Judge Harold Kahn issued a tentative ruling (PDF) today awarding Kleiner Perkins $275,996.63 (~£175,000) in costs after it won a high-profile gender discrimination case against former employee Ellen Pao. That's far less than the nearly $1 million (~£630K) that Kleiner had sought, although still more than Pao wanted to pay.

In 2012, Pao sued her former employer for gender discrimination, saying that she had been passed up on promotions because of her gender. She also alleged that when she began to complain about her treatment, she was retaliated against and eventually fired. A jury disagreed with Pao in March and ruled in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts. In April, the venture capital firm requested $972,814 from the plaintiff, but Pao contested the bill, saying it was “improper under the law” and “grossly excessive and unreasonable.”

Pao's lawyers argued in April that a recent California Supreme Court ruling suggested that expert witness costs could not be recovered from plaintiffs unless they had acted in bad faith—and $864,680 of Kleiner's fees request was expert witness costs. Pao also argued that Kleiner's original settlement offer was not made in good faith. Kleiner, for its part, argued that Pao was out of line in not accepting its settlement offer.

Judge Kahn disagreed with Pao that Kleiner's settlement offer was made in bad faith, but he wrote that he was inclined to “scale” the bill of costs down:

There is no doubt that KPCB has “vastly” greater economic resources than Ms. Pao. Nor is there any doubt that Ms. Pao is not indigent. While both her current employment and the likely continuing remuneration in the form of carried interests from her former employment at KPCB show that Ms. Pao has significant economic resources, it is also undoubtedly true that the $864,680.25 that KPCB seeks in expert fees is a material amount in the context of Ms. Pao’s resources. On the other hand, this amount is not a material amount in the context of KPCB’s resources.

“We’re pleased the court has reached a fair result,” a Kleiner spokeswoman told Ars. ”This tentative ruling recognizes that our settlement offer was reasonable and made in good faith. It also recognizes the cost rules still apply when a plaintiff refuses a reasonable settlement offer and forces the parties to go through an expensive trial.”

Pao's spokeswoman said she had no comment.

The two sides will meet in San Francisco Superior Court tomorrow morning to hash out the details on who owes what. It's unclear if Pao will appeal the jury's decision, but earlier this month Pao's attorneys filed a notice of appeal, giving them 40 days to explain their grounds for an appeal.