Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona
188 F. Supp. 3d 333
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions for spoliation after Defendants destroyed a Facebook post by Defendant Rita Louie and related text messages; the Court found bad faith and imposed an adverse inference and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the sanctions motion.
- Plaintiffs sought $63,406.15 in fees and $1,840.56 in costs for work by three firms (Savad Churgin, Stepanovich Law, Storzer & Greene); counsel used a blended $375/hour rate.
- Time records showed ~173 hours spent on the sanctions motion (over 80 hours drafting briefs; >20 hours research; ~36 hours on a pre-motion conference; ~16 hours conferring among counsel).
- Defendants challenged the fee request as excessive, duplicative, vague (block billing), and sought denial of out-of-district travel costs.
- The Court accepted the $375/hour rate as reasonable but reduced the award by 30% for excessive and vague billing, deducted travel-time billing, and denied out-of-district travel costs; awarded $42,940.56 in fees and $99.90 in costs (total $43,040.45).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hourly rate | $375 blended rate; comparable to market and lower than many SDNY rates | Rate acceptable but not disputed materially | Court found $375/hour reasonable and used it for lodestar calculation |
| Reasonableness of hours expended | Extensive review and briefing was necessary given alleged pattern and complexity | Hours excessive for a narrow spoliation issue; many tasks unnecessary | Court found hours excessive and imposed a 30% across-the-board reduction |
| Duplicative staffing and conferences | Co-counsel coordination necessary; some attorneys did not bill for minimal time | Multiple attorneys attended same short pre-motion conference; duplicative billing | Court reduced hours for inefficiencies (part of 30% reduction and specific travel-time deduction) |
| Recoverability of travel costs | Travel and transcript costs are ordinary litigation expenses | Travel by out-of-district counsel unnecessary; Defendants should not pay travel | Court denied reimbursement for out-of-district travel; awarded only transcript cost ($99.90) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (lodestar approach and Johnson factor framework for reasonableness)
- Millea v. Metro–North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar is presumptively reasonable fee)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (burden to document hours and exclude excessive, redundant hours)
- Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (what a reasonable, paying client would pay; travel costs for out-of-district counsel not routinely shifted unless special expertise required)
- Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 112 F. Supp. 3d 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (application of lodestar and common practice of percentage reductions for inefficiencies and unnecessary work)
- LeBlanc–Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1998) (fee awards may include reasonable out-of-pocket expenses customarily charged to clients)