Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained.
In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff (applying a 1.2 multiplier to the lodestar) as prevailing party attorney’s fees, $26,953.72 for expert witness costs after the defense rejected a CCP § 998 offer beat by plaintiff in the subsequent jury verdict, and $24,103.75 for a trial video computer/PowerPoint presentation/videotaped deposition synchronizing/costs of a trial technician for nine days of trial.
The appellate court rebuffed defense challenges to the fee and costs awards.
On the fee challenge, the appellate court liked what the trial court did: it gave a tentative decision “roadmap” on analyzing fee billings and applying a multiplier it deemed appropriate, inviting and receiving supplemental briefing to cement its final decision on fees. Given this expansive record, the reviewing court had no problem sustaining the fee award, especially given that plaintiff had initially requested $1.5 million in fees. (BLOG OBSERVATION--In the words of Justice Fybel (4th Dist., Div. 3), litigants need to provide a “roadmap” to the lower and reviewing courts on fees issues. In this one, the trial court actually crafted it for the litigants.)
Early road map. Tabula Peutingeriana, copy of scroll originally dating to about 350 AD, plots part of Roman road network running from Europe and North Africa to West Asia. Wikipedia.
The expert fee witness costs were proper because plaintiff did beat the 998 offer, with the defense having criminal testimony for a merits evaluation of the underlying case--notwithstanding that the 998 offer was made “early on” in the case.
As far as the trial technology costs, the reviewing court found no abuse of discretion in the award. It actually intimated that a contrary denial of trial technology costs in Science Applications Internat. Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103 (1995)--involving much higher costs--might be a dated determination given that use of courtroom technology has become commonplace and much less expensive in nature. So, this decision is one to use when confronting Science Applications in the future. (In Science Applications, $2 million in technology expenses were sought after, compared to the $24,000-plus here--demonstrating that courtroom technology expenses have indeed plummeted in amount.)
Comments