In a recent post on his Court Technology, Trial Presentation blog, Ted Brooks explains how a decision out of Los Angeles demonstrates that L.A. courts are “on the cutting edge of technology.” Traditionally, Brooks explains, though many preparation costs for trial have been recoverable, such as animations, video, and editing and printing oversized boards, the time spent during trial showing the evidence has not been. But in Bender v. County of Los Angeles, the court finally addressed this matter.
At issue was whether certain technological costs could be recoverable, such as the synchronization of videotaped depositions and employing a projectionist. The court below had approved the costs. But the defendants argued that the costs, which included courtroom presentations, should not be awarded to the plaintiffs. Defendants relied on almost 20-year-old case law, where a party spent more than $2 million in high-tech litigation costs. The court instead said that too much time had passed to rely on the case fully and the “use of technology in the courtroom has become commonplace,” and cheaper.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
