IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF ... - FindLaw

to communicate with the jury and preserve the record. There was no
demonstration of bias.
b. Journals
Dee kept extensive journals documenting her claims of exposure to mold
and her dealings with PCS. A headline at the top of one provided: “PCS Events &
Evidence Providing -- Toxic Mold „ Cover Up‟ Operation.” Dee described her
symptoms, emotions, concerns, and dealings with PCS employees.
Dee‟s counsel asked several witnesses about the entries in Dee‟s journals.
Several physicians relied on her journals, and Dee referred frequently to her
journals in her own testimony. However, when respondents‟ counsel sought to
admit the journals, Dee argued that they should be excluded. Dee also objected
when the trial court asked her if she wrote the journals.
Dee argues that the admission of the journals reflects a bias against her. She
fails to explain or support this contention and thus has forfeited it. (People v.
Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 791.) Neither the admission of Dee‟s journals nor
the court‟s asking her whether she wrote them demonstrates any prejudice against
Dee.
5. Award of Costs
The court awarded respondents $331,167.52 in costs. Dee contends that it
was error to award any costs over $51,422.85. She offers no argument in support
of her contention. To the extent Dee seeks to renew the principal argument she
made in the trial court that expert witness fees may accrue only after the settlement
offer was made, that argument has been foreclosed by our Supreme Court.
(Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507,
532-533 [where an offer to compromise is extended, expert witness fees are
recoverable regardless of whether they are incurred before or after the compromise
offer is extended].) To the extent Dee seeks to challenge the award on other
28