[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Vossman v. AirNet Sys., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-872.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-872 VOSSMAN, APPELLANT, v. AIRNET SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Vossman v. AirNet Sys., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-872.] R.C. 2303.21 does not authorize a party to recover the cost of deposition transcripts used in support of a motion for summary judgment. (No. 2017-1688—Submitted April 23, 2019—Decided March 12, 2020.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 16AP-739, 2017- Ohio-2872. _________________ DEWINE, J. {¶ 1} A prevailing party in a civil lawsuit is ordinarily entitled to recover court costs. See Civ.R. 54(D). The question here is whether the cost of procuring deposition transcripts used in support of a motion for summary judgment may be recovered as part of these costs. R.C. 2303.21 provides that when it is necessary in a civil action “to procure a transcript of a * * * proceeding, * * * the expense of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO procuring such transcript * * * shall be taxed in the bill of costs and recovered as in other cases.” So, to decide if the cost of the deposition transcripts is recoverable, we need to figure out if a deposition used in support of a motion for summary judgment is a “proceeding” under the statute. {¶ 2} We conclude that a discovery deposition conducted outside the presence of a judge is not a proceeding within the meaning of R.C. 2303.21 and thus the cost of procuring the transcript of such a deposition may not be recovered as a cost under Civ.R. 54(D). Both the trial court and the court of appeals concluded that the cost of deposition transcripts was recoverable. Because we see it differently, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. I. The trial court awards costs of procuring deposition transcripts {¶ 3} The relevant facts are straightforward. In 2011, Dan Vossman, sued his former employers, AirNet Systems, Inc., Quinn Hamon, and Thomas Schaner (collectively, “AirNet”), for age discrimination. Over the course of litigation, the parties took five depositions: four of AirNet employees and one of Vossman. AirNet filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of its motion, AirNet cited to the transcripts of several depositions of its employees, and it filed portions of the transcripts with the court. After the trial court granted AirNet’s summary-judgment motion, AirNet, relying upon R.C. 2303.21, moved to recover the cost of procuring the deposition transcripts. The trial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals