Title: In Re: Amendments To Uniform Guidelines For Taxation Of Costs
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-726
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC96726 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM GUIDELINES FOR  
TAXATION OF COSTS. 
 
 
[November 17, 2005] 
CORRECTED OPINION 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for consideration the report of the Civil Procedure Rules 
Committee recommending revisions to the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for 
Taxation of Costs in Civil Cases.  We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 2(a), Fla. 
Const., and approve the revised guidelines with the modifications discussed below. 
BACKGROUND 
 
In October 1981, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in 
Civil Cases were approved for publication and distribution by administrative order 
issued by the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.  The administrative order 
as well as the full text of the guidelines were set forth in Reeser v. Boats 
Unlimited, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1346, 1349 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).  In September 
 
 
- 2 -
1999, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) submitted to the Court 
proposed revisions to the uniform guidelines.  After publishing the proposals for 
comments and holding oral argument, the Court declined to approve the proposed 
revisions, citing “several serious and overriding concerns.”  See Amendments to 
Unif. Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 794 So. 2d 1247, 1247 (Fla. 2001).   
 
The Court’s primary concern was that the proposed guidelines did not 
adequately reflect the Court’s stated policy of “reducing the impact of costs upon 
parties, with the ultimate aim of decreasing the overall costliness of litigation.”  Id.  
Because expenses that were either not addressed or not taxed as costs under the 
current guidelines were expressly included in the proposed guidelines as items that 
should or may be taxed, the Court noted that the proposals may have actually had 
the effect of  “inordinately expanding the costs incurred by parties and increasing 
the overall costliness of litigation.” Id.   
 
The Court also expressed concern that although the proponents of the initial 
proposed guidelines themselves acknowledged that in some instances they may be 
in conflict with existing case law, the Committee failed to provide adequate 
supportive authority or reasoning for the proposed deviations from current law.  Id. 
at 1248.  As a result, the Court required that “any further proposed changes be 
developed by reference to current statutory and case law . . . [and] that proposed 
deviations from current law be supported by adequate demonstration of an existing 
 
 
- 3 -
injustice that [requires] correction, or by a showing that proposed [g]uidelines 
would improve the ability of trial judges to administer their responsibilities in 
taxing costs.” Id.   
 
Finally, noting that the current guidelines were adopted in 1981 by the 
Florida Conference of Circuit Judges and endorsed by the Board of Governors and 
the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar, the Court expressed a desire for 
“more participation in connection with this potentially contentious and very 
important matter.”  Id. at 1248.  Therefore, the Court asked the Committee to 
procure evaluative comments from a number of entities on (1) perceived problems 
with the guidelines, and (2) whether and how the guidelines should be revised.  
The Rules Committee was asked to file a report of its findings and conclusions, 
along with any proposed revised guidelines.  Id. at 1248-49.   
 
The Committee has now filed its report and proposed guidelines.  By a 
unanimous vote, the Committee recommends replacing the existing guidelines with 
the revised guidelines proposed by its Subcommittee on Revised Uniform 
Guidelines on Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions.  The Board of Governors of The 
Florida Bar also unanimously approved the proposed guidelines.  Additionally, the 
proposed guidelines were published for comment by the Committee before they 
were filed with the Court and published by the Court after they were filed.  Several 
comments were received.  
 
 
- 4 -
 
REVISED GUIDELINES 
 
Upon consideration of the Committee’s report and proposed guidelines and 
public comments thereto; and after hearing oral argument, we approve the 
Committee’s proposals with some important modifications.  First, the Committee’s 
proposed guidelines set forth three categories of costs:  (1) those that “shall be 
taxed”; (2) those that “may be taxed”; and (3) those that “should not be taxed.”  
The guidelines, however, are not intended to be mandatory, and the appropriate 
assessment of costs in any particular proceeding remains within the discretion of 
the trial court.  Accordingly, consistent with the current guidelines, we modify the 
first category to include those costs that “should,” rather than “shall,” be taxed.  
 
Additionally, in order to clarify the intended role of the guidelines and 
provide assistance to trial judges in applying them, we add a preamble to the 
guidelines, entitled “Purpose and Application” and “Burden of Proof,” which 
provides as follows: 
Purpose and Application 
These guidelines are advisory only.  The taxation of costs in any 
particular proceeding is within the broad discretion of the trial court.  
The trial court should exercise that discretion in a manner that is 
consistent with the policy of reducing the overall costs of litigation 
and of keeping such costs as low as justice will permit.  With this goal 
in mind, the trial court should consider and reward utilization of 
innovative technologies by a party which subsequently minimizes 
costs and reduce the award when use of innovative technologies that 
 
 
- 5 -
were not used would have resulted in lowering costs.  In addition, 
these guidelines are not intended to (1) limit the amount of costs 
recoverable under a contract or statute, or (2) prejudice the rights of 
any litigant objecting to an assessment of costs on the basis that the 
assessment is contrary to applicable substantive law.   
Burden of Proof 
Under these guidelines, it is the burden of the moving party to show 
that all requested costs were reasonably necessary either to defend or 
prosecute the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was 
taken.  
According to the report, the Committee attempted to balance the goal of decreasing 
the cost of litigation with the goal of making the prevailing party whole.  
Consistent with the Court’s stated policy, the preamble that we have added to the 
guidelines emphasizes the goal of decreasing the overall cost of litigation.  In 
furtherance of that policy, the Committee recommends and the Court agrees that 
the trial court should reward utilization of innovative technologies by a party 
which minimizes costs and reduce the award when use of innovative technologies 
that were not used would have resulted in lowering costs.1  The revised guidelines 
also are intended to be easier to apply, which should allow attorneys to better 
predict the aggregate costs of litigation and, when incurring costs, to anticipate 
                                          
 
 
1.  For example, the availability of technology that allows documents to be 
scanned and saved to a disk, thereby decreasing copying costs, should be 
considered by the trial court when awarding costs for copies of documents filed 
with the court or obtained in discovery.   
 
 
 
- 6 -
which of those costs likely will have to be paid by their clients.  This increased 
predictability also should result in decreased costs.   
 
 
Next, as recognized in the preamble, the proposed guidelines revise the 
standard utilized by the trial court in reviewing requests for taxation of costs from 
costs that are “reasonable” to costs that are “reasonably necessary.”  According to 
the report, the proposed guidelines would require, in most instances, that the initial 
burden of showing that a requested cost is reasonably necessary is on the moving 
party.  However, with respect to costs for depositions and costs of copies of 
documents obtained in discovery, proposed guidelines I(A)2 and I(B)(2) place the 
burden upon the objecting party to show that the costs were not reasonably 
necessary.  We cannot approve shifting the burden in this manner; therefore, we 
have modified these guidelines so that the burden remains on the moving party.   
We also have modified proposed guideline I(B)(1) allowing costs for copies of 
documents “admitted (in lieu of  ‘actually cited’) with the court, which assist the 
court in reaching a conclusion.”  For clarity’s sake, we have changed the term 
“admitted” to “filed” and have added language to emphasize that the filed 
documents must be “reasonably necessary to assist the court in reaching a 
conclusion.” 
                                          
 
 
2.  We also have changed the references in proposed guideline I(A) to 
“video depositions” and “video conferencing” to “electronic depositions” and 
“electronic conferencing” to account for changes in technology.  
 
 
 
- 7 -
 
In connection with items of costs that shall be taxed, we also have changed 
the reference to “special masters” in proposed guideline I(F) to “special 
magistrates” to conform to chapter 2004-11, sections 54-58, 63-72, 78-84, 86-87, 
93-97, 102, Laws of Florida, which redesignated “special masters” as “special 
magistrates.”  See Amendments to Fla. Rules of App. Pro., 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 
2004) (amending rules of procedure to conform with chapter 2004-11, Laws of 
Florida.) 
 
Next, the proposed guidelines classify reasonable travel expenses of an 
attorney as an item of costs that may be taxed.  We do not approve this 
classification because currently attorney travel expenses generally are not taxable.  
See Miller v. Hayman, 766 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (recognizing that in 
the absence of exceptional circumstances, travel expenses for attorney to attend 
depositions should not be taxed as costs).  Specifically, cost item 3 of the current 
guidelines provides that “[t]ravel expenses of prevailing attorney incurred in 
connection with the taking of depositions out of the City or State” should not be 
taxed.  Although case law cited by the Committee recognizes that there is no 
absolute bar to an award of costs for attorney travel expenses, see Barnes v. City of 
Dunedin, 666 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (noting that, although generally 
taxation of costs for attorney travel expenses incurred is not allowed under 
guidelines, such costs have been allowed if provided for by contract or statute); 
 
 
- 8 -
Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming award 
of attorney’s travel expenses in connection with deposition in light of statute), in the 
interest of promoting this Court’s policy of decreasing overall litigation costs, we 
decline to include such costs in the category of those that “may” be taxed.  Rather, 
we have modified the proposed guidelines to include such costs in the category of 
those that generally “should not” be taxed.  
 
Accordingly, with the modifications discussed above, we approve the 
revised Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions for 
publication and use, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion.  The revised 
guidelines, which will replace the current guidelines, shall become effective 
January 1, 2006, at 12:01 a.m.  We further direct that the guidelines be included as 
an appendix to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and be reviewed periodically 
by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee for future revision as needed.   
 
In conclusion, we wish to express our sincere gratitude for the tremendous 
efforts of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee in spearheading the arduous task of 
revising and improving the cost guidelines.  The Committee’s dedication of time 
and resources in thoroughly examining the guidelines and relevant case law, 
reviewing other state and federal guidelines, and in evaluating the input received 
from a broad spectrum of entities, including the Florida Chapter of the American 
Board of Trial Advocates and the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar, has 
 
 
- 9 -
been an invaluable service to this Court and ultimately, through the product of 
these efforts, to all Floridians. 
 
It is so ordered.   
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs 
 
Adrienne Promoff, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Miami, Florida, 
Robert N. Clarke, Jr., Past-Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tallahassee, 
Florida, Daniel K. Bean of Holland and Knight, Jacksonville, Florida, Keith H. 
Park, West Palm Beach, Florida, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, 
The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Proponent 
 
William E. Hahn of William E. Hahn, P.A., on behalf of The Florida Chapters of 
the American Board of Trial Advocates, Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Opponent 
 
James Whitelaw Middleton of Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida 
 
 
as Pro se Respondent 
 
 
 
 
 
- 10 -
APPENDIX 
 
STATEWIDE UNIFORM GUIDELINES FOR TAXATION OF COSTS IN 
CIVIL ACTIONS 
 
Purpose and Application.  These guidelines are advisory only.  The taxation of 
costs in any particular proceeding is within the broad discretion of the trial court.  
The trial court should exercise that discretion in a manner that is consistent with 
the policy of reducing the overall costs of litigation and of keeping such costs as 
low as justice will permit.  With this goal in mind, the trial court should consider 
and reward utilization of innovative technologies by a party which subsequently 
minimizes costs and reduce the award when use of innovative technologies that 
were not used would have resulted in lowering costs.  In addition, these guidelines 
are not intended to (1) limit the amount of costs recoverable under a contract or 
statute, or (2) prejudice the rights of any litigant objecting to an assessment of costs 
on the basis that the assessment is contrary to applicable substantive law.   
Burden of Proof.  Under these guidelines, it is the burden of the moving party to 
show that all requested costs were reasonably necessary either to defend or 
prosecute the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken.   
 
I. 
Litigation Costs That Should Be Taxed. 
A. 
Depositions 
1. 
The original and one copy of the deposition and court reporter's 
per diem for all depositions. 
2. 
The original and/or one copy of the electronic deposition and 
the cost of the services of a technician for electronic depositions 
used at trial. 
3. 
Telephone toll and electronic conferencing charges for the 
conduct of telephone and electronic depositions. 
B. 
Documents and Exhibits 
1. 
The costs of copies of documents filed (in lieu of "actually 
cited") with the court, which are reasonably necessary to assist 
the court in reaching a conclusion. 
2. 
The costs of copies obtained in discovery, even if the copies 
were not used at trial. 
 
 
- 11 -
C. 
Expert Witnesses 
1. 
A reasonable fee for deposition and/or trial testimony, and the 
costs of preparation of any court ordered report. 
D. 
Witnesses 
1. 
Costs of subpoena, witness fee, and service of witnesses for 
deposition and/or trial. 
E. 
Court Reporting Costs Other than for Depositions 
1. 
Reasonable court reporter's per diem for the reporting of 
evidentiary hearings, trial and post-trial hearings. 
F. 
Reasonable Charges Incurred for Requiring Special Magistrates, 
Guardians Ad Litem, and Attorneys Ad Litem 
II. 
Litigation Costs That May Be Taxed as Costs.  
A. 
Mediation Fees and Expenses 
1. 
Costs and fees of mediator. 
B. 
Reasonable Travel Expenses 
1. 
Reasonable travel expenses of expert when traveling in excess 
of 100 miles from the expert’s principal place of business (not 
to include the expert’s time). 
2. 
Reasonable travel expenses of witnesses. 
 
 
III. 
Litigation Costs That Should Not Be Taxed as Costs. 
A. 
The Cost of Long Distance Telephone Calls with Witnesses, both 
Expert and Non-Expert (including conferences concerning scheduling 
of depositions or requesting witnesses to attend trial) 
B. 
Any Expenses Relating to Consulting But Non-Testifying Experts 
C. 
Cost Incurred in Connection with Any Matter Which Was Not 
Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible 
Evidence 
D. 
Travel Time 
1. 
Travel time of attorney(s). 
2. 
Travel time of expert(s). 
 
E. 
Travel Expenses of Attorney(s)