Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus, electing to prepare the administrative record itself.  It delayed well beyond the 60-day period allotted for preparation of the record, so the defendant agency prepared the record, including a large appendix of post-decision documents that the court ordered prepared at plaintiff’s insistence.  This decision holds that the trial court did not err in assessing plaintiff half the cost of preparing this record when it lost the suit.  The trial court’s ruling was supported by its implicit finding that plaintiff had unreasonably delayed while defendant had acted reasonably under those circumstances in preparing the record despite plaintiff’s election to do so itself. Also, court call charges are not telephone charges and are recoverable in the discretion of the trial court under CCP 1033.5(c).

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 6 (Gilbert, P.J.); June 28, 2018 (modified & published July 27, 2018); 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 661