Opinion ID: 2635881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the district court abuse its discretion in its award of costs to the Garrisons?

Text: [¶ 42] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-124 (LexisNexis 2007) provides that costs shall be allowed to a plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor in an action for the recovery of money. . . . Similarly, W.R.C.P. 54(d)(1) provides that costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs[.] U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3) sets forth the guidelines governing allowable costs, while U.R.D.C. 501(a)(4) makes it clear that the guidelines are not mandatory, but that the trial court decision as to whether to award lawful costs is discretionary. We review the taxation of costs upon an abuse of discretion standard. Garnick v. Teton County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WY 18, ¶ 35, 39 P.3d 1034, 1049 (Wyo.2002). The relevant question is whether the trial court reasonably could have concluded as it did, given the circumstances. Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 1084 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 43] Nine days after entry of the Judgment in this case, the Garrisons filed a Bill of Costs totaling $11,042.70. CC Builders filed a timely objection. The matter was heard on March 20, 2007, and the Garrisons' costs were awarded as requested by an Order entered on June 1, 2007. The district court found the amount of costs to be paid by [CC Builders] are fair and reasonable and in proportion to the Judgment. . . . [¶ 44] In the third of these related appeals, CC Builders has challenged this award of costs. The entire Bill of Costs is based upon the expense of pre-trial depositions. U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) governs the award of such costs: (D) Costs of depositions. (i) Costs of depositions are taxable if reasonably necessary for the preparation of the case for trial. 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 nonprevailing 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. (ii) Reporters fees for depositions. Actual, ordinary reporting fees will be allowed. Extra costs for expediting transcripts or daily copy costs will not be allowed, except as authorized by an order entered prior to the date such costs are to be incurred. Reporters' travel, per diem expenses and appearance fees will not be taxed as costs. (iii) Fees and expenses of counsel. Fees and expenses of counsel for traveling to and attending depositions are not taxable as costs. [¶ 45] The burden is upon the party seeking the award of discovery deposition costs to show that those costs were reasonably necessary for trial preparation, in that they met one of the guidelines of U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D), or an equivalent rationale. Cundy Asphalt Paving Constr. v. Angelo Materials Co., 915 P.2d 1181, 1183-84 (Wyo.1996). A verified bill of costs is prima facie evidence that the items listed were necessarily expended and are properly taxable as costs. 20 Am.Jur.2d Costs § 91 (2005). [¶ 46] CC Builders' objection to an award of costs to the Garrisons begins with the argument that the Garrisons should not even be considered the prevailing party under W.R.C.P. 54(d) because they did not prevail on several of their contract breach claims, on their fraud claim, or on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and CC Builders substantially prevailed on its counterclaim, thereby reducing the judgment amount. In support of this contention, CC Builders cites several cases where federal courts have interpreted Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) as giving trial courts broad discretion to deny an award of costs in cases with mixed outcomes. See Testa v. Village of Mundelein, 89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir.1996); ARP Films, Inc. v. Marvel Entm't Group, Inc., 952 F.2d 643, 651 (2d Cir.1991); Johnson v. Nordstrom-Larpenteur Agency, Inc., 623 F.2d 1279, 1282 (8th Cir.1980); Tao of Systems Integration, Inc. v. Analytical Servs. & Materials, Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 571, 574 (E.D.Va.2006); All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Products Div., 153 F.R.D. 667, 669 (D.Kan.1994). [¶ 47] We believe that the instant case fundamentally was a breach of contract case, won for the most part by the Garrisons. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Garrisons to be the prevailing party and in awarding their costs. The central issuewhether the Garrisons had been overcharged under the cost plus construction contractwas determined in their favor. The fact that the final judgment amount was less than what they sought does not mean they did not prevail for the purpose of awarding costs. [¶ 48] The district court's award of costs cannot, however, survive completely unscathed. The Garrisons' Bill of Costs was not verified and thus does not obtain the status of prima facie evidence of the amounts sought. Furthermore, of the ten discovery depositions for which the Garrisons sought an award of costs, only two were used at trialthose of Larry Berlin and Kurt Lund. As admitted by CC Builders, three of the remaining depositionsthose of Wayne Garrison, Pamela Garrison, and Tim Ciocarlinwere noticed by CC Builders, and the appropriate costs related thereto are awardable to the Garrisons. But there is no substantiation for an award of costs for the five remaining depositions. [¶ 49] We have said more than once that the criteria in U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) are guidelines, rather than being an exhaustive list. Gore v. Sherard, 2002 WY 114, ¶ 21, 50 P.3d 705, 711-12 (Wyo.2002); Snyder v. Lovercheck, 2001 WY 64, ¶ 15, 27 P.3d 695, 700 (Wyo.2001). At the same time, however, the Rule clearly requires a showing of something more than use of the deposition for trial preparation. Unfortunately, the record in the instant case does not contain a transcript of the district court hearing on the motion to award costs, so we do not know what arguments may have been advanced by the Garrisons at that time. Beyond that, the district court's finding that the amounts were fair and reasonable and in proportion to the Judgment does not reveal any analysis under the Rule. In their appellate brief, the Garrisons justify the award of costs on dual grounds: that all of the deponents testified at trial, and that the discovery was necessary to determine the reasonable cost of construction of the house. [¶ 50] We conclude that the Garrisons have not overcome the limiting language of U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) in regard to the five discovery depositions that were neither used at trial nor noticed by CC Builders. Consequently, we will reverse the award of costs as to those depositions. The remaining five those of Larry Berlin, Kurt Lund, Wayne Garrison, Pamela Garrison, and Tim Ciocarlinare eligible under the Rule, but require further analysis. [¶ 51] Costs were awarded for Larry Berlin's deposition in the total amount of $1,748.25. The individual charges were as follows: 428 pages $1,565.50 Appearance fees 135.00 Computer disks 20.00 Preparation/handling 10.00 Exhibits 17.75 _________ TOTAL $1,748.25 [¶ 52] We interpret U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D)(ii) as allowing an award of costs for the per page and exhibit fees, but not for the appearance fees or extraordinary fees such as computer disks, and preparation and handling. Deducting those latter amounts from the total, the award of costs for Larry Berlin's deposition should have been $1,583.25. [¶ 53] The total cost award for Kurt Lund's depositions was $3,650.50. Our math, which follows, shows a corrected total of $3,620.50: 703 pages $2,636.25 Exhibits/photographs 34.25 Appearance fees 225.00 Videography 710.00 Preparation/handling 15.00 _________ TOTAL $3,620.50 [¶ 54] Following the same logic applied to the Berlin deposition, this total must be reduced by the amount of the appearance fees, and the extraordinary fees for videography, and preparation and handling, leaving a total awardable amount of $2,670.50. [¶ 55] The Garrisons sought an award of costs for the deposition of Wayne Garrison, but the invoices related thereto apparently could not be located, and the amounts were not included in the Bill of Costs or the award. As to Pamela Garrison, the Bill of Costs sought $894.00, and that amount was awarded. However, there is no invoice in the record detailing this cost, and therefore, there is no indication in the record that the district court exercised any discretion in awarding that sum. We conclude that the award was arbitrary, and must be reversed. [¶ 56] Costs sought and awarded for the depositions of Tim Ciocarlin totaled $661.45, even though the invoices attached to the Bill of Costs show the following amounts assigned to his various depositions: 299 pages $433.55 Exhibits 56.10 Computer disk 10.00 Preparation/handling 10.00 149 pages 216.05 Exhibits 41.45 Preparation/handling 10.00 92 Pages 151.80 _______ TOTAL $928.95 [¶ 57] The amount awarded appears to be the sum of the amounts related to the 299 page deposition, and the 92 page deposition. The record does not reflect why the costs of the 149 page deposition were not included. We will not include those costs on our own initiative. Subtracting the computer disk and preparation and handling fees, the correct amount of the award should have been $641.45. [¶ 58] Pursuant to these calculations, the costs awarded in the Judgment must be reduced from $11,042.70 to $4,895.20.