Opinion ID: 2499779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Deposition Transcript Costs

Text: [¶ 25] The district court assessed costs for the transcripts for the depositions of Artery and Jones. Jones objected to both on the ground that they were not reasonably necessary as defined by Rule 501. [¶ 26] Rule 501 makes the costs of depositions taxable if the deposition is reasonably necessary for trial preparation. It provides: A deposition is deemed reasonably necessary if: I. Read to the jury as provided in Rule 32(a)(3), W.R.C.P.; II. Used at trial for impeachment concerning a material line of testimony (impeachment on a collateral issue does not fall within the scope of this rule); III. Necessarily, and not merely conveniently, used to refresh the recollection of a witness while on the stand; or IV. Was taken at the request of a non-prevailing party. The foregoing are meant to provide guidelines, and are not exhaustive. The use of depositions for trial preparation alone does not justify the imposition of costs. Wyo. U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D)(i). [¶ 27] We address first the cost for the Jones deposition transcript. Jones contends he had no knowledge concerning the extent of Artery's damages, the only issue submitted to the jury, and thus his trial testimony and deposition transcript were not reasonably necessary. As we noted above, the trial transcript was not designated as part of the record, and we thus have no way to review Jones' testimony or the extent to which the deposition was necessary for trial. Under these circumstances, we must defer to the district court's understanding of the dynamics of the trial and presume the competency of the evidence upon which the district court based its judgment. See Lykins, ¶ 11, 237 P.3d at 408; Dieringer, 708 P.2d at 12. Moreover, as we have also noted throughout our discussion, Jones' stipulation to one hundred percent liability did not come until the morning of trial. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of the Jones deposition transcript costs. [¶ 28] With respect to the Artery deposition transcript, the rule is clear. The cost is recoverable if the deposition was taken at the request of the non-prevailing party. Jones took Artery's deposition, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the cost of the deposition transcript.