Right here is the most recent visitor publish from our Reed Smith colleague, Kevin Hara. He examines whether or not a prevailing get together in litigation can get well, as “prices,” the bills of witness depositions carried out remotely – a query that has arisen with growing frequency because the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a normal pattern in direction of use of distant depositions. Since our purchasers might be on both facet of this subject, Kevin’s analysis addresses each side. As all the time, our visitor bloggers deserve all of the credit score (and any blame) for his or her efforts.
**********
The authorized occupation seldom reaches absolute consensus on a authorized query, and even when that occurs, there are usually variations. The realized middleman doctrine is such an instance—it took a very long time, however ultimately, all 50 states (fortunately) adopted the authorized precept that in circumstances involving medical units and prescription drugs, a producer’s warnings to a prescribing doctor fulfill its obligation to warn. But, there are nuances—take, for instance, Oregon, the place for state-specific causes, the doctrine doesn’t apply in strict legal responsibility circumstances. However, the realized middleman rule is as near common as one can get within the regulation. Sadly, such uniformity is the exception somewhat than the rule, and that’s the similar with the topic of as we speak’s publish: can a prevailing get together get well its prices for a distant deposition? The reply is sure—in some jurisdictions—and never in others. In different phrases, it is a quintessential case of “it relies upon.” If that may be a acquainted and unsatisfying denouement, one can take consolation that a few of the greatest films, Blade Runner, 2001: House Odyssey, and The Factor, have ambiguous endings.
Federal Rule of Civil Process 54(d) governs awards of prices to prevailing events, and gives, in related half, “[u]nless a federal statute, these guidelines, or a courtroom order gives in any other case, prices—apart from lawyer’s charges—needs to be allowed to the prevailing get together.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. The provision of a prevailing get together’s restoration of its prices usually depends upon whether or not they’re “cheap” and “mandatory,” and may depend upon the necessities of a courtroom’s native guidelines, or relevant state regulation. Furthermore, in some ways, the pandemic altered our notion of “cheap” and “mandatory” measures.
The Supreme Courtroom held 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines “prices” as utilized in Rule 54(d), and enumerates sure classes of recoverable prices. Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 565 (2012) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, underneath part 1920, a prevailing get together could get well the next classes of prices:
(1) Charges of the clerk and marshal; (2) Charges for printed or electronically recorded transcripts essentially obtained to be used within the case; (3) Charges and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Charges for exemplification and the prices of creating copies of any supplies the place the copies are essentially obtained to be used within the case; (5) Docket charges underneath part 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of courtroom appointed consultants, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, charges, bills, and prices of particular interpretation companies underneath part 1828 of this title.
Baer’s Furnishings Co. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns Mgmt. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7707, at *3 (Magazine. S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). Furthermore, “a specific expense should fall into one of many classes of prices statutorily licensed [by section 1920] for reimbursement.” Avanzalia Photo voltaic, S.L. v. Goldwind USA, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158348, at *2 (N.D. Sick. Sept. 7, 2023) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[a]ny get together in search of an award of prices carries the burden of displaying that the requested prices had been essentially incurred and cheap.” Id.
Though distant depositions will not be particularly listed among the many classes of recoverable prices, some courts have allowed prevailing events to get well the prices of distant and/or Zoom depositions, to the extent the claimant can show they had been “cheap and mandatory.” Nevertheless, different courts have denied prevailing events’ requests for restoration of the price for such depositions, citing the dearth of authority primarily based on part 1920.
Courts Permitting Restoration Of Bills Associated To Distant Depositions
The courts which have allowed a prevailing get together to get well its prices for distant depositions have usually performed so primarily based on the supply of part 1920 authorizing restoration of “charges for printed or electronically recorded transcripts essentially obtained to be used.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Different courts have awarded prices for distant depositions underneath the authority of their native guidelines. Among the courts awarding prices to the prevailing get together have explicitly relied on security considerations of in-person depositions created by the COVID-19 pandemic. They’ve granted requests for restoration of charges related to distant depositions, together with prices for organising and administering distant depositions, exhibit sharing, and different associated bills. Notably, some courts in the identical circuit (Southern and Center Districts of Florida)—and even some in the identical district (Northern District of Illinois)—have reached reverse conclusions. The entire courts permitting prevailing events to get well prices pertaining to distant depositions have decided that such bills had been mandatory and particularly licensed underneath 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a courtroom’s native guidelines, or relevant state regulation.
Allowed By Part 1920 And/or Native Guidelines
Two Southern District of Florida choices held distant deposition associated prices had been taxable. First, in Versfelt v. Sanza Meals Serv., LLC, the courtroom discovered it might award prices “related to the depositions submitted” in help of motions for abstract judgment, as a result of the dropping get together couldn’t show the prices had been “not mandatory to be used within the case” or that the deposition was unrelated to a pertinent subject. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108426, at *6 (Magazine. S.D. Fla. June 17, 2022); adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117933 (S.D. Fla. July 5, 2022). The courtroom concluded “prolonged hour and the exhibit share prices” had been recoverable as a result of “the deposition was of Plaintiff, and given the geographical location of Plaintiff (Oregon), his counsel (Florida), Defendant’s counsel (Florida), and extra issues as a result of COVID-19 pandemic, such measures had been wanted to conduct the deposition remotely.” Id. at *8. (emphasis added).
In Baer’s Furnishings Co. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns Mgmt. LLC, the courtroom adopted Versfelt, the place the plaintiff objected to “prices of reveals and the exhibit sharing utility used on the depositions.” 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7707, at *4 (Magazine. S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2023). The defendant defined that the exhibit share prices had been mandatory for the Zoom depositions “as a result of pandemic and the geographical places of a few of the witnesses.” Id. at *6. Equally to Versfelt, the courtroom discovered it was licensed to tax prices “related to the depositions” submitted pursuant to abstract judgment. Id. (quotation omitted). The plaintiff failed to point out “the particular deposition prices had been both not mandatory . . . or that the deposition was not associated to a problem current within the case,” main the courtroom to rule:
[I]n regard to using Exhibit Share and Actual-Time,. . . the prices related to these bills are recoverable,” [because] “[d]ue to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person depositions posed a threat to a person’s well being, [and] such packages have been routinely used to permit Events to successfully conduct depositions remotely.
Id. at *9. Accordingly, the choose beneficial that the defendant ought to get well the prices of the distant deposition underneath §1920(2) (citing Versfelt at *3).
In St. Xavier Univ. v. Mossuto, the courtroom dominated the defendant might get well prices associated to distant depositions as a result of there was a “sturdy presumption” the defendant was entitled to its prices because the prevailing get together underneath Rule 54. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133023, at *2-3 (N.D. Sick. Aug. 1, 2023). Because the dropping get together, the College objected to prices for “Veritext Digital Companies” for a distant deposition, however the courtroom disagreed, ruling “distant depositions had been fairly mandatory through the COVID-19 surge,” and allowed the defendant to get well them. Id. at *6; see additionally Siwak v. Xylem, Inc., No. 19 C 5350, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214483, at *1 (N.D. Sick. Nov. 5, 2021) (awarding prices related to distant deposition as a result of ongoing international pandemic).
A courtroom’s native guidelines may function the premise for restoration of prices, as within the Northern District of California, “the prevailing get together should state individually and particularly every merchandise of taxable prices claimed,” with an accompanying affidavit demonstrating prices are “accurately said, had been essentially incurred and allowable by regulation.” Shields v. Fed’n Internationale de Natation, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205818, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023) (citing Civil L.R. 54-1(a)) (quotation and citation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The courtroom discovered the defendant “adequately clarify[ed]” that “Video-Preliminary Service prices are a base payment from Veritext for organising a video deposition,” And the courtroom concluded these prices had been “inextricable” and mandatory for digital depositions. Additional, as a result of the plaintiff offered no foundation for displaying the prices had been unreasonable, the courtroom dominated the video arrange prices had been recoverable underneath part 1920 and the native guidelines. Id. at *14. The plaintiffs additionally objected to “Exhibit Prices,” however the courtroom disagreed, noting the native guidelines licensed restoration of such prices and people for the reveals as “essentially incurred and allowable by regulation.” Id.
In Pareja v. 184 Meals Corp., the Justice of the Peace choose beneficial an award of prices to the plaintiff primarily based on a default judgment towards the defendants, together with restoration of prices associated to a distant deposition. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136945, at *35 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2021). Nevertheless, this case is of restricted worth as there was no evaluation of the difficulty concerning distant depositions.
As this dialogue signifies, the sooner circumstances permitting taxation of the prices of distant depositions usually primarily based “necessity” findings on the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether or not they stay good regulation because the pandemic has receded is open to query.
Allowed By State Regulation
State regulation may also influence a prevailing get together’s restoration of prices, and courts in California, Nevada and New York awarded prices associated to distant depositions primarily based on relevant state regulation. For instance, in Ami, Inc. v. Greenback Shave Membership, the courtroom famous “[a]llowable prices underneath [California] Code of Civil Process part 1033.5 have to be fairly mandatory to the conduct of the litigation, somewhat than merely handy or useful to its preparation, and have to be cheap in quantity.” 2023 Cal. Tremendous. LEXIS 15312, at *5 (Cal. Tremendous. Mar. 14, 2023) (quotation omitted). Nevertheless, even objects not particularly allowable underneath part 1033.5 could also be recoverable within the courtroom’s discretion if they’re “fairly mandatory and cheap in quantity.” Id. at *6. As such, the courtroom discovered prices for a distant deposition and “video service prices” had been cheap. Id. at *15.
In Silva v. Gustafson, the plaintiff prevailed at trial and arbitration and was entitled to a price award. 2021 Nev. Dist. LEXIS 1011, at *1-2 (Nev. Dist. Oct. 15, 2021). Plaintiff sought to get well prices for a Zoom deposition, and the courtroom discovered “videotaping a Zoom deposition to minimize the expense of paying consultants once more to testify at trial . . . [was] cheap and such prices [were] recoverable” underneath Nevada regulation. Id. at *2. The courtroom cited Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18.005, which defines prices and consists of quite a few classes together with a “catchall” provision permitting restoration of “[a]ny different cheap and mandatory expense incurred in reference to the motion.” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18.005(17) (emphasis added).
In World Revolution TV v. A.J. Muste Mem. Inst., Inc., the courtroom defined that the final rule was for a celebration taking the deposition to bear the related prices, apart from videoconferenced depositions. 73 Misc. 3d 1119, 1125 (N.Y. Sup. Sept. 21, 2021). In keeping with CPLR 3116(b), “until the courtroom orders in any other case, the get together taking the deposition shall bear the prices thereof.” Id. at 1124. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs requested a video deposition and courtroom ordered they need to be accountable for the prices of arranging “the deposition by way of videoconference, . . . prices for the videoconference above the atypical prices of the deposition,” and prices for administration of the oath. Id. at 1125.
Courts Denying Restoration Of Prices For Distant Depositions
Despite the fact that acknowledging that distant depositions had been mandatory for the security and comfort of the events, some courts have denied prevailing events’ requests for restoration of the related charges, both as a result of they weren’t licensed underneath part 1920, or a celebration has didn’t show distant depositions had been “cheap” and “mandatory.”
Not Licensed Beneath 28 U.S.C. § 1920
Though courts within the Southern District of Florida awarded distant deposition associated prices to prevailing events after discovering part 1920 supported these bills, courts within the Center District of Florida have repeatedly rejected motions to tax price for distant depositions, ruling 28 U.S.C. § 1920 “doesn’t particularly permit for restoration of distant video platform charges.” Bucklew v. Constitution Communs., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154364, at *1-2 (Magazine. M.D. Fla. July 16, 2021). Two different courts within the Center District of Florida and Northern District of Texas additionally cited Bucklew with approval in reaching the identical conclusion.
In Bucklew, the plaintiff alleged claims of incapacity discrimination, however misplaced on abstract judgment. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154364, at *1-2. The defendant sought an award of distant deposition prices, together with for exhibit sharing for a video deposition taken through the pandemic. Id. at *6. The courtroom discovered “[s]ection 1920 doesn’t particularly permit for restoration of distant video platform charges nor has [defendant] offered authority” within the Center District of Florida authorizing such charges. Id. (emphasis added). Due to this fact, the courtroom dominated the defendant was not entitled to get well prices, and beneficial denial of the defendant’s request. Id.
In Cates v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, a medical gadget producer efficiently moved for abstract judgment and sought to get well its prices together with these associated to distant depositions. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246622, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2021). Regardless of recognizing Rule 54(d)’s “sturdy presumption” in favor of awarding prices to the prevailing get together which requires a “sound foundation” to beat, the courtroom in the end adopted Bucklew. Id. at *3. In so doing, the courtroom reiterated Bucklew’s reasoning, ruling it couldn’t award prices apart from these “particularly licensed” underneath § 1920. Id. at *4. (emphasis added). Due to this fact, the courtroom rejected defendant’s request for prices associated to “net conferencing,” discovering they weren’t recoverable underneath § 1920 and recommending that the courtroom decline to award these prices. Id. at *9-10. (citing Bucklew).
In Lapham v. Fla. Fish, the plaintiff sought damages and injunctive reduction towards two Florida state businesses underneath the ADA, however the courtroom granted defendants’ abstract judgment. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212652, at *1 (Magazine. M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2021). Plaintiff objected to the request for “videoconferencing and repair arrange prices” within the quantity of $737 for Zoom depositions. Id. at *5. The courtroom concurred, citing Bucklew and ruling “[s]ection 1920 doesn’t particularly permit for the restoration of distant videoconferencing and repair arrange charges, and FWC has not offered authority of when such charges have been awarded.” Id. (emphasis added).
In the newest case following Bucklew, the clerk awarded the defendant its taxable prices, together with these associated to distant depositions, and the plaintiff objected. Plane Holding Sols., LLC v. Learjet, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85025, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Could 11, 2022). The defendant sought prices “necessitated by the distant nature of the depositions,” however was unable to determine what sure costs had been for and didn’t meet its burden to point out “the need and quantity of its prices,” however the courtroom indicated it might “solely award prices included in § 1920.” Id. at *18-19. The courtroom referenced Bucklew, and agreed with that courtroom’s reasoning in denying such prices. Id. at *19-20. Particularly, the courtroom said:
[I]t is troublesome to see the place such prices would match inside § 1920 contemplating that they’re charges incurred for a distant platform to conduct a deposition, not charges for an electronically recorded transcript or printed transcript,” and thus, the courtroom held “distant deposition prices will not be awardable” underneath part 1920.
Id. at *20 (quotation omitted).
Prevailing Social gathering Did Not Display Distant Deposition Prices Have been Vital
A pair of selections within the Northern District of Illinois departed from the reasoning set forth in St. Xavier, with out quotation or dialogue, rejecting the prevailing get together’s movement for prices of a distant deposition. In Avanzalia Photo voltaic, S.L., the plaintiff alleged tort claims towards the defendant in reference to its photo voltaic power challenge, however the courtroom granted abstract judgment in defendant’s favor. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158348, at *1. The courtroom acknowledged that “discovery passed off through the COVID-19 pandemic when many proceedings, together with the depositions on this case, couldn’t be carried out in individual,” and utilizing video recordings “was cheap given the dangers that sickness or journey restrictions” may need induced. Id. at *16. The defendant sought restoration of “prices related to the show of reveals and different prices in connection” with distant depositions. Id. at *19. However the necessity for distant depositions, the courtroom decided defendant offered “nearly no rationalization as to what the assorted costs in [that] class characterize[ed]” and why they had been “fairly mandatory.” Id. at *19-20. Due to this fact, the courtroom denied the defendant’s request for prices associated to distant depositions.
In Socha v. Metropolis of Joliet, the defendants efficiently moved for abstract judgment and filed a movement for prices, however the courtroom adopted Avanzalia Photo voltaic. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190611, at *1-2 (N.D. Sick. Oct. 24, 2023). The courtroom cited a “sturdy presumption” that the prevailing get together might be awarded its prices underneath 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and famous the dropping get together should “affirmative[ly] present[.] that taxed prices will not be applicable.” Id. (quotation omitted). Nonetheless, the courtroom declined to award the prices related to distant depositions, together with “deposition-related costs listed as “Authorized/View/Webex Internet Convention.” Id. at *9. The courtroom dominated defendants uncared for to “clarify what the net conferencing costs associated to or why they had been fairly mandatory,” and subsequently “denie[d] Defendants’ requested taxation of web-conferencing prices.” Id. (citing Avanzalia Photo voltaic, S.L. v. Goldwind USA, Inc. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158348 (N.D. Sick. Sept. 7, 2023)).
In distinction to the California courtroom in Greenback Shave Membership, one other California trial courtroom refused to tax prices for “Realtime deposition prices,” a distant deposition service that allowed view of “a reside textual content stream through the deposition.” Sky Elevate Aero. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2022 Cal. Tremendous. LEXIS 58475, at *6 (Cal. Tremendous. Sept. 20, 2022). The courtroom famous the defendant was not presumptively entitled to the prices, and was required to point out the service “could be fairly essential to the conduct of the litigation.” Id. The defendant argued the service was mandatory for Zoom depositions to beat technical points to make sure “correct and full reporting of testimony in real-time.” Id. Nevertheless, the courtroom dominated the defendant failed to point out the service was “fairly mandatory,” and didn’t award these prices. Id.
Though the physique of case regulation addressing whether or not a prevailing get together could get well the price of distant depositions is comparatively restricted, there may be one widespread thread amongst the entire circumstances. If a prevailing get together can clearly articulate the bills incurred for distant depositions had been mandatory and cheap, there’s a good likelihood the get together will be capable of tax these prices, in jurisdictions awarding such bills. Then again, to have taxation of distant deposition prices denied, it seems to assist if you’re an unsuccessful plaintiff. Nevertheless, there isn’t any vivid line rule, and we’re left with the somewhat unsatisfying realization that the reply actually is “it relies upon.”
