Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file unredacted invoices in 17 support of their attorneys’ fee request. (Doc. 54.) On February 11, 2021, the Court denied 18 Defendants’ attorneys’ fees request within their motion for sanctions, noting that 19 Defendants had failed to meet their burden in showing that the fees that they requested 20 were reasonable. (Doc. 53 at 3.) The Court underscored that Defendants had 21 indiscriminately “redacted the descriptions for each billing entry in their entirety,” leaving 22 the Court to speculate as to whether the hours billed were reasonably expended. The law 23 is clear that the party seeking attorneys’ fees is responsible for demonstrating the 24 reasonableness of the requested amount by providing the Court with general descriptions 25 of the subject matter of billing time expenditures to enable the Court determine whether 26 the hours billed were reasonably expended. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 27 n. 12 (1983). Now, Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its prior order and grant them 28 leave to file a version of their billing that identifies the general subject matter of the time 1 || expenditures—evidence in Defendants’ possession prior to the filing of their motion for 2 || sanctions. 3 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 4|| Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion 5 || for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a 6|| showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention || earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). The court may deny a motion for 8 || reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. 7d. Here, Defendants have made no 9|| showing of manifest error and have produced no new facts or legal authority that could not || have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. Nor do Defendants 11 || seek to justify their prior request’s deficiencies or explain why they are only able to provide || the unredacted billing information now. Instead, Defendants appear to admit that their fees 13 || motion was deficient, but ask for a second bite at the apple, arguing that their fee award should not be denied due to what they characterize to be “formalistic defects.” Mere 15 || disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A party requesting fees 17 || is expected to conscientiously prepare a motion; lack of diligence is no excuse. 18 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave (Doc. 54) is DENIED. 19 Dated this 17th day of February, 2021. 20 21 22 {Z, 23 {UO 24 Ueied States Dictric Judge 25 26 27 28 _2-