Opinion
No. CV00 037 46 96 S
March 13, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The prevailing defendant in the above entitled action has submitted a bill of taxable costs totaling $28,725.55. The defendant has filed an objection to specific requests claiming that they are not authorized by statute nor are they reasonable.
Included in the bill of costs is requested reimbursement for the charges of medical experts who testified during the course of the trial. Dr. Jonathan Hammond submitted a bill totaling $5,500. The charge for his in-court testimony of three hours was $1,500. He charged an additional $4,000 for eight hours of preparation. Dr. Mark Metersky submitted a total bill of $8,689.29. He charged $3000 for testifying six hours at $500. He claimed an additional $5,635 representing 16.1 hours to prepare to testify.
It is the opinion of this court that C.G.S. § 52-260(f) does not indicate a legislative intent to require reimbursement for the time a witness selected by the prevailing party expends in preparing for his trial testimony. The objection to the charges of preparation time by the defendant's witnesses as taxable costs is sustained. See: Demateo Construction Co. v. New London, 236 Conn. 710, 718, 674 A.2d 845; Macchietto v. Keggi, CV99 0153255S (May 8, 2008 judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury, (Gallagher, J.) [ 45 Conn. L. Rptr. 550]; Leone v. Tchiavurri, 2007 Ct.Sup. 5571, 43 Conn. Law Rptr. 273, CV020389926, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, April 19, 2007 (Tyma, J.). The court finds the taxable costs of $3,054.29 Dr. Metersky and $1,500 for Dr. Jonathon Hammond.
In addition, the plaintiff submitted as taxable costs charges for various production media identified as Geometrix, Seif Graphics and Icon totaling $13,956.57.
C.G.S. § 52-257(b)(5) provides the court may award a reasonable sum for maps, plans, mechanical drawings, or photographs that are actually used in trial.
Summarily, while this court finds that C.G.S. § 52-257(b)(5) does provide a reasonable sum may be paid as taxable costs for "maps, plans, mechanical drawings and photographs," it does not specify those additional items for which this defendant is seeking reimbursement. Although a litigant is free to expend as much as they wish for production of media demonstrations, § 52-257(b)(5) does not require that the prevailing party be reimbursed for such a decision. See Alswanger v. Smego, superior court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. X05920125294 October 12, 2001 (Tierney, J.) [ 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 529], and Crutchfield v. The Stanley Works, No. X03 CV054022228S, May 5, 2008 (Langenbach, J.) [ 45 Conn. L. Rptr. 441]. The objection to the exhibits entitled "Geometrx, Seif Graphics and Icon" totaling $13,956.57 as taxable costs is sustained.