Opinion
A097143. A097706.
10-10-2003
GLOBAL INTERPRINT, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. LARRY BURTON et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants; KEN COBURN, Cross-defendant and Respondent. GLOBAL INTERPRINT, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. LARRY BURTON et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
The opinion filed on September 10, 2003, is modified as follows:
1. On page 5, line 10, the figure "$3,781.48" is changed to "$ 3,181.48."
2. On page 30, the following language is added after line 7 and immediately preceding "DISPOSITION."
"CROSS-APPEAL OF CREATIVE ARTS, BURTON, AND GESHELL
Global sought costs of $3,181 as the prevailing party on its breach of contract action, including $1,086.57 for travel expenses to Missoula to take the depositions of Burton and Geshell on two successive days and $349.71 for enlarged copies of exhibits. Appellants moved to tax the travel costs as excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary and the enlargement costs because they were not specifically identified and were not demonstrated to be reasonably helpful aids for the jury. The court allowed the requested costs to Global. Appellants now contend the award of costs was error for the same reasons they challenged them in their motion to tax and because the travel expenses were not broken into components.
Given the abbreviated nature of a proceeding to challenge costs, the party seeking costs is not required to submit receipts that support every discrete expense. (See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268, fn. 5.) Rather, if the items on a verified memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges, the memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs and expenses listed thereon were necessarily incurred by the requesting party, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were unreasonable. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) However, whether the cost item was reasonably necessary is ultimately a factual question for the trial court, and its determination of reasonable necessity is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Jones v. Dumrichob, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1266; Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1548.)
Travel expenses to take depositions and blow-ups of exhibits that are reasonably helpful to aid the finder of fact are expressly allowed by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3) & (12).) Additionally, Globals attorney, whose office is in Sonoma County where this trial took place, submitted a declaration in support of the costs in which she declared: she took Burtons and Geshells July 2000 depositions in Missoula, rather than the Bay Area, at their request; the depositions took place over a two-day period; her travel expenses consisted of a commercial roundtrip flight, coach class, between San Francisco and Missoula, two nights at a Red Lion hotel, a rental car, and meals.
As to the enlargements, Globals attorney declared they were all copies of documents admitted into evidence and presented to the jury. The trial court, having presided over the trial, needed no further evidence to evaluate whether the enlargements were helpful to the jury and was in the optimum position to make that determination.
Not only could the trial court conclude, given the verified memorandum, the attorneys declaration, its first-hand observations, and its general litigation experience, that Globals statutorily permitted travel and enlargement costs were reasonable, it could also conclude that Burton failed to demonstrate they were unnecessary. His only substantive rebuttal was the declaration of his attorney, a Hawaii practitioner, who declared that his Honolulu- Missoula-San Francisco-Honolulu flight in June 2000 cost $889 and his San Jose-Missoula-Seattle-San Jose flight in July 2001 cost $200. The inference from this declaration—Burtons attorneys airplane ticket from the West Coast to Missoula was less expensive than Globals attorneys ticket—does not rebut the reasonableness of Globals travel expenses.
As any traveler knows, an airplane fare in coach class between two points is subject to seemingly constant fluctuations and infinite variations, based on, for example, time of day, specific airport, length of time between ticket purchase and departure, Saturday night layover, nonstop or switching planes, frequent flier credits. Given the vagaries of airline ticket pricing, we are loath to say prevailing parties can only recover travel costs if they shopped around for the lowest possible fare. Furthermore, Globals attorney necessarily incurred the additional travel expenses of meal, lodging, and ground transportation during her trip to Missoula.
We find no abuse of discretion in allowing the challenged items of cost under the circumstances of this case."
3. This modification does not change the judgment.