Opinion ID: 323115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: costs of the special master

Text: 19 The order appointing the special master provided that each party would pay one-half of the fee and that the prevailing party could tax the entire expense as costs. Head argues that the court erred in assessing all of the costs of the master against Head. 20 The compensation of a master is fixed by the court and paid as the court may direct. Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(a). The prevailing party has a right to recover moneys paid for the master 'as a part of its recoverable costs . . ..' 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2608, at 798 (1971); accord, 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice P54.77(3), at 1718 (2d ed. 1974). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that 'costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs . . ..' Thus, the awarding of these costs is discretionary with the trial judge, 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2608, at 795 (1971); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 98, at 438 (2d ed. 1970); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice P54.70(4), at 1310, P54.70(5), at 1312 (2d ed. 1974), and we will not overturn his decision unless it has been abused. 21 Head contends that since K-2 prevailed on only two of its 12 alleged trade secrets and that since considerable expense of the master was spent in establishing the contentions of both parties, the cost should be divided by the parties. 22 In general, a party in whose favor judgment is rendered by the district court is the prevailing party . . .. Although a plaintiff may not sustain his entire claim, if judgment is rendered for him he is the prevailing party. 23 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice P54.70(4), at 1306-1307 (2d ed. 1974); accord, Hines v. Perez, 242 F.2d 459, 466 (9th Cir. 1957). 24 K-2 was the prevailing party in this action and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the master's compensation to be taxed as costs.