Opinion
No. X05 CV 04 4001273 S
November 19, 2007
RULING ON BILL OF COSTS AND OBJECTION THERETO (188.00, 189.00)
Following a verdict in their favor, the defendants submitted a bill of costs pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-257 and 52-260. The plaintiffs have objected in part, and the court makes the following rulings.
1. Although no objection was made, the $90.00 sought for the complaint and amended complaints is disallowed.
2. The $700.00 for Dr. Gouge's "case review and preparation for trial testimony," two hours worth is allowed. General Statutes § 52-260(f) authorizes a court "to determine a reasonable fee" for a medical practitioner summoned to give expert testimony. The plaintiffs do not object to the fee of $3,500 for Dr. Gouge's testimony which took a large part of a day, but they do object to $700.00 for preparation time. There are Superior Court decisions on both sides of this issue. In M. DeMatteo Construction Co. v. New London, 236 Conn. 710 (1996) the Connecticut Supreme Curt interpreted the statute not to cover the fees of an appraiser for preparation of an appraisal report stating "the fee for the appraisal report is not a taxable cost . . . § 260(f) treats as taxable only those costs that arise from an expert's testimony at trial." Id., 715, 717. This court has previously held that a reasonable fee for preparation time in connection with trial testimony is not barred by M. DeMatteo. Tharp v. Lato, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, CV 91-032975 S (April 6, 2001) [29 Conn. L. Rptr. 312]. Preparation for expert testimony in court is distinct from time spent analyzing and forming an expert opinion. Costs for the latter are clearly not taxable as set out in Section 52-260(f) and as held in M. DeMatteo. The defendants are not seeking costs for the time spent by Dr. Gouge in analyzing the facts and forming an opinion. They are seeking reimbursement for the time spent in organizing and presenting expert trial testimony, and this court adheres to its decision in Tharp that this is part of a reasonable fee for an expert summoned to give expert testimony in court.
3. Plaintiff's object to the claim for $3,300.00 for another expert's trial testimony preparation. This objection is sustained in large part. This expert charged $3,000.00 for testimony and the preparation time charge appears to include time for the formation of an opinion as well as for testimony preparation. The court will allow only $600.00 for two hours of preparation at the expert's hourly rate of $300.00.
4. Plaintiff's objection to the court reporter fees of $2,433.80 paid by the defendants for the recording and transcription of Dr. Milsom's deposition which was used at trial is overruled. Section 52-257(b)(12).
5. Plaintiff's objection to the statutory costs for in-state deposition of Dr. McClane and Dr. Kovacs ($30.00 apiece) is sustained. These depositions were taken by the plaintiff. For the same reason, the $40.00 cost claimed for Dr. Gouge is disallowed.
6. Plaintiffs object to the claimed costs of trial exhibits of $2,306.49 contending this is not a reasonable sum because "nearly none" of the enlarged and mounted exhibits were used at trial. Defendants contend that many, if not all, were used or necessary. The court's recollection is not helpful since some of these exhibits were used for demonstrative purposes and may not have been marked for identification. The court concludes that essentially this objection is second-guessing and it is overruled.
7. The plaintiffs also object to costs claimed for subpoening potential witnesses who were not called to testify. This objection again goes to strategy. The costs were incurred, and the objection overruled.
The requested bill of costs is reduced by $2,890. As reduced to $12,048.69, the bill of costs is approved.