Mendez v. Radec Corp., 818 F. Supp. 2d 667

In January 2011, the parties jointly moved for court approval of a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which the court granted in June 2011.
The court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery related to defense counsel’s time and billing records for supporting a fee petition because no fee motion had yet been filed.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney’s fees on July 21, 2011; defendants responded on August 29, 2011.
On September 26, 2011, plaintiffs renewed the request to reopen discovery to obtain defense billing records, arguing these records would aid in evaluating the fee request.
Defendants opposed reopening discovery, contending their opposition relied on total hours and fees, not detailed task-level records, so such records were unnecessary.
The court held there is no single rule on discoverability of opposing counsel’s billing records; it depends on the objections to the fee petition and the relevance to reasonableness, and ultimately found defense billing records relevant and discoverable, granting discovery for 60 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are defense billing records discoverable on a fee petition?	Radec seeks detailed defense records to challenge fees.	Only total hours and fees are cited; detailed records unnecessary.	Defense billing records are discoverable.
Does the opposing party’s reliance on its own fees affect discoverability?	Defense use of their own hours/rates makes records relevant for comparison.	Argues records are not needed since only totals are discussed.	Records are discoverable and weight of evidence assessed later.

Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 770 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1985) (reversing district court for denying access to opposing billing records)
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany and Albany County Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (consider resources against paying client’s perspective when evaluating fees)