Dan W. Vossman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AirNet Systems, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16AP-739 (C.P.C. No. 11CV-7360)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 18, 2017
2017-Ohio-2872
BROWN, J.; SADLER and HORTON, JJ., concur.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on May 18, 2017
On brief: Law Offices of Russell A. Kelm, Russell A. Kelm, and Colleen M. Koehler, for appellant. Argued: Russell A. Kelm.
On brief: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, David A. Campbell, and Gregory C. Scheiderer, for appellees. Argued: Gregory C. Scheiderer.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BROWN, J.
{¶ 1} Dan W. Vossman, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in which the court entered a final judgment awarding deposition transcript expenses as costs to Airnet Systems, Inc. (“Airnet“), Quinn Hamon (“Hamon“), and Thomas Schaner, defendants-appellees.
{¶ 2} Many of the factual details in this matter are not germane to the issues in the present appeal, so only a general recitation of the underlying facts is necessary. On June 5, 2011, appellant, a pilot with Airnet, filed an age discrimination action against appellees. Both parties took several depositions. On October 19, 2012, the trial court
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT EXPENSES AS COSTS UNDER CIVIL RULE 54 (D).
{¶ 3} Appellant argues in his assignment of error that the trial court erred when it awarded deposition transcript expenses as costs under
Costs. Except when express provision therefore is made either in a statute or in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.
{¶ 4} Costs are generally defined as being the statutory fees to which officers, witnesses, jurors, and others are entitled for their services in an action and which the statutes authorize to be taxed and included in the judgment. Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 555 (1992). Thus, in order to be taxable as a cost, pursuant to
{¶ 5} In the present case, appellant‘s argument centers on the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s decision in Williamson v. Ameritech Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 342 (1998) (”Williamson“). In Williamson, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for age discrimination. The jury found in favor of the defendants, and the defendants moved for an award of costs under
{¶ 6} On appeal to the Supreme Court, that court reversed, finding that “there is neither general statutory authority empowering a trial court to award deposition expenses to a prevailing party nor a specific statutory mandate permitting the award in this case.” Williamson at 343. The court found that the categories of litigation expenses comprising “costs” allowed to the prevailing party under
{¶ 7} In the present case, appellant relies on the passage in Williamson—in which the court stated there was no general or specific statutory authority empowering a trial court to award deposition expenses to a prevailing party—to argue that there is no statutory authority in the present case to award the cost of the deposition transcripts. In response, appellees claim
When it is necessary in an appeal, or other civil action to procure a transcript of a judgment or proceeding, or exemplification of a record, as evidence in such action or for any other purpose, the expense of procuring such transcript or exemplification shall be taxed in the bill of costs and recovered as in other cases.
Appellant contends that
{¶ 8} We find Williamson inapplicable to the present circumstances. Williamson specifically limited its opinion to whether
{¶ 9} Furthermore, the court in Williamson did not find that there existed no statutory authority for awarding deposition transcript expenses as costs. Although
{¶ 10} Other courts are in accord with our analysis above. In Boomershine v. Lifetime Capital, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 495, 2009-Ohio-2736, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.), the Second District Court of Appeals, citing Keaton v. Pike Comm. Hosp., 124 Ohio App.3d 153 (4th Dist.1997), held that deposition transcript expenses may be awarded as costs if they are used to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment, based on
{¶ 11} The court in Boomershine at ¶ 11 further reasoned that the expenses incurred to obtain transcripts were “necessary” because: (1) Montgomery County Loc.R. 2.09(IV) required that a deposition transcript be filed when needed “for consideration of a motion in the proceeding,” citing Jackson v. Sunforest OB-GYN Assocs. Inc., 6th. Dist. No. L-08-1133, 2008-Ohio-6170, ¶ 8 (stating that, because a local rule required it, the cost of the deposition transcript can be awarded as “costs” under
{¶ 12} In Brondes Ford, Inc. v. Habitec Sec., 6th Dist. No. L-12-1358, 2015-Ohio-2441, ¶ 173-76, the Sixth District Court of Appeals found that, pursuant to
{¶ 13} In 2115-2121 Ontario Bldg., L.L.C. v. Anter, 8th Dist. No. 98255, 2013-Ohio-2993, ¶ 28-29, the Eighth District Court of appeals found that
{¶ 14} In Nithiananthan, the court found that
{¶ 15} The Tenth District Court of Appeals has also addressed several of the issues pertinent here. Although not a case involving summary judgment, in Brodess v. Bagent, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-623, 2005-Ohio-20, ¶ 14, this court addressed Williamson. We noted that some appellate courts have interpreted Williamson to prohibit the award of any expenses associated with transcripts of depositions as costs under any circumstances. However, we found that Williamson is not so broad. We noted that the syllabus in Williamson provides only that
{¶ 16} We find the above authorities support the trial court‘s award of deposition transcript expenses here. As the courts found in those cases, the deposition transcripts were properly awarded as costs because they were necessary to exemplify the record of a proceeding for purposes of summary judgment.
{¶ 17} Accordingly, appellant‘s single assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and HORTON, JJ., concur.