Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc.
688 F.3d 673
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- AECOM hired Centennial for cultural-resource survey work for a wind-energy project in Wyoming; Centennial sued when AECOM did not pay all costs, and the case proceeded to a jury verdict favorable to Centennial on breach of contract and one tortious-interference claim.
- Postverdict, the district court awarded Centennial $58,361.51 in attorney fees for discovery misconduct under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, after review of discovery disputes and sanctions motions.
- Centennial’s sanctions motions sought fees for multiple discovery motions, including motions to compel and responses to protective orders, based on AECOM’s alleged willful discovery abuses.
- The district court found a pervasive pattern of obstructive discovery by AECOM and reduced hourly rates but awarded the full fee amount sought after adjusting rates.
- AECOM challenged the fee award on multiple grounds, including a fixed-fee arrangement, alleged improper sanctions, and timeliness, ultimately appealing to the circuit court for review.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the fixed-fee arrangement did not bar recovery of attorney fees under Rule 37 and that the district court did not err in sanctions and fee calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fixed-fee arrangement bars Rule 37 fees | Centennial. | AECOM. | No; fixed fee does not bar recovery under Rule 37. |
| Whether district court properly awarded Rule 37 fees | Centennial. | AECOM. | Yes; sanctions and fee award were appropriate under Rule 37. |
| Whether sanctions were criminal contempt or compensatory | Centennial. | AECOM. | Compensatory sanctions under Rule 37, not criminal contempt. |
| Timeliness and necessity of motions to compel | Centennial. | AECOM. | Courts may consider untimely motions with acceptable justification; not abuse here. |
| Privilege status of internal emails and compliance with orders | Centennial. | AECOM. | No reversible error; issues largely waived or not properly challenged on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (fee-shifting awards reflect reasonable value of services)
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1989) (reasonable attorney’s fee is value of services, not amount paid)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (costs for frivolous claims; attorney’s fees beyond incurred costs)
- Arlington Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (U.S. 2006) (reasonably incurred fees as costs under fee-shifting statutes)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (fee awards reimburse litigation expenses for prospective relief)
- Assessment Techs. of Wisconsin, LLC v. Wiredata, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussion of incurred vs. not; caution on fixed-fee interpretation)
- Textor v. Bd. of Regents of N. Ill. Univ., 711 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1983) (sanctions and attorney-fee recovery under fee-shifting rules)
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1981) (deterrence rationale for discovery sanctions)