Opinion ID: 1364935
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Document Preparation.

Text: On appeal, Bergmann explained that the trial court's award of $1,820.91 for document preparation represented the cost of word processing services. As a general rule, federal courts have classified word processing and document preparation by legal secretaries as a normal out-of-pocket expense which is generally not included in the taxable costs. Dow Chem. Pac. Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 640 F.Supp. 882, 886 (S.D.N.Y.1986); see also Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 258, 268 (E.D.Wash.1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 879 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.1989) (The ongoing costs of secretarial employees should ordinarily be paid from the attorneys' hourly fees.). However, courts will award these fees where the secretarial costs were not routine office overhead. See Hasbrouck, 631 F.Supp. at 268 ([T]he court concludes that the expense of hiring extra document workers for work only on a specific case may be properly allowed as a cost.). In Hasbrouck, the district court denied the prevailing party's claim for the cost of document workers because the prevailing party did not carry its burden of demonstrating that the workers were employed exclusively for work on the instant case. Id. Bergmann argues that his firm's document production is an extraordinary expense not included in routine office overhead. However, Bergmann has not presented any circumstances indicating that his counsel was required to hire additional workers, or indicating that counsel's current staff was required to perform extraordinary services. The fact that Bergmann's counsel separately billed him for document production does not make this expense a recoverable cost: While this Court recognizes that a few firms in this district have taken to the practice of `breaking out' such charges for billing purposes, it is a practice which this Court cannot condone. Bankers Sec. Life Ins. Soc. v. Kane, 692 F.Supp. 1326, 1330-31 (S.D.Fla.1988). A law firm may not expand the coverage of NRS 18.005 simply by changing its billing practices. The trial court did not have an adequate basis for awarding the expense of document preparation. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding this expense as a cost.