Discretionary Recovery of Costs for Unused Trial Exhibits: Segal v. ASICS America Corp.

Introduction

Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (12 Cal.5th 651, 2022) addresses the contentious issue of whether a prevailing party in civil litigation can recover costs associated with preparing photocopies of exhibits and demonstrative aids that were ultimately unused at trial. The plaintiffs, Size It, LLC, and Mickey Segal, sued ASICS America Corporation and other defendants for fraud. After a jury found in favor of the defendants, the ensuing dispute centered on the recoverability of certain litigation costs, specifically those related to unused trial materials.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision, albeit on narrower grounds. The key determination was that while costs for unused photocopies of trial exhibits and demonstratives are not categorically recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13), they may still be awarded at the trial court's discretion under section 1033.5(c)(4). This decision resolves a split among appellate courts regarding the interpretation of cost recovery provisions in civil litigation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior appellate decisions to frame its analysis:

LADAS v. CALIFORNIA STATE AUTO. ASSN. (1993): Held that costs for unused exhibits are not recoverable under section 1033.5(a)(13).
APPLEGATE v. ST. FRANCIS LUTHERAN CHURCH (1994): Differed from Ladas by allowing recovery of such costs under section 1033.5(c)(4).
SEEVER v. COPLEY PRESS, Inc. (2006): Reinforced the non-recoverability of costs for unused exhibits, conflicting with Applegate.
Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007): Once again permitted recovery under section 1033.5(c)(4), aligning with Applegate.
Science Applications International Corp. v. Superior Court (1995): Supported a broad interpretation of section 1033.5(c)(4) for discretionary cost awards.

Legal Reasoning

The court focused on the specific language of the statutes:

Section 1033.5(a)(13) allows recovery of costs for certain exhibit-related expenses only if they were "reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact."
Section 1033.5(c)(4) provides trial courts the discretion to award costs not explicitly mentioned in the statute, provided they are "reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation" and "reasonable in amount."

The Supreme Court concluded that the past tense "were reasonably helpful" in section 1033.5(a)(13) implies that only those exhibit costs that actually assisted the fact-finder are recoverable. Since the photocopies and demonstratives in question were not used, they did not meet this criterion. However, under section 1033.5(c)(4), the trial court retains discretion to award these costs if they are deemed reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount.

Impact

This judgment clarifies the boundaries of cost recovery for unused trial exhibits in California civil litigation. By distinguishing between statutory entitlement and discretionary awards, the court limits automatic recovery while preserving judicial flexibility to consider the unique circumstances of each case. This decision harmonizes conflicting appellate interpretations and guides future courts in assessing similar cost recovery issues.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032: Grants the prevailing party in a lawsuit the right to recover certain costs incurred during litigation.
Section 1033.5(a)(13): Specifies which types of costs related to exhibits are automatically recoverable, provided they were helpful during the trial.
Section 1033.5(c)(4): Allows trial courts to award costs not explicitly listed in the statute, based on discretion and necessity.
Trier of Fact: The individual or group (judge or jury) responsible for determining the facts of the case.
Cost Taxing: The process by which a court reviews and potentially limits the costs a party seeks to recover.

Conclusion

The Segal v. ASICS America Corp. decision provides clear guidance on the recoverability of costs for unused trial exhibits in California. By delineating between what is automatically recoverable under the statute and what requires judicial discretion, the court ensures that cost awards remain fair and justified. This ruling balances the need to prevent frivolous or excessive cost claims with the flexibility to acknowledge legitimate litigation expenses, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the civil litigation process.