Opinion ID: 883983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Computer Research

Text: Finally, Custom Framing challenges the entirety of the $1,306 in costs for Westlaw research which Puckett Construction claimed and the District Court awarded. Brown explained that his firm assigns a code number for each case for the purpose of Westlaw research and that the Custom Framing/Puckett Construction case was assigned such a number. When Westlaw bills Brown's firm, it sends a master sheet per code number, [indicating the] amount charged per code number. Brown testified that the time related in my affidavit is based upon [the] Puckett Construction/Chamberlin code number. Pohl opined that the amount of computer research time was reasonable in this case in which Brown wrote numerous briefs and that the time [Brown] spent using Westlaw was money well spent, probably would have taken a lot more hours of research ... if he had come down here to the law library. Custom Framing presented no evidence indicating that the Westlaw costs were unreasonable or not properly attributable to this case. Its argument, for which no authority is cited, is that there was a total failure of proof regarding the reasonableness and propriety of the Westlaw research costs. While Brown might have presented a stronger case in support of this claimed amount, we cannot conclude on the record before us that his evidence constituted insufficient proof as a matter of law upon which to premise an award of $1,306 for Westlaw research costs. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of attorney's fees and costs it awarded to Puckett Construction.