Ohio Right to Life Society, Inc. v. Ohio Elections Commission, 590 F. App'x 597

Ohio Right to Life (ORTL) sued the Ohio Elections Commission and officials challenging Ohio campaign finance laws (blackout and disclosure provisions) in 2008 and again in 2010 after Citizens United.
In 2008 the district court granted a preliminary injunction as-applied to ORTL’s proposed ads; other claims were rejected. Defendants had conceded some inapplicability earlier.
In 2010, after Citizens United, parties entered a consent decree acknowledging certain Ohio statutes unconstitutional; remaining claims were later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ORTL sought approximately $352,000 in fees and submitted voluminous invoices; defendants sought a dramatically lower award.
The magistrate judge recommended reducing requested hourly rates to $250 and cutting billed hours by 90%; the district court adopted the reasoning but applied an 85% haircut, awarding $29,107.
ORTL appealed, challenging the hourly rate, the 85% across-the-board reduction, the district court’s ordering payment to counsel (rather than ORTL), and denial of costs without allowing supplementation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonable hourly rate	ORTL: counsel’s specialized election-law experience justifies $445–$465/hr	Defs: lower market rate appropriate in Southern District of Ohio	Court: $250/hr reasonable; district did not abuse discretion relying on local precedent and market evidence
Across-the-board reduction of hours	ORTL: 10–15% reduction appropriate; 85% is excessive and discourages counsel	Defs: severe reduction warranted due to limited success and billing problems	Court: reduction warranted for limited success and poor billing, but 85% cut abused discretion; remand for recalculation
Payment recipient of fee award	ORTL: award should be paid to the prevailing party (ORTL)	Defs: district ordered payment to ORTL’s former law firm	Court: district erred; prevailing party, not counsel, is the entitled recipient under fee statutes (Astrue)
Denial of costs and expenses	ORTL: should have been allowed to supplement documentation	Defs: ORTL’s submissions were inadequate to justify costs	Court: no abuse of discretion in denying costs; ORTL had multiple opportunities to substantiate expenses

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method; hours not reasonably expended should be excluded)
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) (purpose of fee-shifting is to ensure effective access to courts)
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (fees must induce counsel but not produce windfalls)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) ("prevailing party" is the litigant entitled to receive statutory fee awards)
Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1999) (lodestar adjustments and considerations)
Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Products, Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (fee documentation must enable court to determine hours with high degree of certainty)
Wayne v. Village of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 1994) (district court must explain reductions and basis when using across-the-board cuts)
Coulter v. State of Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1986) (approving reductions for excessive billing)
Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193 (6th Cir. 1997) (district court may exclude time spent on unsuccessful claims)