Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC
300 F.R.D. 149
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- On April 25, 2014, the Court approved a stipulation acknowledging a settlement and that plaintiff’s fee award would be decided by arbitration under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).
- Plaintiff moves to compel production of defendants’ attorney billing records to establish the reasonableness of the requested fees.
- Defendants oppose, arguing such records are not relevant or probative to the plaintiff’s fee reasonableness.
- Courts recognize attorney-fee records may be discoverable if defense hours inform the reasonableness of plaintiff’s hours, but may be non-probative in many cases.
- Plaintiff caused defendants to expend resources by meritless claims and unnecessary discovery, which may affect hours charged, but those hours may not be probative of plaintiff’s reasonable hours.
- The court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel production of defense billing records, finding lack of relevance to determine reasonable hours for plaintiff’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are defense attorney billing records discoverable to assess fee reasonableness? | Plaintiff argues defense hours help gauge reasonable plaintiff hours. | Defendants contend the records are not probative and should not be disclosed. | Denied; records not probative of plaintiff’s reasonable hours. |
| Are defense hourly rates relevant to determining plaintiff’s reasonable rate? | Plaintiff implies defense rates could inform reasonable billing rate for plaintiff. | Defense rates are not indicative of the reasonable rate for plaintiff’s counsel and are not necessary. | Denied; defense rates not probative for determining plaintiff’s reasonable rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. Radec Corp., 818 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D.N.Y.2011) (defendants’ fee records may be discoverable when used as a yardstick to assess plaintiff’s fees)
- Hernandez v. George, 793 F.2d 264 (10th Cir.1986) (time records not probative where defense time is unrelated to reasonable plaintiff hours)
- Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F.2d 646 (7th Cir.1985) (defense hours may be greater than plaintiff’s and thus have little relevance)
- Mirabal v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 576 F.2d 729 (7th Cir.1978) (defendant’s fees may not indicate reasonable plaintiff fees due to plaintiffs’ litigation choices)
- Zhang v. GC Servs., LP, 537 F.Supp.2d 805 (E.D.Va.2008) (denial of defense-fee-records where relevance to plaintiff’s hours is lacking)