Costa v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 108

Plaintiff Christina Costa sued Sears entities under Title VII alleging retaliatory termination; parties settled the retaliation claim during jury deliberations but reserved attorneys’ fees and costs for the Court to decide.
Plaintiff filed a fee application; Defendants opposed as excessive and unreasonable, prompting Plaintiff to move to re-open discovery to obtain Defendants’ time and billing records.
Plaintiff argued Defendants’ billing records would benchmark hours and rates and show how vigorously Defendants defended the case; she proposed interrogatories and document requests.
Defendants opposed reopening discovery and cross-moved to obtain Plaintiff’s counsel’s time and billing records (redacted) to probe alleged overbilling.
The Court evaluated relevance and burden, noting that Defendants had not used their own bills as the benchmark in opposition and that the Court was familiar with the case’s litigation intensity.
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery (and denied Defendants’ cross-motion as moot), permitted Plaintiff to supplement her fee application for fees incurred litigating the fee dispute, and set a submission and conference schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to re-open discovery to obtain Defendants’ billing records for assessing reasonableness of Plaintiff’s fee request	Defendants’ bills are relevant benchmarks for hours/rates and show defense vigor	Discovery is unnecessary; Plaintiff’s fee can be evaluated from Plaintiff’s records and the Court’s knowledge; producing bills would impose burden and privilege issues	Denied — Defendants’ billing records not sufficiently relevant; burden outweighs benefit
Whether Defendants may obtain Plaintiff counsel’s billing records if discovery reopened	N/A (Plaintiff offered limited production for trial counsel only if Court ordered)	Defendants sought full redacted records to test overbilling	Denied as moot along with Plaintiff’s motion
Whether Plaintiff may delay fee submissions pending further discovery/mediation	Plaintiff sought adjournment to reopen discovery and to delay pending mediation	Defendants opposed delaying and moving discovery	Denied delay; Court allowed supplementation of fee application for fees incurred litigating the fee dispute
Whether an evidentiary hearing is required on fee application	Plaintiff did not secure discovery but may seek hearing later	Defendants may request hearing after filings	Court set schedule and conference for parties to state if evidentiary hearing is needed

Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir.) (lodestar and case-specific inquiry for reasonable fees)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (fee requests should not produce a second major litigation; billing judgment required)
Mendez v. The Radec Corp., 818 F. Supp. 2d 667 (W.D.N.Y.) (defendant billing records may be discoverable when defendant uses them as benchmarks in opposing fee request)
Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 149 (S.D.N.Y.) (denying discovery of defense counsel billing records where relevance is limited)
Serricchio v. Wachovia Secs., LLC, 258 F.R.D. 43 (D. Conn.) (permitting discovery of defendant’s billing records as relevant to plaintiff’s fee application)
Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 770 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir.) (district court abused discretion by denying discovery of opposing counsel’s hours/rates when court struggled to fix a fee)
Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F.2d 646 (7th Cir.) (upholding denial of discovery of defense counsel’s hours in fee dispute)