291 F.R.D. 586
D. Nev.2013Background
- Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of expenses for briefing and arguing a counter-motion to compel under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).
- Court uses lodestar method: multiply hours reasonably expended by reasonable hourly rate; lodestar is presumptively reasonable.
- Court finds the hours claimed were excessive due to overstaffing and duplication and reduces reasonable hours to 13 for Mabry and 2 for McCrea.
- Rates of $375 for Mabry and $400 for McCrea are approved as in-line with market rates for their experience; Hejmanowski is not compensated.
- Total approved fees for counter-motion: $5,675; plus $4,535 for responding to objections to the order granting the counter-motion.
- Defendants owe a total of $10,210 to Plaintiff, paid no later than July 30, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are hours reasonably expended for briefing the counter-motion? | Plaintiff argues the hours claimed are reasonable. | Defendants contend hours are excessive and overstaffed. | Reasonable hours capped at 15; Mabry 13 hours, McCrea 2 hours. |
| Are the asserted hourly rates reasonable for Mabry and McCrea? | Rates of $375 (Mabry) and $400 (McCrea) are market-feasible. | Defendants contest Mabry's rate; do not dispute McCrea's rate as high but market-comportant. | Rates found in-line with prevailing market rates. |
| Are fees incurred in responding to objections to the counter-motion recoverable? | Fees for responding to Rule 72(a) objections are recoverable under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). | Not explicitly addressed; objections may not be recoverable under Rule 37. | Fees for responding to Rule 72(a) objections are recoverable; awarded $4,535. |
| What is the total fee award and timing of payment? | Total award requested is $10,210 to cover both components. | Objectively contested amounts for portions of the fees likely. | Total payment of $10,210 due by July 30, 2013. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (lodestar method for calculating reasonable fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1983) (lodestar framework and reasonableness standard)
- Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) (court’s discretion in determining reasonable hours)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (overstaffing and duplication are scrutinized in fee awards)