ase Number: BC546904??? Hearing Date: February 08, 2017??? Dept: B
PLAINITFF?S MOTION TO TAX COSTS ? TENTATIVE RULING
On March 31, 2016 defendant Costco served a CCP 998 offer of $25,000 on plaintiff Aro. This matter proceed to jury trial, and the jury returned a defense verdict. Defendant filed its cost bill on December 23, 2016. Plaintiff filed a motion to tax defendant?s cost bill on January 11, 2017, objecting to the entire amounts claimed by defendant for expert witness fees, totaling $30,034.46.
Per CCP 998( c) (1), a plaintiff who fails to obtain a more favorable judgment after rejecting a defendant?s CCP 998 offer must pay the defendant?s costs from the date of the 998 (3/31/16). Thus, plaintiff must pay defendant?s reasonable costs from that date.
Plaintiff suggests defendant?s 998 offer was not reasonable. The court declines to follow plaintiff?s suggestion. In hindsight, defendant?s 998 offer was reasonable, as can be seen by the jury?s evaluation of the plaintiff?s claim.
Item 8: witness fees ? While an award of expert witness fees is discretionary with the court, the court finds that the expert witness fees claimed here are reasonable and not duplicative. Defendant sought testimony from a medical doctor, a human factors expert and an accident reconstruction expert. Any costs incurred following the date of the 998 offer (3/31/16) are to be awarded to defendant and are not properly taxed. Any amounts billed prior to that date are to be taxed.
The total amounts billed by each expert are not unreasonable in amount. It is also not unreasonable to expect that any expert would expend considerable time subsequent to his deposition in preparation for trial. Thus, the court does not find it inconsistent that the experts testified that they had spent a certain amount of time on the case prior to deposition, then have a final bill that reflected significantly more time.
As to Dr. Mack Quan, it appears (Exh. C to motion) that all time was expended after the 998, so $10,432.60 is properly awarded.
As to Dr. Arthur Kreitenberg, it appears (Exh. G to motion) that $700 was expended on March 23, 2016, prior to the 998, so that amount should be taxed. The remaining amount is properly awarded.
As to Dr. Gavin Huntley-Fenner, it appears (Exh. E to motion) that he billed $507.50 on 11/16/15, $1,992.50 on 12/16/15 and $2,760 on 4/8/16 for work performed in March 2016, prior to the 998 (Exh. F to motion). These amounts are properly taxed as having been incurred prior to the 998. The amount to be taxed as to his bills is $5,260; the remaining amount is properly awarded.
Thus, the court?s tentative is to grant plaintiff?s motion to tax costs as to item 8 in the amount of $700 as to Dr. Kreitenberg and $5,260 as to Dr. Huntley-Fenner, a total of $5,960. Costs are properly awarded to defendant re item 8/expert witness costs in the amount of $42,786.08 minus $5,260 = $37,526.08.
No appearance is necessary should the parties wish to submit on the court?s tentative.