Opinion ID: 1159929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Superior Court Err in its Award of Costs to Xerox?

Text: Under Alaska Civil Rule 68, an offeree who receives a judgment less than an offer of judgment must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. Alaska R.Civ.P. 68. This court has stated that Rule 68 explicitly awards actual costs in [these] circumstances, although it does not award actual attorney's fees. Truckweld Equipment Co., 649 P.2d at 240. Xerox requested and was awarded $13,752.57 in costs. The Hayeses challenge this award of costs on various grounds and rely on Civil Rule 79(b) (items allowed as costs) and Administrative Rule 7(c) (costs permitted for expert witnesses). [9] Xerox indicates that it applied for an award of costs under Civil Rule 68, not 79(b). The question presented is whether costs under Civil Rule 68 means costs as allowed under Civil Rule 79 and Administrative Rule 7. We read the cost provision in Rule 68 to mean those costs permitted by the relevant Alaska rules. The Federal courts presented with the similar issue have construed the cost provision in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 as meaning permissible costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Greenwood v. Stevenson, 88 F.R.D. 225, 232 (D.C.R.I. 1980) (this court does not see how it can seriously be contended that the term `costs' in [68] means something radically different from the word `costs' in Rule 54); Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 110, 117 (N.D.Cal. 1979) (Rule 68 does not alter the definition of costs. The court stands on the relevant authority setting forth these definitions). Similarly, the state courts interpret their state Rule 68 costs as synonymous with costs permitted by the relevant state rules. Divine v. Groshong, 235 Kan. 127, 679 P.2d 700, 711 (1984) (cost recovery by successful offeror limited to those items enumerated in relevant state law on taxation of costs); Jordan v. Berkey, 26 Wash. App. 242, 611 P.2d 1382, 1385 (1980) (cost recovery by successful offeror limited to those costs prescribed in relevant Washington law); Person v. Fletcher, 582 S.W.2d 765, (Tenn. App. 1979) (cost recovery by prevailing offeror limited to taxable costs permitted by state law even though Rule 68 allows recovery of all costs incurred after making of offer). We see no reason to read the term costs differently under our Rule 68 and the rules governing the taxing of costs such as Civil Rule 79 and Administrative Rule 7. The Hayeses object to many items of costs such as duplicative deposition witness fees and travel expenses for defendant Green to attend trial. The reason for some of these duplicative costs is that the court granted the Hayeses' motion to quash certain depositions and then had to continue trial to permit these depositions to be taken. The continuance also required Xerox to pay Green's travel expenses again. An award of costs is within the superior court's discretion and will be affirmed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henry, 572 P.2d 72, 77 (Alaska 1977) (citations omitted). The superior court did not abuse its discretion in its award of these costs. The Hayeses also contend that the court erred in its award of costs for expert witnesses. Administrative Rule 7(c) controls the taxing of costs for expert witnesses. Alaska Rule of Administrative Procedure 7(c) provides: (c) Expert Witnesses. A witness called to testify as an expert shall receive additional compensation to be fixed by the judge with reference to the value of the time employed and the degree of learning or skill required; but such additional compensation shall not exceed $25.00 per hour while so employed and testifying, except as otherwise provided in these rules. No more than three expert witnesses shall be allowed to testify on each side as to the same issue in any given case, unless the judge trying the case, in his discretion, permits an additional number of witnesses to testify as experts. The Hayeses claim that the superior court could not determine the reasonableness of the fees requested or whether they exceeded the maximum $25.00 per hour since Xerox did not specify the number of hours spent testifying. It is impossible to determine on review whether or not the requirements of Rule 7(c) are met since no hourly breakdown was provided by Xerox. See Truckweld Equipment Co., 649 P.2d at 241. A time sheet is required. Id. Therefore, we remand this item of costs for the superior court judge to redetermine according to Rule 7(c). The Hayeses also challenge the court's award of investigative service fees because Xerox did not describe these services. We conclude that the award of these fees was an abuse of discretion since they were insufficiently detailed. Truckweld Equipment Co., 649 P.2d at 241. The Hayeses also contend that the court erred in awarding costs for photocopies of cases during law library research. We find that the award of photocopying costs was within the court's discretion under Civil Rule 79.