887 F. Supp. 2d 704
E.D. Va.2012Background
- The court lifted its stay in July 2012 and directed responses to the Consent Order concerning Project Vote's fee motion.
- Project Vote sought $349,317.05 in attorneys’ fees and $657.00 in costs; Defendants objected to many items.
- The court previously granted in part Project Vote’s summary-judgment relief and issued a permanent injunction requiring disclosure, with retroactive relief denied.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the court’s decision in 2012, and the mandate issued July 9, 2012.
- The court calculates the lodestar and possible adjustments, addressing hourly rates, duplicative work, and documentation, before finalizing the award.
- The court ultimately awards $184,223.25 in attorneys’ fees and $657.00 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the hourly rates reasonable in the Eastern District of Virginia? | Project Vote: use Laffey Matrix/DC rates as reasonable benchmarks. | Rates should reflect ED Va market; no local evidence supports DC rates. | Reasonable rates fixed to ED Va market rates. |
| Should non-local, extrajudicial counsel rates be used? | DC firm chosen for expertise; nearby proximity justifies outside counsel. | No showing local counsel unavailable; extrajurisdictional rates unsupported. | Rates anchored in ED Va market; outside counsel rates rejected. |
| Are fee requests excessive or duplicative due to overstaffing? | Multiple attorneys handled distinct tasks; reasonable given case complexity. | Billing duplication and overstaffing inflate hours. | Time for multiple attorneys reduced to avoid duplication; some reductions applied. |
| Is the billing documentation sufficient to assess reasonableness? | Block billing is acceptable; entries are sufficiently specific. | Block billing and lumping hinder assessability; require reductions. | A 10% overall reduction applied for insufficient documentation and lumping. |
| Should travel time be billed at full rate or reduced? | Travel time reasonably billed at full rate. | Travel should be billed at reduced rates (e.g., 1/5 of regular rate). | Travel time reduction applied; exact time reductions depend on documentation quality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (lodestar and discretionary adjustments govern fee awards)
- Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1994) (prevailing market rates and local community emphasis in rate setting)
- Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (lodestar as presumption of reasonableness; potential departures)
- Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008) (Laffey Matrix usefulness and locality considerations in rates)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (Johnson factors for adjusting fees beyond lodestar)