Salazar v. District of Columbia
750 F. Supp. 2d 70
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek an award of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses, for July–December 2007 and 2008 totaling $1,010,438.12.
- Settlement Order (Jan. 25, 1999) set hourly rates: $75 for general claims, adjusted by NL Legal Services CPI; higher rates for monitoring at $315/$265 and $75 for paralegals.
- Settlement Order cautioned these rates apply only as specified in Paragraphs 64–65; Paragraph 66 governs other work with different updates.
- Court previously decided in Salazar v. D.C., 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000) that NL Legal Services CPI should update rates, not the DC All-Items/DC-based Laffey matrix.
- Defendants oppose updates and rely on Rule 60(b); court rejected attempts to modify the settlement or revisit the 2000 ruling under Rule 60(b).
- Court acknowledges large fee requests and reduces several categories, including an across-the-board 10% cut and further partial reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate index for updates to fees | Salazar used NL Legal Services CPI for updates. | DC All-Items CPI should apply due to budgetary concerns. | NL Legal Services CPI remains controlling. |
| Rule 60(b) relief to modify settlement | Rule 60(b) relief may adjust the settlement rates. | Rule 60(b) relief is inappropriate and late. | Rule 60(b) not available; law-of-the-case doctrine applies. |
| Validity of using NL CPI vs Laffey in other work | NL CPI best reflects complex-litigation costs. | Budget concerns warrant alternative index. | Court adheres to NL CPI for updating Laffey-based rates. |
| Across-the-board reductions for unaddressed fees | No blanket reductions without proportionate impact. | Excessive billing and record-keeping justify reductions. | 10% across-the-board reduction approved for unaddressed categories. |
| Specific category reductions (billing judgment, discovery, etc.) | Various line-items justified as reasonable work. | Some line-items overstated; reductions warranted. | Certain categories reduced; other adjustments, including 50% of blood lead work plus reductions on discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salazar v. D.C., 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000) (nlp CPI for updating fees; law-of-the-case issues)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (precedent on fee shifting and related procedures)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (en banc; Rule 60(b) context and modification principles)
- NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32 (D.C.Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b)(6) and extraordinary remedy implications)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b) not for improvident litigation choices)
- Salazar v. D.C., 685 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2010) (addressed related issues in Dental/coverage orders)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court 1992) (conditions for modifying consent decrees under Rule 60(b)(5))