[Cite as Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm., 2017-Ohio-7524.]

 

{¶1} On May 9, 2017, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s 

August 12, 2016 decision and judgment for Plaintiff. On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest. Defendant filed a 

memorandum contra on June 13, 2017. On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

leave to file a reply, and on July 11, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

reply. Plaintiff did not file a response. 

{¶2} With regard to the motion to strike, Defendant argues that Plaintiff had the 

opportunity to present everything it should have in its original motion because the law 

and facts have not changed since the date Plaintiff filed the motion. Defendant also 

argues that Plaintiff has not complied with L.C.C.R. 4(C), which allows for reply briefs 

upon a showing of necessity. Upon review of Plaintiff’s reply, it appears that the 

purpose of the reply was to directly address what Plaintiff deemed were 

mischaracterizations of the issues by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED. 

{¶3} Addressing the motion for costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment 

interest, the Court finds the following: 

WOOD ELECTRIC, INC. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 

COMMISSION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2014-00987 

Judge Dale A. Crawford 

JUDGMENT ENTRY
Case No. 2014-00987 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

I. Costs 

{¶4} Plaintiff seeks $11,942.50 for the filing fee, trial transcript, deposition 

transcripts, and trial exhibits. Defendant does not dispute the cost of the filing fee or the 

trial transcript. Indeed, R.C. 2746.01(G) states that “[p]rocurement of a transcript of a 

judgment or proceeding or exemplification of a record in an appeal or other civil action” 

shall be taxed as costs, and R.C. 2303.21 states that “[w]hen it is necessary in an 

appeal, or other civil action to procure a transcript of a judgment or proceeding * * * [the 

transcript] shall be taxed in the bill of costs and recovered as in other cases.” 

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to $2,871.30 for the cost of the trial transcripts in addition 

to $25.00 for the filing fee. 

{¶5} Concerning the deposition transcripts and trial exhibit costs, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio has held that costs do not include fees that are not statutorily authorized. 

State ex rel. Toth v. Industrial Comm’n, 80 Ohio St.3d 360, 363, 686 N.E.2d 514 (1997). 

Plaintiff argues that 2746.01(G) or R.C. 2303.21 authorize both deposition transcript 

and copying costs. However, photocopying expenses have been expressly rejected as 

costs. Id. Furthermore, “[d]epositions may be taxed as costs if the court determines, in 

its discretion, that the depositions were vital to the litigation. Kennedy v. Univ. of 

Cincinnati Hosp., 72 Ohio Misc.2d 51, 53, 656 N.E.2d 424 (Ct. of Cl.1995), citing Jones 

v. Olcese, 75 Ohio App.3d 34, 598 N.E.2d 853 (11th Dist.1991). “One way to determine 

if the depositions were vital to the litigation is to allow the cost of the deposition if it is 

used at trial as evidence.” Barrett v. Singer Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 7, 396 N.E.2d 218 

(1979). Transcribing and reporting costs for a deposition may not be recoverable as 

costs if the deposition is not introduced as evidence. See Moore v. General Motors 

Corp, Terex Div., 18 Ohio St.3d 259, 261, 480 N.E.2d 1101 (1985). Plaintiff did not 

introduce any of the depositions as evidence at trial. As such, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff is not entitled to the additional $5,028.10 for deposition transcripts or the 

$4,018.10 for exhibit copying. 
Case No. 2014-00987 -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

II. Prejudgment Interest 

{¶6} R.C. 2743.18(A) allows for Plaintiff to receive prejudgment interest “at the 

same rate as allowed between private parties to a suit.” The contract between the 

parties states that interest will be calculated at the applicable statutory rate, which 

Plaintiff asserts is 3% for 2014-2016 and 4% for 2017 based on the Ohio Department of 

Taxation’s Annual Certified Interest Rates. Plaintiff specifically asks for prejudgment 

interest from the date of substantial completion, August 24, 2014, until May 9, 2017, 

when Plaintiff states that the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s 

decision.1 Defendant argues that it is too late for Plaintiff to seek prejudgment interest 

and that the Court did not make a factual determination regarding the substantial 

completion date or the relevant interest rates. However, the Court finds that it did 

determine the substantial completion date in its decision and that the use of the 

applicable statutory rate is clearly contracted between the parties. Therefore, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, but that the calculation should be 

based on this Court’s decision on August 12, 2016, rather than the date of the Tenth 

District Court of Appeals’ decision. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to $15,012.72 in 

prejudgment interest. 

III. Post-Judgment Interest 

{¶7} R.C. 2743.18(B)(2) states that “[i]f the court of claims renders a judgment 

pursuant to this chapter against the state in a civil action * * *, the civil action is not 

based on tortious conduct, and the claimant in the court of claims prevails in any appeal 

of the judgment or determination, post judgment interest shall be paid with respect to 

the judgment or determination rendered against the state at the same rate that is 

applicable to judgments rendered against private parties to a suit as set forth in section 

 1However, as previously stated, the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ decision was rendered on 

May 9, 2017. 
Case No. 2014-00987 -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

1343.03 of the Revised Code and for each day between the date of entry of the 

judgment or determination and the date of payment of the judgment or determination 

pursuant to division (C)(3) or (6) of section 2743.19 of the Revised Code.” Plaintiff 

states that this amount should be $27.92 per day beginning from the date of the Tenth 

District Court of Appeals’ decision. However, as determined above, post-judgment 

interest began to run from the date of this Court’s decision on August 12, 2016. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest in the amount of $20.88 per day 

for 2016 and $27.84 per day for 2017. 

Conclusion 

{¶8} Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for costs, prejudgment interest, 

and post-judgment interest is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff is 

entitled to the judgment of $254,027 plus $2,896.30 in costs, $15,012.72 in prejudgment 

interest, and post-judgment interest calculated in a manner consistent with this entry. 

 DALE A. CRAWFORD 

 Judge 

cc: 

Donald W. Gregory 

Michael J. Madigan 

Capitol Square Office Building 

65 East State Street, Suite 1800 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-4294 

David A. Beals 

William C. Becker 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Filed August 23, 2017 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/8/17