Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Additional Costs to Videotape Deposition Appropriately Taxed Where Objecting Party Ordered Recording and Prevailing Party, as a Result, Paid Some of the Cost

Pacificorp v. Nw. Pipeline GP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174593 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2012):

2. Videography for Deposition

PacifiCorp next objects to costs for videography at the depositions of John Roscher and Ed Towes, which it argues was unnecessary. However, these depositions were taken by PacifiCorp and used primarily in PacifiCorp's motions to compel and motion for summary judgment.... And PacifiCorp--not Northwest--ordered them to be video recorded.... As a result, it appears that Northwest paid for both the preparation of traditional deposition transcripts as well some portion of the additional costs incurred because of PacifiCorp's decision to videotape these depositions. The standard rationale for denying costs for a party's own decision to videotape depositions therefore does not apply in this instance. Cf. Berglund, 2012 WL 697140, at *3; Davico v. Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals, CV No. 05-6052-TC, 2008 WL 624049, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 23, 2008) ("In short, if a party wishes to videotape a deposition that is not a perpetuation deposition, it may certainly do so at its own expense, but this court is not going to pass on what it views to be an unnecessary expense to the other party by awarding such in a bill of costs."). The $1,180.00 in video deposition charges are appropriately taxed.

Share this article:


Recent Posts