Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,750 chars
148 Wn. App. 246, 201 P.3d 331 (2008), Division Three of our court noted that

“our Supreme Court has recognized there are no grounds for awarding expert

witness fees as costs” and ultimately held that “RCW 4.84.010 does not authorize

expert witness fees in an award of costs to the prevailing party.” Id. at 263 (citing

Wagner v. Foote, 128 Wn.2d 408, 417-18, 908 P.2d 884 (1996), and Fiorito v.

Goerig, 27 Wn.2d 615, 620, 179 P.2d 316 (1947)). Although the WLAD creates a

statutory basis for a prevailing plaintiff to recover expert witness fees, the act does

not entitle a prevailing defendant to recover such fees. See Xieng v. Peoples Nat.

Bank of Wash., 120 Wn.2d 512, 526-30, 844 P.2d 389 (1993) (noting that RCW

49.60.030(2) permits the “person deeming himself injured by any act in violation”

of the WLAD to recover costs of suit). Accordingly, the trial court erred in awarding

Symetra’s expert witness fees.

Second, Bittner argues the trial court erred by awarding costs to Symetra

under RCW 4.84.010(7) for the fees charged by videographers who videotaped

depositions. We agree. The plain language of RCW 4.84.010(7) indicates that

videographer fees are not recoverable because they do not relate to the

transcription of a deposition. See W EBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL

238 P.3d 1184 (2010) (addressing whether, as a matter of law, prejudgment interest may properly
be awarded on remand “[b]ecause this issue is likely to recur on remand”).

- 28 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

DICTIONARY 2426 (2002) (defining “transcribe” as “to make a written copy of”).

Accordingly, the trial court erred in awarding Symetra’s videographer fees under

RCW 4.84.010.