## Facts

- Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) contracted with the State of California (Department of General Services) to develop a computer-aided dispatch system for the California Highway Patrol.
- The State terminated the contract; SAIC sued for wrongful termination, and the State cross-complained for breach.
- A jury found SAIC breached the contract and awarded the State over $1 million on the cross-complaint.
- Postjudgment, the trial court awarded the State ordinary costs, $1.2 million in attorney fees, and $727,833 labeled as “litigation expenses.”
- In a prior appeal, the attorney-fee award was reversed in full, and the “litigation expenses” were remanded for redetermination as potentially allowable costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5.
- On remand, the trial court eliminated expert witness fees but again awarded most remaining items—about $464,908—as “litigation expenses,” largely for high-technology litigation support services.
- SAIC petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the post-remand award.

## Issues

1. Whether high-technology litigation support services labeled “litigation expenses” are recoverable by a prevailing party as costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 or any other authority.
2. Whether writ relief is an appropriate procedural vehicle to review and correct the post-remand expense award.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held the State was not entitled to recover the challenged “litigation expenses” that functioned as high-powered computer support akin to paralegal services or document retrieval.
- The court concluded the matter was properly resolved by writ given the substantial amount awarded and the need to correct an unauthorized cost shifting order.
- The trial court was directed to vacate the challenged cost order and enter a new order consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Recoverable costs are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5; items are allowable only when authorized by statute and not excluded by the statutory scheme.
- Courts classify claimed costs by the function of the service, not the label or technology used; litigation-support labor comparable to paralegal/file-management/document-retrieval work is treated as attorney-work/overhead rather than a separately taxable cost item.
- A prevailing party may not recharacterize attorney-fee-type expenditures as “litigation expenses” to obtain cost shifting when attorney fees are unavailable.
- Writ review may be appropriate to correct a substantial postjudgment cost award, including where a remand order is applied in a manner inconsistent with statutory limits and the prior appellate direction.

## Conclusion

The court barred recovery of computerized litigation-support services that were, in substance, paralegal or document-retrieval work, holding such expenditures are not taxable costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 and ordering writ relief to vacate the improper post-remand expense award.


Science Applications Int'l Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (Ct. App. 1995)