The motion by Windsor Walnut Creek Apartments LLC and Windsor Capital Group, Inc. (together, “Windsor”) to tax the costs sought by plaintiff Valley Commercial Contractors, L.P. (Valley) is granted in part.

The prevailing party in a lawsuit can recover specified costs if they are “reasonable in amount” and “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 (c) (2) and (c) (3). Where a party makes a settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, and the opposing party does not accept the offer, if the party making the offer prevails in getting a better result than what was offered, that party may recover postoffer expert witness costs. Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (c) and (d).

Once the costs have been put at issue by a motion to tax costs, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to substantiate them. Ladas v. California State Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App. 4th 761, 774. Valley’s opposition papers have records of some of the costs claimed, but not all of them. See Valley’s Exhibit Index, Exhibits E, F, G and H. Valley’s counsel, William Kronenberg, states that complete records of all the costs claimed have been lodged for the court’s in camera inspection, in support of Valley’s motion for attorney’s fees, but does not indicate where in those invoices the relevant records are located. Valley Exhibit A, Declaration of William Kronenberg. This is insufficient for Valley to meet its burden as to those costs for which it has not attached records.

NOTE: If Valley wishes the opportunity to separately submit the relevant invoices (either lodging them confidentially or filing them) that are not attached to his present opposition, they may do so. If they do, Windsor and Tarigo will also be given another opportunity to reply (since they did not have that information when they replied). Valley’s attorney shall notify the Court and opposing counsel of his decision by no later than 4:00 PM today, 2/10/14. If he wishes to continue this matter to allow the Court to review additional specific documents, it can be continued to the date of his attorneys’ fees motion after notice to opposing counsel.

The court rules as follows as to the costs to be allowed against Windsor. (Tarigo Properties, LLC has moved separately to tax costs; the court’s rulings on the costs to be allowed against Tarigo are set forth in the ruling on that motion, Line 2.)

Item 1, Filing and Motion Fees. Windsor does not object to these costs. They are allowed in full in the amount of $8,078.23

Item 2, Jury Fees. Windsor does not object to these costs. They are allowed in full in the amount of $4296.36.

Item 4, Deposition Costs. Windsor argues that the costs claimed go far beyond what is reasonable and what was necessary to the conduct of the litigation, pointing to the thirteen times Windsor’s expert was deposed, and travel costs Windsor argues were not necessary. Valley provides documentation of the transcription costs, but not of travel costs, and no explanation of the subpoena duces tecum costs claimed of nearly $3000. The court taxes the entire amount of travel expenses claimed, $16,203.24, and the entire amount of subpoena duces tecum costs, $2996.11. Of the remaining $79,823.77 claimed for deposition transcribing costs, the court taxes $15,600 (six times what Windsor argues was the average cost of a deposition, $2600, to account for those depositions not reasonably necessary to the litigation) and allows $64,223.77.

Item 5, Service of Process. Valley provides no documentation of the claimed costs of service of process. This item is taxed in its entirety.

Item 8, Witness Fees. Valley’s claimed expert witness fees of over $1.1 million constitute most of the overall costs claimed. Windsor argues that the fees are out of proportion to the $840,000 award in the case, as well as making a number of specific claims as to why these fees are unreasonable and unnecessary – for example, large amounts in fees incurred after the initial trial date set and fees incurred for two experts who testified on the same matters. Costs for witness fees are allowed in the amount of $591,791.165, half of the total amount sought, to account for duplicative and/or unnecessary work by Valley’s expert witnesses.

Item 11, Models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits. Windsor does not object to these costs. They are allowed in full in the amount of $4495.58.

Item 12, Court reporter fees. Windsor does not object to these fees. However, Tarigo, in its motion, notes that the cost claimed represents the full cost of the court reporters’ attendance at trial, although Valley bore only one-third of this cost. The total which may be recovered against both Windsor and Tarigo for court reporter fees is $20,446.45.

Item 13, other. Windsor objects to the $18,801.32 in scanning costs claimed as “other costs.” Windsor notes that the there was no fee to comply with the court’s order to deposit documents in a depository; Valley’s decision to have the depository service scan the documents was its own choice. Moreover, the order expressly provided for the depositing party to bear the costs of complying with the order. The costs claimed for scanning the document are taxed in their entirety.

Windsor further seeks to tax the mediation costs, arguing that there is no showing that they were necessary in this case, and further noting inconsistencies as to the amount that actually was Valley’s share of these costs. Because Valley has not shown the necessity of mediation to this case nor an adequate explanation and documentation of the amount sought, the costs claimed for mediation are taxed in their entirety.

Windsor’s Objections to Evidence:

Objections to the Declaration of William Kronenberg:
Objection 1: Overruled. Mr. Kronenberg states an adequate foundation of his knowledge of the matter stated.
Objections 2-4: Sustained. Mr. Kronenberg does not attach documentation of the costs summarized.
Objection 5: Sustained as to Page 3, line 11, as to which Mr. Kronenberg attaches no documentation. With regard to the rest of the testimony objected to, Mr. Kronenberg states an adequate foundation for his knowledge of the matter, and the expert invoices summarized in the declaration are attached.
Objection 6: Sustained. Mr. Kronenberg does not attach documentation of the costs summarized.
Objection 7: Sustained. Mr. Kronenberg does not attach documentation of the costs summarized.
Objection 8: Overruled. Mr. Kronenberg states an adequate foundation for his knowledge of the matter, and the invoices summarized in the declaration are attached.

Objections to the Declaration of Steven W. Yuen:

Objection 1: Overruled. Mr. Yuen states an adequate foundation of his knowledge of the matter stated.
Objection 2: Overruled. Mr. Yuen states an adequate foundation of his knowledge of the matter stated.
Objection 3: Overruled. Mr. Yuen states an adequate foundation of his knowledge of the matter stated, and the documents speak for themselves as to Valley’s share of mediation costs.
Objection 4: Overruled. Mr. Yuen states an adequate foundation of his knowledge of the matter stated.