Submitted: April 30, 2013
On Defendants' Motion for Costs - GRANTED IN PART.
Ryan M. Ernst, Esquire O’Kelly Ernst & Bielli, LLC
John D. Balaguer, Esquire Dana Spring Monzo, Esquire White and Williams LLP
WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, JR. JUDGE
The Court has before it Defendants' Motion for Costs filed in the above-captioned matter. As the prevailing party, the Defendants are entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 54 (d) of the Superior Court Civil Rules. The following is the Court's decision regarding the costs that are requested.
a. Filing Fees
The Court filing fees and costs associated with service of process are generally recoverable. In addition, the Court has previously ruled that the costs associated with the LexisNexis filing process are recoverable. As such, the costs of $80.00 paid to Brandywine Process Servers as well as the LexisNexis fees of $844.50 are awarded.
b. Deposition Transcripts
Rule 54(f) provides that fees paid court reporters for the Court's copy of transcripts of depositions shall not be taxable costs unless they are introduced into evidence. During the trial the deposition transcripts of Patricia Hartsell and Alfred Jackson were read into evidence and therefore the costs associated with the preparation of those transcripts will be awarded. The cost associated with the Jackson transcript is $206.16 and the Hartsell transcript is $150.27. The remaining transcript fees requested by the defendant are of testimony not introduced into evidence and therefore will not be awarded.
c. Deposition of Dr. Glat
In December of 2011 the Court held a hearing regarding the motion to compel the deposition of Dr. Glat and to establish a reasonable fee schedule for that deposition. Dr. Glat was demanding $4, 400.00 for a half day of testimony regardless of the actual amount of time the deposition took. The Court eventually held that the defendant should pay for the cost of the deposition and it would consider a request for fees associated with that deposition if they were successful at trial. Having now heard the testimony of Dr. Glat as well as the circumstances surrounding his deposition, the Court ...