30 F. Supp. 3d 47
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs sought an award of litigation costs for 2012 and related work held in abeyance, total requested $1,334,516.59 after a prior undisputed award of $482,663.13.
- Court previously addressed related 2011-2012 costs in Salazar III and incorporated that analysis by reference.
- Court reaffirmed use of the Legal Services Index (LSI) to update Laffey rates, denying All-Items CPI for DC-area fees.
- Defendants argued against billing by paralegals for work on individual class members; the Court previously allowed it under the Settlement Order.
- Court found the time records detailed and adequate, rejecting across-the-board vagueness, block billing, and overstaffing reductions except for specific line items.
- The Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree remains unresolved; Court deferred ruling on related fees and directed notice on whether to hold in abeyance or set briefing/hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate rate index for fees | Salazar | District | LSI preferred; All-Items CPI denied. |
| Paralegal compensation for class-member work | Paralegals may be paid under Settlement Order | No entitlement | Paralegal compensation approved. |
| Adequacy of time records and potential redundancies | Records are detailed and adequate | Vague, block-billed entries; seek reductions | No general reductions; adjust specific entries (e.g., R.P., D.K., E.C., T.M., J.C.). |
| Fees for work on unsuccessful individual claims | Work related to intertwined issues entitled to fees | Unsuccessful claims not recoverable | Fees allowed where intertwined; some adjustments applied. |
| Settlement discussions and termination motion fees | Fees reasonable for settlement monitoring | Fees excessive; seek reductions | Settlement-discussion fees not reduced; termination motion fee deferred pending resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonable attorney's fees standard; extent of success matters)
- Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (forum-rate principle for attorney fees; exceptions arise for special expertise or cross-border work)
- Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Spec. Serv. Dist. v. E.P.A., 169 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (forum-rate rule and exceptions for out-of-area expertise or substantially higher rates elsewhere)
- In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (concerns about overstaffing and number of conferences; reasonableness of time billed)
- Sykes v. Napolitano, 755 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2010) (transcripts costs as necessary factual question; reasonableness review)