Free Proposed Bill of Costs - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-1263-REB-KLM ROBERT M. FRIEDLAND, Plaintiff, v. TIC ­ THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY; and GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, INC. f/k/a GEOSERVICES, INC., Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT OF TERENCE M. RIDLEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, INC.'S BILL OF COSTS _____________________________________________________________________________ I, Terence M. Ridley, being first duly sworn, depose and state: I. 1. BACKGROUND

I am, and have been at all relevant times, lead counsel of record for Defendant

GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "GeoSyntec"), and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 2. The Original Complaint in this case was filed by Plaintiff, Robert M. Friedland

(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff" or "Friedland") on June 18, 2005, seeking contribution from the Defendants for payments he allegedly made to resolve a CERCLA cost recovery action brought against him in 1996.

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 2 of 7

3.

On October 30, 2006, GeoSyntec filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on

Damages and a Brief in Support, with Co-Defendant TIC (hereinafter referred to as "Opening Brief"). 4. On December 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Joint

Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages (hereinafter referred to as "Opposition Brief"). 5. On January 5, 2007, GeoSyntec and TIC filed their Reply in Support of Motion

for Summary Judgment on Damages (hereinafter referred to as "Reply Brief"). 6. On January 18, 2008, Judge Blackburn granted the Defendants' joint motion for

summary judgment on damages ("Order on Summary Judgment"). Judge Blackburn reasoned that Friedland had recovered more from other parties than he had paid to the Government, and two key settlement agreements made no allocation to defense costs. Therefore, Friedland was not allowed to unilaterally allocate certain settlement proceeds to "defense costs", and he had no damages. 7. The basis for the Opening Brief involved a comparison of what Friedland had

actually paid the U.S. Government in 1996 to settle the cost recovery action to what Friedland has since received from other parties, based on various settlements, including insurance payments. Through discovery GeoSyntec learned the following: · That certain sums were paid to the Federal Government in full settlement of the cost recovery action. · The actual settlement amount paid in the Friedland cost recovery action, given that there was a pre-payment. Restated, GeoSyntec learned that the amount actually paid

2

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 3 of 7

was less than the amount specified in the settlement decree. This was determined, in part, though the deposition of Friedland. · Who actually paid the settlement amount to the Government, as there was direct evidence that the settlement amount was not paid by Friedland, but rather was paid by an entity called "Ivanhoe Capital Corp." The question of who actually paid the Government was an important question that reasonably called for the deposition of a witness from Ivanhoe Capital Corporation; i.e., Mr. Greg Shenton. · That after the Government was paid, Friedland obtained payments from various sources, including insurance companies and private companies. To determine the amount of recoveries obtained by Friedland, GeoSyntec reasonably had to obtain settlement agreements from those who paid him, as well as the underlying insurance policies from two of the insurers who paid Friedland. · That Friedland was claiming that he incurred approximately $30,000,000 in defense costs, and that he intended to allocate a substantial portion of those defense costs to amounts he received in settlement from other parties ­ thereby increasing, theoretically, the exposure of the Defendants to contribution damages. GeoSyntec reasonably attempted to obtain evidence of Friedland's alleged defense costs, and in so doing, obtained two boxes of "defense costs" documents, consisting primarily of invoices from law firms for attorney fees and costs allegedly incurred by Friedland in defense of the cost recovery action. · That Friedland's insurance/allocation expert, Professor Garth Allen, was opining that Friedland could allocate certain amounts to defense costs. GeoSyntec reasonably

3

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 4 of 7

attended the deposition of Professor Allen to clarify his opinions, the bases therefore, and his methodology. Professor Allen and his opinions were referenced in the Court's Order on Summary Judgment, as well as in Plaintiff's Opposition Brief. · That Defendants reasonably required an expert to address the opinions of Professor Allen. Accordingly, Defendants jointly retained Mr. Steven Crane, who has expertise in environmental insurance matters involving allocation issues. Mr. Crane was reasonably supplied with copies of the documents identified in Exhibit 2 to his report so that he could develop an informed opinion, and provide a thorough report, under F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2). That report was attached to the Reply Brief as Exhibit A-10. II. SUPPORT FOR TAXATION OF COSTS

GeoSyntec seeks the following costs as fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case, including certain deposition transcripts pursuant to 28 USC § 1920. 1. Exemplification costs related to Opening Brief, Opposition Brief, and Reply Brief.

The Opening Brief consisted of 105 pages, inclusive of exhibits, the Opposition Brief consisted of 151 pages, inclusive of exhibits, and the Reply Brief consisted of 117 pages, inclusive of exhibits. GeoSyntec incurred interoffice photocopy costs in the amount of $29.84, billed at the rate of .08 cents per page. All of these briefs were copied at least one time by GeoSyntec. 2. Exemplification costs related to Travelers and USF&G Policies.

The basis for the Opening and Reply Briefs was determined by amounts paid to Friedland under the USF&G and Travelers policies. It was reasonable and necessary for GeoSyntec to

4

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 5 of 7

request copies of these policies as an integral part of seeking summary judgment on damages. The USF&G and Travelers policies consist of 2,326 pages. Plaintiff billed GeoSyntec for photocopy costs in the amount of $465.20. See Ex. A attached hereto. These policies are specifically mentioned throughout the briefs and in the Court's Order on Summary Judgment at page 2. 3. Settlement agreements other than Travelers and USF&G.

These documents were necessary and obtained by GeoSyntec from Plaintiff in order to calculate and confirm the total amount of settlements received by Friedland from all sources. See Order on Summary Judgment at p. 7. GeoSyntec incurred interoffice photocopy costs associated with these settlement agreements totaling 149 pages at .08 cents per page in the amount of $11.92. 4. Friedland's "Defense Costs" documentation.

These documents were necessary and obtained by GeoSyntec in discovery in order to address Plaintiff's claims related to Friedland's claim that he had in fact paid approximately $30 million in defense costs. The documents consisted of 7,070 pages. The cost to GeoSyntec associated with the copying of these documents is $760.73. See Ex. B attached hereto. Additionally, GeoSyntec reasonably propounded written discovery concerning Friedland's agreements with others with a potential value which had not been quantified. In response to that discovery, Plaintiff produced documentation at a cost of $267.00. See Ex. C attached hereto. 5. Documents provided to Defendants' expert, Steven Crane.

Documents related to damages were copied and sent to Mr. Crane so that he could prepare an opinion in response to the report of Professor Allen, Plaintiff's expert on damages.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 6 of 7

Mr. Crane's report was attached as Exhibit A-10 to the Defendants' Reply Brief and was specifically cited on page 12 thereof. Moreover, Professor Allen's opinions were discredited by Judge Blackburn, consistent with the Crane report, as too speculative. See Order on Summary Judgment at p. 5, n. 4; report of Steve Crane at pp. 2, 11. The interoffice photocopy cost to GeoSyntec for copying relevant documents for expert Crane, totaling 4,169 pages at .08 cents per page, is $333.52. 6. Deposition transcript of Robert Friedland.

Plaintiff Robert Friedland's deposition occurred over the course of three days, January 27, 2006; June 29, 2006; and 30, 2006. The deposition of Friedland was necessary to determine inter alia: 1) the exact amounts Friedland allegedly paid to the Government, 2) the exact amounts he received from other parties; and 3) the bases for his alleged defense costs. The issues were central to the Court's Order on Summary Judgment and the briefing related thereto. GeoSyntec incurred charges for the Friedland deposition in the amount of $2,936.60. See Ex. D attached hereto. 7. Deposition transcript of Garth Allen.

Professor Garth Allen, Friedland's expert on insurance allocation issues, was deposed on September 21, 2006. It was necessary for Defendants to depose Mr. Allen to understand Friedland's damages theory, and commit him to it. GeoSyntec incurred charges for this deposition in the amount of $1,170.65. See Ex. E attached hereto. As noted, the Court specifically addressed the opinions of Professor Allen. See Order on Summary Judgment at p. 5, n .4.

6

Case 1:04-cv-01263-REB-KLM

Document 304-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 7 of 7

8.

Deposition transcript of Greg Shenton.

Greg Shenton's deposition was taken on April 24, 2007. Mr. Shenton was, at relevant times, an employee of Ivanhoe Capital Corp., the entity who apparently paid the Government the settlement amount in the cost recovery action, as opposed to Friedland himself. It was necessary to depose Mr. Shenton to determine what entity actually paid the Government, and what entity actually paid Friedland's defense costs. These issues were central to the issue of damages, and reasonable and necessary in the defense of the case . GeoSyntec incurred charges for this deposition in the amount of $1,559.00. See Ex. F attached hereto. This issue was specifically raised by the Defendant's in the opening brief at page 9, footnote 3. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. DATED this 5th day of February, 2008. s/ Terence M. Ridley Terence M. Ridley Subscribed and affirmed before me this 5th day of February, 2008, by Terence M. Ridley, in the County of Denver, State of Colorado. s/ Elise D. Norris Notary Public My Commission Expires: 01/15/09

609609v.1

7