Summary
This is a United States District Court for the District of Colorado order granting in part and denying in part AECOM Technical Services, Inc.'s revised motion for litigation costs. Relying on a fee-shifting provision in the parties' subcontract and Colorado state law, the court awarded approximately $5.88 million in nontaxable costs, including expert witness fees, e-discovery expenses, and certain trial-related expenditures. The court reduced the requested amounts based on deficiencies in documentation, allocation between affirmative claims and counterclaims, and the necessity of certain expenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether ATS is entitled to recover expert witness costs under Colorado law and the subcontract.
- Whether ATS may recover e‑discovery costs not expressly listed in Colorado statutes.
- Whether ATS may recover non‑expert costs such as trial director, supplies, temporary office, and meals.
Holdings
- The court awarded ATS $4,793,333.52 in expert costs after reductions for duplicated testimony, administrative fees, insufficient invoice detail, and allocation to affirmative claims.
- The court awarded ATS $984,980.48 in e‑discovery costs after deducting undocumented amounts and applying a 15% reduction for allocation issues.
- The court awarded $106,220.68 for permissible non‑expert costs (trial director) and denied all other claimed non‑expert costs.
Key quotations
“The Court awards ATS $5,884,534.69 in nontaxable costs reasonably and necessarily incurred.” (at 1)
“Absent a specific prohibition, the trial court has discretion over the awarding of costs.” (at 2)
Factual background
The parties entered a subcontract that shifted fees and costs to the prevailing party. ATS sought recovery of expert witness fees, e‑discovery expenses, and various non‑expert costs. Flatiron contested the necessity and reasonableness of many items, leading the court to reduce or deny portions of the claimed amounts.
Procedural history
ATS filed a revised motion for costs after earlier fee motions. The court considered expert, e‑discovery, and non‑expert cost categories and applied Colorado law and the parties' subcontract to determine allowable amounts.