§ 9.3.2.2 DEPOSITION COSTS

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 9.3.2.2 Deposition Costs

The costs of taking depositions are recoverable by the successful party. A.R.S. § 12-332(A)(2). This provision covers the costs of taking depositions of both party and non-party witnesses. Estate of Miles, 172 Ariz. 442, 444-45, 837 P.2d 1177, 1179-80 (App. 1992); White v. Frye, 27 Ariz. 447, 451, 234 P. 34, 35 (1925) (analyzing former recovery-of-costs statute, which also included "cost of taking depositions"). The cost of taking a deposition is recoverable if the deposition was taken in good faith. It is irrelevant that the party seeking recovery did not use the deposition at trial or did not prove that taking the deposition was "reasonably necessary." State ex. rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 143 Ariz. 219, 229, 693 P.2d 362, 372 (App. 1984). A successful party can recover the costs of taking any deposition in the normal good faith course of discovery, even if taken for merely exploratory purposes, for pretrial preparation, or for background information. Id. A party need not wait for the trial court's ruling on motions for judgment on the pleadings before taking depositions. Id.

The costs of taking a deposition include the attorney's reasonable and necessary expenses associated with attendance at the deposition, such as travel and meal expenses. Reyes v. Frank's Service and Trucking, LLC, 235 Ariz. 605, 609, 334 P.3d 1264, 1268 (App. 2014) ("Nothing in the statute suggests that in-state deposition costs differ in legal stature from out-of-state deposition expenses,"); Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast, 181 Ariz. at 134, 888 P.2d at 1321 (cost of taking depositions includes travel expenses of attorney to attend other party's deposition outside of Arizona); DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 144 Ariz. 21, 29, 695 P.2d 270, 278 (App. 1984), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 144 Ariz. 6, 695 P.2d 255 (1985) (travel expenses from Phoenix to Yuma); Fowler v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 124 Ariz. 111, 113-14, 602 P.2d 492, 494-95 (App. 1979) (traveling twice to San Francisco for depositions, plus travel for court reporter to one San Francisco deposition); Young's Market Co. v. Laue, 60 Ariz. 512, 517, 141 P.2d 522, 524 (1943) (travel and meals for Tucson attorney to attend deposition in Los Angeles; predecessor version of statute).

While the successful party need not prove that taking the deposition was "reasonably necessary," the party must show that the costs incurred in taking the deposition were...