ); T run dle v. P ark , 2 1 0 S
. W
. 3 d 5 7 5 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 )(pe rm . ap p . d en ied D ec . 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 ); W ag go n er Motors, Inc. v. W averl y Ch u rch o

f Ch rist , 159 S. W
. 3d 42 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2 0 0 5 )(p e rm . a p p . d e n ied F e b . 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ); Mas s . Mut ual L i f e I ns. Co. v. Jef

f ers on , 104 S. W
. 3d 13 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2002) ( per m . app. deni ed Sept
. 2, 2003) ; and Shah darv. G lobal Hous ing , 9 8 3 S
. W. 2 d 2 3 0 ( T e n n . Ct
. Ap p . 1 9 9 8 ) ( p e r m. a p p . d e n i e d Oc t
. 1 9 , 1 9 9 8 )

. As st at ed b yt hen Judg e, no w Just ice K o c h , “prevai l i ng part i es cann ot r ecov er expertw i t ness fee s forpr epar i ng fordepos i t i ons or t r i al , no m at t er how r eas onabl e and nec es s aryt hes e fe es ar e. ” Ma s s . Mu tu a l L if e I n s . Co ., 104 S. W
. 3d at38 ( ci t i ng Mile s, 896 S
. W
. 2d at 7 7 6 )(cit ati o n s o m itted). P arti es m ay , h o w ev er, r ec o v er f ee s ass o ciated w ith h av ing an ex p ert a v a ila b le to te s tif

y . Stal s wor th v . G r um m ons , 36 S. W
. 3 d 8 3 2 (T en n. C t
. A pp. 2000) ( al l ow i ng t he aw ar d of a f ee c har ged by an expert t o be ava i l abl e t o t es t i fydur i ng t r i al a f te r p la in tif

f to o k a n o n s u it a f

te r t h e tr ia l b e g a n ).-8-

D r . V abni ck has pr ovi ded t hi s C our t w i t h one unr epor t ed ca s e thathol ds ot her w i s e, A sh e v . McD o n a ld , N o . E 2 0 0 0 -0 3 1 5 1 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 2 W L 59 73 15 (Ten n. C t
. A pp . A pril 18 , 20 02 )( no . perm . app . fi l ed). L i kew i se, t his C ou rt has been unab l e t o find an yothercases, r epor t ed ornot , t hats uppor tD r . V ab ni ck’ s pos i t i on. I n Ashe , t he tr i al cour taw ar ded d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts in p a rt f o r t ri a l p re p a ra tio n d o n e b yth e p la in tif f ’s e x p e rt s . I

d . at * 6
. In fi ndi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng t hes e cos t s , t he Ashe co u rt r el i ed onl y on t he S ta lsw o rth deci s i on and i t s di s cus s i on of t he L ockcas e. W hi l e Ashe does quot e L ock and t he i nt ent , as s t at ed byt he Supr eme C our t , behi nd R u le 5 4
. 0 4 , i tdoes not m en ti o n that the am en d m en ts m ad e to R u le 54

. 0 4 af ter L ock, d id n o t pro v ide f o r t h e re co v ery o f p re p ara ti o n w o rk . M o re o v e r, Ashe d o e s n o t m e n tio n th a t Stal s wor th a l l o wed for t he r ecove r yof a fee as s oci at ed w i t h havi ng an expertavai l abl e t o t es t i fyatt r i al , and notforfee s as s oci at ed w i t h t r i al pr epar at i on. C ons equent l y , t hi s C our tdecl i nes t o hol d contr ary t o our S u p re m e C o u r t’ s e x p re ss d e ter m in a tio n th a t R u le 5 4 .0 4 “ lim its d isc re tio n a ryc o sts w ith r egar d t o expertw i t nes s es to thei rfee s fort es t i fy i ng. ” Mile s, 8 9 6 S .W .2 d a t 7 7 6 . T h is is especi al l yso i n li gh tof the nu m erous r epo rt ed o pini on s of t his C o u rt. A s s t at ed, t he pr evai l i ng par t yr eques t i ng di s cr et i onarycos t s has t he bur d en of d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h e o r sh e is e n title d to th e s e c o s ts
. W ag g o n e rMo to rs, I

n c, 159 S. W
. 3d at65( ci t i ng S ta lsw o rth , 36 S. W
. 3d at 835)

. A par t y m aycarr yt hi s bur den bydemonst r at i ng: ( 1) t hathe ors he i s t he pre vai l i ng par t y , ( 2) t hat t he cost s s oughtar e i ncl uded i n R ul e 54. 04, ( 3) t hatt he cos t s s ought ar e neces s ary and r eas onabl e, and ( 4) t hathe ors he has notengage d in c o n d u c t th a t w o u ld ju s tif y d e n y in g th e c o s ts re q u e s te d

. I d . ( ci t i ng Mass. Mu t

. L i fe I n s. Co. , 1 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 3 5 -3 6 ). A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd , this C o u rt f in d s th a t D r. V a b n ick d id n o t c a rr yh e r b u rd e n . B as ed upon t he re cor d befor e us, D r . V abni ck di d not demonst r at e t hat t he expe r tfee s s oughtw er e al l ow abl e di s cr et i onar ycos t s underR ul e 54. 04. T h e m ajori t yof t he cha r ges l i s t ed s i m pl ys t at e, “expe r tfee s . ” A s quot ed above, t he af fi davi ti n s uppor tof t he mot i on for di s cr et i onar ycos t s does noti ndi cat e for w hat t ype of w or k t he “expe r t fee s ” w er e i ncurr ed. B a se d u p o n th e m o tio n a n d th e s u p p o r ti n g a f f id a v it, it i s im p o ss ib le f o r th is C o u rt to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c h a rg e s in c u rre d w e re f o r d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , w h ich c h a rg e s w o u ld be al l ow ed underR ul e 54. 04, orw hethert hes e fe es w er e for r evi ew of m edi cal r ecor ds , or o th e r p re p a ra tio n f

o r d e p o sitio n s o r f

o r tria l, w h ich f

e e w o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d u n d e r R u le 54. 04. M or eover , at t he hear i ng on t he m ot i on, couns el forD r . V abni ck expl ai ned t o t he tr i al c o u rt th a t so m e o f

th e e x p e rt f

e e s w e re c h a rg e s p a id to re tain e x p e rts to a ss ist c o u n se l w ith pr epar at i ons for depos i t i ons or t r i al – cl ear l y cos t s not cont empl at ed undert he rul e. O ne fe e req u ested is ev en li sted o n the a ff idav it as be ing fo r a “ n o n -t esti fy ing co n su lt an t. ” A n ex p ert f e e f o r a n o n -t e s tif

y in g c o n s u ltin g e x p e rt is c le a rl y n o t co v e re d b y R u le 5 4 .0 4
. Mile s, 896 S. W
. 2d at776 . T he fe es r eques t ed byt he s uppl ement al aff i davi tar e fee s fort r avel expens es and “tr i al w or k. ” The suppl ement al aff i davi tfai l s t o demonst r at e w hat is m eantby“tr i alDr. Vabnick requested $4,5 39. 23 for court reporter fees. As prev iously discussed, $688.0 8 of the 5 fees w ere fees for pretrial h earing s an d w ere, therefore, no t allow ed b y R ule 5 4.0 4. -9- w o r k

. ” N o t r i a l o c c u r r e d i n t h i s m a t t e r ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e f

e e c a n n o tb e f

o rt r i a l t e s t i m o n y. Fur t her , t he af

fi davi ti n no w ayi ndi cat es t hat t he fee char ged i s foravai l abi l i t ydur i ng a t r i al as w as t he ca s e i n S ta lsw o rth
. Stal s wor th v . G r um m ons , 36 S. W
. 3d 832 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2000)

. B ec au se D r. V ab n ick f ail ed to d em o n str ate tha t th e e x p ert fee s req u ested w ere al l ow abl e underR ul e 54. 04, s he fa i l ed t o demonst r at e thats he w as ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d of d isc re tio n a ryc o sts f

o r th e se c h a r g e s. T h e re f o re , the trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in a w a rd in g D r. V a b n ic k $ 2 7 ,3 6 2 .4 9 in d is c re tio n a ry c o s ts f o r e x p e rt f

e e s . See W

aggoner Mo to rs, I

n c, 159 S. W
. 3d at65. A cc o rdin g ly , the tri al co u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g d iscreti o n ary c o s ts s h a ll b e re d u c e d b y$ 2 7 ,3 6 2 .4 9
. See id . D iscre ti o n to A w a rd C o sts Fi nal l y , M s . W ade submi t s t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng al l of t he cour tr epor t erfee s for d eposi t i ons , as al l ow ed byR ul e 54. 04. D r . V abni ck r eques t ed $3, 851. 15 forcour tr epor t erfee s fo r d ep o sit i ons . T he tr i al cour taw ar ded hert he t ot al 5 amount r eques t ed. M s . W ade s ubm i t s t hat , i n s o doi ng, t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on beca us e the ca s e has been r e- fi l ed i n fede r al cour t , w her e t he par t i es have st i pul at ed t o t he u s e o f th e d e p o s itio n s o b ta in e d in th e s ta te a c tio n in th e f e d e ra l a c tio n . W e have re vi ew ed t he re cor d and fi nd t hat t he t r i al cour t di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ardi ng D r. V abn i ck dis cret i on ary cost s fo r cou rt report er fees i ncu rr ed fo r deposi t i on s. Fr om t he r ecor d, i ti s cl eart hat the tr ia l cour tt hor oughl ycons i der ed the s i tuat i on of t he p a rties a n d th e e q u iti e s b e tw e e n th e m . T h e c o u rt m a d e sp e c if ic f in d in g s o n th e re c o rd to r efl ecti t s r eas oni ng. T he t r i al cour t s t at ed t hat i t w as aw ar e thatt he ca s e had be en r e- fi l ed an d that the p arti es h ad sti p u lat ed to the u se o f th e d ep o sit ion s. H o w ev er, th e tri al co u rt co ns i der ed the fa ctt hatM s . W ade de ci ded t o vol unt ar i l ynons ui thercl ai m dur i ng pr etr i al hear i ngs hel d one mont h pr i or t o t r i al , aft er t he t r i al cour tm ade s ever al rul i ngs t hatw er e not i n herfavor

. Fur t her , t he t r i al cour t not ed t hat , w hi l e t he par t i es s t i pul at ed t o t he us e of the depos i t i ons i n t he fe der al act i on, t he s t i pul at i on w as notcl ear as t o w hi ch of the depos i t i ons w er e i ncl uded orw hi ch depos i t i ons w oul d need t o be r edone. I n l i ghtof t hes e fa ct or s , t he trial c o u rt s ta te d th a t itw a s n o t p e rsu a d e d b yM s. W a d e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t itsh o u ld u se its di s cr et i on and notaw ar d t hes e cos t s . T hi s C our ti s cogni zantt hatt he part i es s t i pul at ed t o t he us e of a l l of t he depos i t i ons t aken i n t hi s act i on, i n t he fe der al act i on. H ow ever , as t he t r i al c o u rt n o ted , th e re is so m e c o n c e rn a n d th e re a p p e a rs to b e so m e d isp u te in th e re c o rd a s to w h ich d e p o sitio n s th e p a rties w ill b e a b le to u se in th e f e d e ra l ac tio n a n d w h ich w ill n e e d to be re

- t aken. M or eover , t hi s C our t i s aw ar e of t he t i m i ng of M s . W ade’ s deci s i on t o t ake a v o l u n t a r y n o n s u i t , a n d h e r d e c i s i o n t o r e - f i l e h e rc o m p l a i n ti n f

e d e r a l c o u r t
. A c c o r d i n g l y,-10-

th is C o u rtd o es n o t fi n d that the tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in aw ard ing d iscreti o n ary c o s ts f o r c o u rt re p o rt e rs f

e e s in c u rr e d f

o r d e p o s itio n s . C oncl usi on H avi ng det er m i ned t hatt he tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng t he amount of $688. 08 for cour tr epor t erfee s i ncurr ed forpr etr i al hear i ngs , and i n aw ar di ng $27, 362. 49 forexpertfee s , w e modi fyt he court ’ s or dert o r efl ecta t ot al di s cr et i onaryfee aw ar d of $ 3 ,8 5 1 .1 5 f

o r co u rt re p o rte r fe e s inc u rre d f o r de p o sitio n s. C o sts o f th is ap p e a l a re tax e d to th e A p p e lle e , F e lic e A . V a b n ic k , M .D ., f o r w h ic h e x e c u tio n m a yis s u e if n e c e s s a ry.

_________________________________ J
. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE