Friedman v. SThree Plc., 3:14-cv-00378

Plaintiff Friedman violated a protective order by filing designated materials publicly; Judge Thompson ordered Friedman to reimburse SThree defendants for fees related to two motions to seal and instructed SThree to file a fee application.
SThree defendants (several corporate entities and an individual) filed a fee application seeking $3,312 for 9.6 hours of attorney time for work on the two motions to seal.
Plaintiff filed a partial opposition arguing the claimed fees were excessive and that only $801 was attributable to the Protective Order violation.
The magistrate judge reviewed the application de novo as to reasonableness of rates and hours despite plaintiff’s limited challenge.
Court previously reduced the attorneys’ rates for these counsel in the case and reapplied those reduced rates here ($375 for partner Lasley; $275 for associate Hass).
After identifying duplicative, administrative, and bundled time entries, the court reduced billed hours and awarded $1,565 in attorneys’ fees; attorney Alan W. Kaufman was held jointly and severally liable for the award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees for the two motions to seal	Only $801 is related to protective-order violation; challenges amount	Judge Thompson already found SThree entitled to fees; fees sought are reasonable	Court declined to revisit Judge Thompson’s entitlement finding and proceeded to assess reasonableness of the requested fees
Hourly rates	(limited challenge) argued fees excessive generally	Rates billed: Lasley $495, Hass $315; defendants urged full award	Court reaffirmed prior reduction of rates to $375 (Lasley) and $275 (Hass) as reasonable for this district
Reasonableness of hours billed	Claimed total 9.6 hours excessive; specific contention over attributable time	Argued plaintiff did not challenge rates or time so award should be granted in full	Court found several entries excessive, administrative, bundled, or duplicative; reduced total billed hours by 4.1 hours and compensated clerical time at paralegal rate when appropriate
Final award and liability	Sought greater reduction; requested modification	Sought full $3,312	Court awarded $1,565 and held attorney Kaufman jointly and severally liable for the amount

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee applicant bears burden; lodestar method)
Simmons v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170 (reasonable paying client standard)
Marion S. Mishkin Law Office v. Lopalo, 767 F.3d 144 (need for contemporaneous time records)
Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 161 F.R.D. 258 (lodestar formula discussion)
Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 188 F. Supp. 3d 333 (limited-issue work can make claimed hours excessive)
Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 112 F. Supp. 3d 31 (factors for reasonable fees)
Cohen v. W. Haven Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 638 F.2d 496 (different rates may apply for administrative/paralegal tasks)
Millea v. Metro-N. R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (district court discretion and procedures in fee determinations)
New York State Assoc. for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136 (guard against windfall awards)