Photocopies Are Not an Easy Recoverable Cost

You are a prevailing party! You get to recover certain costs! Yay! Except, when you were incurring those expenses in discovery, did you adequately document them? As the Supreme Court of Nevada decided on March 26, receipts are just the start.

Cadle Co. v. Woods & Erickson, LLP, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 15, 345 P.3d 1049 (2015) dealt primarily with something far more interesting than recoverable costs. The opinion was published primarily because “Nevada, like most other jurisdictions, does not recognize accessory liability for fraudulent transfers.” The law firm won, but the Supreme Court then considered whether the recoverable costs the firm had received were appropriate. Most were, because they were adequately documented. Several, however, were not.

For instance, the costs related to a runner service were struck because no documentation supporting the costs was submitted. Similarly, as to deposition transcripts, “[b]ecause there was no documentation of costs exceeding $1,116.75, the district court lacked sufficient evidence to award $1,921.25, and the award for this item must be reduced to $1,116.75.”

Finally the court rejected the award for the costs of photocopies.

Woods & Erickson did not submit documentation about photocopies other than an affidavit of counsel stating that each and every copy made was reasonable and necessary. In PETA, we rejected a claim for photocopy costs because only the date and cost of each copy were provided. See PETA, 114 Nev. at 1353, 971 P.2d at 386. We have also held that documentation substantiating the reason for each copy “is precisely what is required under Nevada law.” Viii. Builders 96, 121 Nev. at 277-78, 112 P.3d at 1093.

Here, Woods & Erickson failed to show why the copying costs were reasonable or necessary. The affidavit of counsel told the court that the costs were reasonable and necessary, but it did not “demonstrate how such fees were necessary to and incurred in the present action.” PETA, 114 Nev. at 1352-53, 971 P.2d at 386 (emphasis added). Because the district court had no evidence on which to judge the reasonableness or necessity of each photocopy charge, we conclude that the court lacked justifying documentation to award photocopy costs.

While incurring those discovery costs righteously representing your client, don’t forget the documentation.