All of Awarded Costs Were Expressly Authorized.
Plaintiff was flummoxed when the trial judge awarded prevailing defendant $28,488.82 in costs for service of out-of-state subpoenas, computerized time/display, and demonstrative graphic renting equipment expenses. Plaintiff’s appeal did not change things in Goldsmith Seeds v. Great American Ins. Co., Case No. H037791 (6th Dist. Jan. 14, 2016) (unpublished).
The defense did not get its initial responding “kill shot,” namely that the failure to separately appeal the costs order was fatal to consideration of the costs challenge. The notice of appeal from the judgment subsumes later costs awards, so on to the merits.
However, the merits did not go well for plaintiff on appeal. Costs for service of process are allowed under CCP § 1033.5(a)(4), which logically could encompass out-of-state subpoena costs if found necessary to the litigation, as they were here. The costs of the computerized timeline display was in the nature of a blowup (CCP § 1033.5(a)(13)), with case law supporting such a determination. (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1057 (2002); El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 (2007); Science Applications International Corp. v. Superior Court (SAIC), 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1104 (1995).) The renting of the graphic demonstrative equipment was akin to graphic presentation boards and video approved by SAIC such that the costs award was affirmed across the board.