AECOM Technical Services, Inc. v. Flatiron AECOM, LLC
1:19-cv-02811
D. Colo.Mar 11, 2025Background
- AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (Flatiron) were parties to a Subcontract containing a fee-shifting provision for litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees.
- ATS moved to recover nontaxable litigation costs (above the standard taxable costs permitted under federal law) based on the Subcontract’s fee-shifting clause and Colorado law, following a judgment in its favor.
- The costs ATS sought included expert witness fees, e-discovery expenses, and miscellaneous litigation costs, initially totaling over $7.6 million.
- Flatiron challenged the necessity, reasonableness, and documentation for various categories of costs.
- The court ordered ATS to amend its costs request and address allocation between costs incurred for prosecution of its affirmative claims and defense to Flatiron’s counterclaims.
- Ultimately, the court granted ATS $5,884,534.69 in nontaxable costs deemed reasonably and necessarily incurred, after various reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to nontaxable costs | Contract allows recovery of all reasonable costs under Colorado law | Costs beyond §1920 not recoverable absent clear authority | Contract allows nontaxable costs under Colorado law |
| Expert witness fee recovery | Fees were necessary due to highly technical, expert-driven case | Fees excessive, poorly documented, some for precluded testimony | Partial reduction for vague billing, unnecessary work |
| E-discovery cost recovery | Essential for complex, document-intensive litigation | Amount undocumented and not allocated between claims | Partial reduction for lack of documentation/allocation |
| Miscellaneous litigation expenses | Ordinary, reasonable litigation costs are recoverable | Items like meals, supplies, office are not necessary or barred | Only trial technician fee and some items recoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Stender v. Archstone-Smith Operating Tr., 958 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2020) (explains that federal courts have limited discretion to award non-taxable costs; analyzes interplay between federal and state law on costs)
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1987) (limits federal courts’ authority to award costs without statutory or contractual basis)
- Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. Voelker, 859 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1993) (Colorado trial courts have broad discretion to award costs beyond those specifically listed in statute)
- Valentine v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 252 P.3d 1182 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011) (upholds large expert witness fee award under Colorado law)
- Am. Water Dev., Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1994) (supports recovery of costs for trial support and logistics where necessary to litigation)