Opinion ID: 71312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Videography

Text: The Morrisons object to the district court's taxation of the cost of the video depositions of their experts, Dr. Jeong, Dr. Bosshardt, and Dr. Garretson, and the registered nurse, Billie Precise, who treated Linda Morrison in the emergency room on the night of the Reichhold fire. The Morrisons noticed the depositions of Dr. Jeong, Dr. Bosshardt, and Dr. Garretson. The video deposition of Billie Precise, however, was taken by Reichhold, which seeks reimbursement of the costs of obtaining copies of the video tapes of these depositions as well as $1,090.42 for the cost of the videographer, who displayed the videos at the trial. The Morrisons argue that these costs were incurred for the convenience of the parties and are not items that are taxable as costs against the losing party. During the discovery period, the parties filed a stipulation 3 that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, the depositions of any and all treating physicians could be videotaped for use in evidence at trial. The parties also stipulated that, [i]n the event any other depositions are taken for evidence in 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 provides in relevant part that, [u]nless otherwise directed by the court, the parties may by written stipulation (1) provide that depositions may be taken before any person, at any time or place, upon any notice, and in any manner and when so taken may be used like other depositions.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 29(1). this case, by Plaintiffs, provisions of this Stipulation shall apply, and such deposition may be video-taped in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof. R11-94-1. Finally, the parties stipulated that [a]ll of the costs of the video-taping shall be borne by Plaintiffs, and shall not be taxed as costs against Defendant, and that Reichhold could copy the videotapes at its own expense. Id. at 3. However, the parties neither stipulated that the cost of any copies made by Reichhold would not be taxable as costs, nor that the cost of any videotaping conducted by Reichhold would not be taxed to the Morrisons. Therefore, we must address the issue of whether, absent a stipulation to the contrary, video depositions are taxable as costs under the United States Code and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Morrisons claim that § 1920 excludes video depositions as a taxable cost because it mentions only stenographic depositions. The district court rejected this argument and stated that, even though 28 U.S.C. § 1920 speaks only of stenographic transcription costs, the court believes that the costs of video depositions are encompassed by that code section. Video depositions were virtually unknown at the time that section 1920 was adopted, and this court does not believe that a party should be penalized because he has chosen to preserve and present testimony through video as opposed to a printed transcript. Consequently, the court will allow these costs. R14-130-6. We conclude that the most logical resolution of this issue is to interpret § 1920(2) in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2) and (3). Section 1920(2) permits the taxing of costs for [f]ees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) (West 1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2) and (3): (2) The party taking the deposition shall state in the notice the method by which the testimony shall be recorded. Unless the court orders otherwise, it may be recorded by sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition shall bear the cost of the recording. Any party may arrange for a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition taken by nonstenographic means. (3) With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method to record the deponent's testimony in addition to the method specified by the person taking the deposition. The additional record or transcript shall be made at that party's expense unless the court otherwise orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(2) and (3) (West 1996).4 Reading these two provisions together, we hold that, when a party notices a deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised 4 Prior to the 1993 amendments, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) provided that the parties could stipulate that the testimony at a deposition be recorded by other than stenographic means but that [a] party may arrange to have a stenographic transcription made at the party's own expense. (emphasis added). One federal court summarized the changes to the rules as follows: Rule 30(b)(2) is the current provision authorizing the taking of depositions by other than stenographic means, and it states that [a]ny party may arrange for a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition taken by nonstenographic means. Conspicuously absent is the phrase at the party's own expense. The court notes that the revised rules contain an express requirement that a party who has noticed a deposition to be taken by other than stenographic means must provide a transcript to opposing parties as part of its discovery obligations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(B). That party must also provide a transcript if the video deposition is to be offered as evidence at trial or upon a dispositive motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(c). Thus, under the revised rules, it is clear that a transcript of a videotape deposition is not for the convenience of counsel, but rather is an express obligation. Garonzik v. Whitman Diner, 910 F.Supp. 167, 171-72 (D.N.J.1995) (alteration in original). at that time by the other party to the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c),5 it is appropriate under § 1920 to award the cost of conducting the deposition in the manner noticed. We recognize that, although our insistence on strict adherence to the language of §§ 1821 and 1920(3) with regard to the taxation of expert witness fees may seem to contradict our less literal interpretation of the phrase stenographic in § 1920(2), we have attempted to remain consistent in our method of statutory interpretation. In the case of expert witness fees, the Supreme Court has offered a clear interpretation of the statute that controls our decision. The Supreme Court has yet to address the topic of videotaped depositions. When viewed in light of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow depositions to be recorded in any number of ways, the most logical conclusion is that a videotaped deposition is more appropriately taxed as is any 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides in relevant part: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, ... the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: .... (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(3). The district court's decision to grant or deny a Rule 26(c) objection becomes the final determination of the method of recordation of the deposition that is taxable. other deposition expense. Jamison v. Cooper, 111 F.R.D. 350, 352 (N.D.Ga.1986); see Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Stamps, 920 F.2d 1361, 1368 (7th Cir.1990) (stating that [v]ideotaped depositions are a necessary and time effective method of preserving witnesses' time and allocating precious court and judicial time in this age of advanced court technology and over-crowded court calendars. We must not seem reluctant to adopt any and all time-saving methods that serve to improve our system of justice). In this case, however, our determination that the taxation for the cost of video depositions is allowable under § 1920 does not end our analysis. We must decide whether the copies of the videos obtained by Reichhold were necessarily obtained for use in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Reichhold has offered no explanation of why it was necessary to obtain a copy of the video tapes for use in the case. Because the record is inadequate to resolve this issue, we remand the case to the district court for further findings on the necessity of the video copying costs that Reichhold contends are taxable. We find adequate support in the record for the necessity of deposing Billie Precise, but we have found no evidence that Reichhold noticed her deposition to be videotaped rather than transcribed. It is necessary, therefore, to remand this portion of the case to the district court to allow Reichhold to present evidence that it noticed Precise's deposition as a video deposition. Otherwise, Reichhold will be entitled only to costs, upon proper proof, in the amount of the cost of a stenographic transcript. With regard to the fee charged by the videographer, it appears from the invoices attached to Reichhold's motion to tax costs that a large portion of the $1,090.42 requested was for video playback equipment rental. We find nothing in § 1920, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or case law to support the taxation of costs for equipment rental or fees charged by a videographer for playback of video depositions at trial. Therefore, we reverse the district court's taxation of $1,090.42 for the videography costs during trial.