Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/857088.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,784 chars

Third, Bittner argues the trial court erred in awarding costs pursuant to RCW

4.84.010(7) for the transcriptions of certain depositions on a gross rather than pro

rata basis. We agree. Under RCW 4.84.010(7), the prevailing party may recover

only the following costs relating to the transcription of depositions:

To the extent that the court . . . finds that it was necessary to achieve the
successful result, the reasonable expense of the transcription of depositions
used at trial . . . : PROVIDED, That the expenses of depositions shall be
allowed on a pro rata basis for those portions of the depositions introduced
into evidence or used for purposes of impeachment.

While the record supports a gross award of costs of transcribing certain

depositions (such as Bittner’s deposition, to which Symetra’s counsel extensively

referred at trial), the record also indicates that other transcripts were used sparingly

(such as Brandt’s deposition, of which Symetra included only three pages in a

motion in limine seeking to exclude him as a witness). Symetra also recovered

$330 associated with De Lima’s deposition, but the record contains no explanation

of or supporting invoice for this cost. On remand, the trial court should only award

transcription costs in accordance with RCW 4.84.010(7), which requires that such

expenses be (a) necessary to achieve the successful result, (b) reasonable, (c)

related to the transcription of depositions used at trial, and (d) allowed on a pro

rata basis for the portions of the depositions introduced into evidence or used for

purposes of impeachment.

- 29 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

Fourth, Bittner argues the trial court erroneously awarded costs to Symetra