Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ITEM NO. 12 FOR COURT REPORTER FEES IS ALLOWABLE BY STATUTE.

Finally, defendant objects to plaintiff's cost Item No. 12 for the fees charged by the official court reporter of this trial. At the conclusion of the case, plaintiff submitted a check to the clerk of the court in the amount of $2,483 directly for payment of the official court reporter fees.
Pursuant to Government Code section 68086(a)(1), such a fee was required by statute:

"(a) The following provisions apply in Superior Court:(1) In addition to any other fee required in civil actions or cases, for each proceeding lasting more than one hour, a fee equal to the actual cost of providing that service shall be charged per one-half day of service to the parties, on a prorata basis, for the services of an official court reporter on the first and each succeeding judicial day." Obviously the services of the official court reporter are required by law and were paid by plaintiff and are therefore recoverable.

CONCLUSION

Here, defendant chose to turn down an eminently fair settlement offer and instead elected to go to great expense in fighting liability and damages in this case by extremely expensive defense expert witnesses. Additionally, defendant wasted substantial court assets and time in insisting upon a two-week jury trial that could have been resolved far less expensively.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Litigation Costs Become Issue After Sacramento Car Accident Victim Wins Trial, Part 5 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF'S COST BILL FOR MODELS AND EXHIBITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,987.62 IS INHERENTLY REASONABLE.

Plaintiff's cost bill Item No. 11 documents the costs for models and exhibits used at trial in the total amount of $4,987.62. For presentation of evidence in a two-week jury trial involving hundreds of documents and dozens of blow-ups, such costs are on their face entirely reasonable. Defendant's argument that these costs are excessive is not supported by any evidence other than the argument of counsel. For example, counsel argues that plaintiff should have instead used the Elmo exhibit as opposed to actual blow-ups. This seems to be a reverse of defendant's prior argument that plaintiff should not have used high-tech gadgetry (such as Elmos), but instead should rely upon low-tech presentations such as blow-ups.

As the court will recall, blow-ups were used with virtually every witness called by plaintiff and were extremely helpful to the jury in the presentation of the evidence in this case. In contrast, the quality of the Elmo in the courtroom was less than ideal and was remote in distance from the jury box. Ultimately, the jurors received into evidence a number of blow-ups that assisted them in their deliberations. (See Part 5 of 5.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

In essence, defendant argues that the expert witness bill from ABC Engineering should be substantially cut because Mr. Ridley Hall used computer programs to create an animation and blow-ups that were used at trial. The argument goes on to sate that such a presentation could have been done by less expensive, low-tech means . No explanation, however, is given by defendant as to how computer modeling and a computer-based animation could have been done less expensively to communicate the same thing. Obviously, due to evidentiary foundational requirements, Mr. Hall had to base his animation on appropriate documentation and evidence in order to create an accurate reconstruction of the subject accident. There is no declaration submitted by defendant by any competent expert that says that the computerized accident reconstruction could be done at a more reasonable expense or using "low-tech means."

In fact, the jury found that Mr. Hall's presentation was so important that they asked for the animation to be replayed during their deliberations. All of Mr. Hall's computer-created exhibits were painstakingly used one by one during his testimony, as was his animation.
The case cited by defendant, El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc., (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 612, actually supports the type of evidence that was used in this trial:

The problem with the electronic equipment and the labor costs rejected in Science Applications, as we understand it, was that these were more expensive methods of doing things that could be done by less-expensive, low-tech means, and therefore they were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation but were "merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation." (§1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Catastrophically Injured Sacramento Man Sues After Car Acident, Part 3 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 998 IS TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENTS AND TO PUNISH A PARTY WHO FAILS TO ACCEPT A REASONABLE OFFER FROM THE OTHER PARTY.

In Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 C al.App.3rd 692, the court spent considerable time evaluating the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The court noted as follows:

"Section 998 should be interpreted so as to effectuate its purpose of encouraging the settlement of lawsuits before trial." Section 998 achieves its aim by punishing a party who fails to accept a reasonable offer from the other party. 195 Cal.App.3rd at 698-699.

In this case, the parties could have avoided an extremely expensive and time-consuming two-week jury trial had defendant and his insurance carrier accepted an entirely reasonable offer that is nearly half of what the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Man Injured In Auto Accident, Part 2 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Tammy Greene's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs

INTRODUCTION

As the court is well aware, this was a very serious automobile injury, disputed liability case, with a major defense mounted by defendant Li. To boil defendant's Motion to Tax Costs down to its essence, Li complains that plaintiff's expert witness presentation was too expensive and the court should therefore not exercise its discretion to award expert witness fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §998. What Li's motion fails to point out is that the defense experts charged even higher fees, as is reflected in the trial transcript. Just to cite one example, defense expert witness Walter Brown, who testified all of 15 minutes at trial, and charged well in excess of $10,000 for his services in rendering an opinion as to whether the lights were on or off on the plaintiff's Lexus. Had defendant been the prevailing party in this case, there is little doubt they would have been asking for expert witness costs well in excess of the amount requested on plaintiff's cost bill.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Seriously Injured In Car Accident, Part 1 of 5" »