Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.45 (2026)
Videotape costs; depositions and trials
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.45(2)(2) The reasonable expense of recording testimony on videotape shall be costs in the action.
885.45(3)(3) The expense of playing the videotape recording at trial shall be borne by the proponent of the testimony. If the proponent is entitled to costs, the expense under this subsection shall be costs in the action, not to exceed for each witness or expert witness the maximum allowable cost for witness fees under ss. 814.04 (2) and 814.67 (1) (b) and (c).
885.45(4)(4) The expense of an audio reproduction of the videotape recording sound track used by the court in ruling on objections shall be costs in the action.
885.45(5)(5) The expense of playing the videotape recording for the purpose of ruling upon objections shall be borne by one or more parties as apportioned by the court in an equitable manner. If the party bearing the expense is entitled to costs, the expense under this subsection shall be costs in the action in an amount determined by the court.
885.45(6)(6) The expense of producing the edited version of the videotape recording shall be costs in the action, provided that the expense of the videotape, as a material, shall be borne by the proponent of the testimony.
885.45(7)(7) The expense of a copy of the videotape recording and the expense of an audiotape recording of the videotape sound track shall be borne by the party requesting the copy.
885.45 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1975: This provision sets out the application of costs in the use of videotape procedure. Costs are allocated in an equitable manner between the proponent and the court or are considered costs in the action. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1976]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004).
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004). “Accordingly, it looked to Wis. Stat. §§ 885.45 and 814.04(2) for guidance.”
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. P'ship, 2003 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§§ 885.45 and 814.04(2). Section 885.45(2) provides that "[t]he reasonable expense of recording testimony on videotape shall be costs in the action.”
MDS Enter., Inc. v. Mid-State Truck Serv., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “The court concluded: Although Wis. Stat. § 885.45 does not contain a specific provision about transcription, Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.45(2) — 3 cases
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004). “Accordingly, it looked to Wis. Stat. §§ 885.45 and 814.04(2) for guidance.”
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. P'ship, 2003 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§§ 885.45 and 814.04(2). Section 885.45(2) provides that "[t]he reasonable expense of recording testimony on videotape shall be costs in the action.”
MDS Enter., Inc. v. Mid-State Truck Serv., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “The court concluded: Although Wis. Stat. § 885.45 does not contain a specific provision about transcription, Wis.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.