SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION v. ERM-WEST, INC., 2:11-CV-1174 TS. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20160112e56
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. AND WRS INFRASTRUCTURE'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXPERT FEES TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Fees. Compass and WRS seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from attempting to claim expert fees beyond what is allowed by law. Plaintiffs' response to D
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. AND WRS INFRASTRUCTURE'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXPERT FEES TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Fees. Compass and WRS seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from attempting to claim expert fees beyond what is allowed by law. Plaintiffs' response to De..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. AND WRS INFRASTRUCTURE'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXPERT FEES
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Fees. Compass and WRS seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from attempting to claim expert fees beyond what is allowed by law. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' Motion was due on December 21, 2015, but Plaintiffs did not file a response.
Defendants' Motion is not ripe. Plaintiffs have not yet sought recovery of expert witness fees and could only do so post-judgment if they are determined to be prevailing parties.1 Should Plaintiffs be prevailing parties, their ability to recover costs is set out in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920.2 Defendants can make any argument concerning Plaintiffs' ability to recover costs at the appropriate time.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Fees (Docket No. 410) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FootNotes
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
2. Defendants' Motion incorrectly relies on Utah law. However, "[i]n a diversity case, federal law controls in regard to the assessment of costs." Chaparral Res. Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 849 F.2d 1286, 1291-92 (10th Cir. 1988).
Source: Leagle
