 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Key v. Chrysler Motors Corporation12/29/1998
ded the value of Key's business, there was other conflicting evidence in the record to suggest that Mr. Walter's fee was reasonable when viewed in light of other factors. Similarly, although Key relies on the fact that Mr. Walter's hourly rate exceeded other experts and attorneys involved in this case, we believe that is simply conflicting evidence for the district court to resolve. See generally ) (trier of fact, not appellate court, weighs testimony) . However, those who utilize experts whose fees reach the level reached here certainly run the risk of the law being changed to bar fees which shock the conscience or otherwise bring the civil Justice system into disrepute.
III. Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion in Awarding Certain Costs?
{17} Key also argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Chrysler its costs for long-distance phone charges, fax charges, federal express charges, delivery charges, and photocopy charges. Key argues that no New Mexico precedent exists for allowing long-distance phone charges, fax charges, federal express charges, and delivery charges. See (courts should exercise their discretion sparingly to tax as costs those expenses not specifically authorized by statute or precedent). We agree and therefore reverse the district court's award of costs for these charges.
{18} To the extent that both parties question the amount of photocopying charges allowed by the district court as costs, we first note that the district court is specifically authorized to award such costs by New Mexico precedent. See . Moreover, we believe the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to reduce the photocopy charges by almost 50% in response to Key's complaint that much of the photocopy charges were the result of Chrysler's decision to copy many of the documents six times for distribution to several attorneys.
IV. Did the District Court Abuse Its Discretion in Disallowing Chrysler's Costs for Computer-Assisted Legal Research?
{19} Chrysler argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award it the costs of its computer-assisted legal research. In support of its position, Chrysler cites to some jurisdictions which have allowed for the award of such costs. See, e.g., ); ); but see . However, our research indicates that most courts decline to award costs for computerized legal research. See 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 54.77 at 54-419 (2d ed. 1996); Gary Knapp, Annotation, Recoverability of Cost of Computerized Legal Research Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1920 or Rule 54(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 80 A.L.R. Fed. 168 (1986). We join the majority of courts which have declined to award as costs the charges for computer-assisted legal research. We recognize that Chrysler advocates awarding costs for computerized legal research because it is intended to save attorney time in performing manual research. But as such, the costs associated with computerized research are akin to attorney fees. See . Since Chrysler is not entitled to attorney fees in this case, we do not believe the district court abused its discretion in refusing to tax as costs Chrysler's charges for computer-assisted legal research.
CONCLUSION
{20} Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's order awarding costs.
{21} IT IS SO ORDERED.
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
I CONCUR:
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Judge
HARRIS L HARTZ, Chief Judge (concurring in part and Dissenting in part)
HARTZ, Chief Judge. (concurring in part and Dissenting in part)
{22} I concur in Judge Alarid's opi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|