421 F.Supp.3d 494
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery (Dec. 3, 2018); after a Feb. 5, 2019 hearing the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part and invited a bill of costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), with a planned 15% reduction.
- Plaintiff submitted a bill seeking $38,409.97 (≈104.85 hours; rates $250–$450/hr) for work on the motion, including hearing travel/prep and time drafting the bill.
- Defendant objected that the request was grossly excessive, included unrelated or redundant entries, and constituted an improper opening bid.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the billing, found the request "outrageously excessive" and that counsel lacked careful billing judgment and good faith in the request.
- The court vacated its prior discretionary award, denied the requested costs and attorneys’ fees in full, and declined to perform extensive hour- and rate-trimming to calculate a reduced award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(C) when motion is partly granted | Motion was necessary, D's failures not substantially justified, no circumstances make an award unjust | Because relief was partial and the requested fees were excessive, the court may apportion or deny fees | Rule 37(a)(5)(C) is discretionary for partial wins; court initially awarded but later vacated and denied after reviewing the bill |
| Reasonableness of claimed hours and rates ($38,409.97; 104.85 hrs) | Hours and rates reflect work performed and counsel’s experience | Bill is grossly excessive, includes unrelated/redundant time, and reflects poor billing judgment | Court found the request "outrageously excessive," shocking to the conscience, and denied it in full |
| Whether a court must reduce an excessive request rather than deny it outright | Plaintiff implicitly sought at least a reduced award | Defendant urged denial as deterrence to inflated demands | Court held it has discretion to deny an award entirely when a request is outrageously excessive and to deter gaming |
| Whether to perform detailed hour-by-hour reductions or decline to award | Plaintiff expected the court to apportion/reduce (15% already announced) | Defendant argued reductions would still leave an unreasonable award; court should deny | Court declined to undertake extensive trimming and denied the request in its entirety |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1993) (courts should discourage fee requests used as opening negotiation bids)
- Clemens v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 903 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2018) (court may deny fees when request is outrageously excessive)
- Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057 (7th Cir. 1980) (affirming refusal to award fees where request was patently unreasonable)
- Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Consol. Equity LLC, 428 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2005) (courts may find relatively modest tasks do not justify large time bills)
- Sun Publishing Co. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc., 823 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1987) (fee requests can be so excessive they "shock the conscience")
- Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Assocs., P.C., 857 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (a request for attorney’s fees is not a negotiation; courts may deny or reduce unreasonable requests)