Errant Gene Therapeutic, LLC v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research
286 F. Supp. 3d 585
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Magistrate Judge Ellis ordered Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC (EGT) to pay Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research's (SKI) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for two motions for sanctions, and directed SKI to submit hours and rates for approval.
- SKI filed a fee application seeking $122,100.20 (later supplemented); EGT opposed, calling the request excessive and seeking a large reduction.
- After reassignment to the undersigned magistrate judge, the Court evaluated reasonableness under the lodestar method (hours × reasonable rates).
- The Court adjusted some requested rates (reduced Weiss’s 2017 rate to his 2017 lower amount, used 2016 rates for two associates) and reduced associate hours (excluding senior associate Wilson’s time and limiting Huang to 150 hours).
- The Court awarded SKI $88,339.00 in attorneys’ fees and declined to award additional costs; it also declined to revisit the underlying June 5 sanctions order in this fee-rending proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SKI is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the June 5 Order | EGT argued the fee request was excessive and sought ~90% reduction | SKI sought full lodestar based on submitted hours and rates | Court held SKI entitled to fees but reduced request to $88,339.00 |
| Appropriate hourly rates | EGT argued rates were too high | SKI proposed specific partner and associate rates supported by billing and precedent | Court found most rates reasonable but adjusted some rates (used lower 2016 rates for certain associates and reduced Weiss’s rate to $765) |
| Reasonable number of hours to award | EGT contended hours were staggering and excessive | SKI submitted detailed time entries and reduced some excessive daily entries itself | Court disallowed time for one additional associate (Wilson), capped Huang at 150 hours (from 172.2 billed), and allowed Weiss’s hours as billed |
| Whether the October 16 Order rescinds June 5 fee obligation | EGT argued the later October 16 Order vitiated/superseded June 5 | SKI relied on June 5 fee directive and submitted lodestar materials | Court declined to revisit or invalidate June 5 in this proceeding and awarded fees as calculated |
Key Cases Cited
- Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar framework described)
- Vincent v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 651 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2011) (district court has broad discretion in fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rate is market rate for comparable lawyers)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (relevant community is the district where the court sits)
- Farbotko v. Clinton Cty., 433 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of prevailing rates)
- Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (examine hours with view to value of specific expenditures)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (compensate only reasonable hours; exclude excessive or redundant time)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (fee determinations need only rough justice; courts need not audit with perfection)