Opinion ID: 156355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Okland's Costs

Text: 115 In its related appeal, Okland seeks to recover $41,529.59 for costs associated with its successful lawsuit against Conoco. Okland filed in the district court a bill of costs, which the court clerk granted and denied as follows: 116 Costs Requested Awarded Seeking on Appeal Expert Witness Fees $23,380.19 $ 0.00 $23,380.19 Court Reporter Transcript Fees $ 9,253.06 $ 4,588.45 $ 4,664.61 Photocopies $21,343.70 $12,543.38 $ 8,800.32 Other Miscellaneous Costs 23 $ 3,597.11 $ 0.00 $ 3,597.11 Fees of the Clerk $ 79.00 $ 79.00 $ 0.00 Fees for Witnesses $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 ---------- ---------- ----------------- Total $57,703.06 $17,260.83 $40,442.23 117 See Appellant's App. at 79-80, 199. The district court reviewed the briefs filed in conjunction with Okland's motion to review taxation of costs by the clerk and concluded that the clerk's assessment of costs should not be disturbed. Okland appeals that decision and seeks an additional $1,087.36, which it claims it incurred subsequent to its filing of the bill of costs. 118 During the trial, Okland elected to submit $52,670.75 in expert witness fees and expenses as damages, not as costs, relying on Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14. Conoco did not object to that election, failing to argue as it does here that federal, not state law applies. Rather, Conoco objected on the basis that the evidence should not be admitted until liability had been established. Appellant's App. at 318-19. 119 Given the opportunity to present the fees to the jury and having chosen that route, Okland is precluded from seeking additional expert witness fees as costs. It had the opportunity to submit all of its expert witness fees at trial as damages, and in failing to do so, it has lost the opportunity to recover additional fees in the form of costs. The district court's judgment entered on November 25, 1996, at the close of the case awarding Okland its costs was only for those costs provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying an award for expert witness fees. 120 The district court did not explain its partial denial of internal photocopies, video depositions, 24 and other miscellaneous costs. Although we have stated that we will remand if the court does not provide an adequate explanation of its denial of costs, see Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165, 1168 (10th Cir.1980) (Unless an appellate court knows why a trial court refused to award costs to the prevailing party, it has no real basis upon which to judge whether the trial court acted within the proper confines of its discretion.); see also Cantrell v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 459 (10th Cir.1995) (citing with approval In re Two Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 994 F.2d 956, 963 (1st Cir.1993) (applying the rule to a partial denial of costs)), the record here is developed enough for us to conclude that such a remand would be an unfruitful expenditure of judicial resources. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in partially denying the costs. We also refuse to entertain a review of Okland's tardy application for additional costs. 121 Okland asks for attorneys fees and costs incurred on appeal. We grant Okland's motion for costs and fees as to Appeal No. 97-6004 only. Pursuant to statute and this court's rules, Okland should submit its costs to the clerk of this court. We remand to the district court for a determination of the attorneys fees to be allowed on this appeal.