2020 Ohio 872
Ohio2020Background
- Dan Vossman sued AirNet Systems and two employees for age discrimination; five depositions were taken during discovery.
- AirNet moved for summary judgment and relied on deposition transcripts of its employees, filing portions with the court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for AirNet and awarded $3,641.70 for the cost of procuring deposition transcripts under R.C. 2303.21.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the cost award; Vossman appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court considered whether R.C. 2303.21 authorizes taxing the expense of deposition transcripts used to support a motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vossman) | Defendant's Argument (AirNet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2303.21 authorizes taxing the cost of deposition transcripts used in support of summary-judgment motions | A deposition is not a “proceeding” under R.C. 2303.21; no statutory basis to tax deposition-transcript costs | A deposition transcript is a transcript of a “proceeding” and, because it was necessary to the motion, its expense is taxable under R.C. 2303.21 | Court held a deposition taken outside the presence of a judge is not a “proceeding” under R.C. 2303.21; deposition-transcript costs are not recoverable as court costs |
| Whether Williamson v. Ameritech controls | Williamson held deposition expenses lack statutory authorization and thus supports reversal | Williamson addressed a different statute (R.C. 2319.27) and is not dispositive here | Court held Williamson is not controlling because it addressed R.C. 2319.27, not R.C. 2303.21 |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Ameritech Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 342, 691 N.E.2d 288 (Ohio 1998) (held R.C. 2319.27 does not authorize taxing court-reporter services at depositions as costs)
- State ex rel. Michaels v. Morse, 165 Ohio St. 599, 138 N.E.2d 660 (Ohio 1956) (costs are a matter of statutory allowance)
- Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 597 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio 1992) (same principle on statutory control over costs)
- Great Lakes Bar Control, Inc. v. Testa, 156 Ohio St.3d 199, 124 N.E.3d 803 (Ohio 2018) (interpret undefined statutory terms by their plain meaning)
- Zangerle v. Evatt, 139 Ohio St. 563, 41 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 1942) (discusses contextual meanings of “proceeding”)
- In re Election of November 6, 1990 for the Office of Attorney General of Ohio, 62 Ohio St.3d 1, 577 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio 1991) (contrast in statutory authorization for taxing certain expenses)
- Job v. Harlan, 13 Ohio St. 485 (Ohio 1862) (historical usage of “transcript of the proceedings” referring to matters before a court)
- Godfred v. Godfred, 30 Ohio St. 53 (Ohio 1876) (historical authority treating "transcript of the proceedings" as court record)