Sacramento Car Accident Victim Contests Defense Expert’s Costs, Part 4 of 5

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)


Plaintiff’s cost bill Item No. 11 documents the costs for models and exhibits used at trial in the total amount of $4,987.62. For presentation of evidence in a two-week jury trial involving hundreds of documents and dozens of blow-ups, such costs are on their face entirely reasonable. Defendant’s argument that these costs are excessive is not supported by any evidence other than the argument of counsel. For example, counsel argues that plaintiff should have instead used the Elmo exhibit as opposed to actual blow-ups. This seems to be a reverse of defendant’s prior argument that plaintiff should not have used high-tech gadgetry (such as Elmos), but instead should rely upon low-tech presentations such as blow-ups.

As the court will recall, blow-ups were used with virtually every witness called by plaintiff and were extremely helpful to the jury in the presentation of the evidence in this case. In contrast, the quality of the Elmo in the courtroom was less than ideal and was remote in distance from the jury box. Ultimately, the jurors received into evidence a number of blow-ups that assisted them in their deliberations. (See Part 5 of 5.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information