Court Opinion

ID: 9588140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:30:30.456178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:01.987228
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring):
I concur but desire to explain my concurrence as to the granting of costs of depositions in this case.
I do not believe that costs should be allowed for the taking of depositions for discovery purposes only. Such information can be obtained from parties by demands for admissions and the service of written interrogatories. It is my belief that unless a deposition is taken in good faith for use in court, as for example where a witness is not expected to be available for the trial, it is not taxable unless the deposition is actually and necessarily used in court.
The citation in the prevailing opinion from 20 Am.Jur.2d, Costs § 56, p. 44, says there is one case holding that the cost of a deposition can be taxed if it was reasonably necessary in the development of the case, and that is a Federal Supplement case. The cases to the contrary are in my opinion based on better reasoning.
This court in Hull v. Goodman,1 refused to allow the cost of depositions taken when *90the parties were in court available to testify. There are other cases to the same effect.2
The reason why I am concurring' regarding the assessment of costs of the depositions is that in the course of trial the appellants moved to publish all depositions. By so moving, the appellants indicated their belief that the depositions were necessary in connection with the trial of the case. They ought not be heard to complain if the trial judge was of the same opinion.

. 4 Utah 2d 163, 290 P.2d 245 (1955).

. Morris v. Redak, 124 Colo. 27, 234 P.2d 908 (1951); Treasure State Industries v. Leigland, 151 Mont. 288, 443 P.2d 22 (1968); Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So.2d 160 (1948); Arnesen v. Rowe, 46 Wash.2d 718, 284 P.2d 329 (1955).