Message
×
loading..

Cogburn v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COGBURN, No. 2:18-CV-1223-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this products liability 18 action under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s request 19 for sanctions, ECF No. 87, pgs. 18-19, and Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s request for 20 sanctions, ECF No. 92. On December 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike 21 Defendants’ supplemental expert witness designation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 26. ECF No. 86. The Court is authorized to “order payment of the reasonable expenses, 23 including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure of a party to comply with the expert disclosure 24 requirements of Rule 26.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. REQUEST AND OPPOSITION 2 A. Request for Sanctions 3 In Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for sanctions, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reasonable 4 expenses representing attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,760.00 associated with Plaintiff’s 5 motion to strike Defendants’ supplemental expert witness designation. ECF No. 87-1, pg. 4. 6 Plaintiff’s counsel calculates this amount from her current hourly rate of $600/hour for 9.6 hours 7 of researching, drafting, and attending the hearing concerning the motion to strike. Id. Counsel 8 also states the following: 9 I am an attorney with twenty-two (22) years of litigation experience. I graduated cum laude from Loyola Law School in 1999, where I was 10 Order of the Coif and served as an editor of Loyola Law Review. Before establishing my own practice in 2014, I was a partner in a 11 civil litigation defense boutique firm for 14 years, specializing in personal injury and product liability matters. My current hourly rate 12 is $600.00 per hour. As a practitioner in the Southern California area for my entire career, I am generally familiar with the rates charged 13 by litigators with comparable experience and skill. Based on my familiarity with the legal profession, I can attest that my hourly rate 14 is reasonable. 15 Id. at 3-4. 16 B. Opposition 17 Defendants argue the following: (1) there was no prejudice to Plaintiff; (2) 18 Defendant offered to cure the defects alleged, but Plaintiff refused; (3) there has been no 19 disruption of the trial or the Court’s docket; (4) the testimony of treating physicians is important 20 to a trial on the merits; and (5) Defendants acted in good faith and believed that they had 21 substantially complied with the requirements of the Court and the statute. Defendants appear to 22 argue that monetary sanctions should not be issued at all. Defendants do not argue whether 23 Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted. The Court also finds that 3 for purposes of this sanction award, a reasonable rate for the services at issue is $450/hour. 4 Therefore, Plaintiff shall be awarded $4,320. 5 A. Monetary Sanctions 6 On December 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ 7 supplemental expert designations. ECF No. 91. The Court found the following: 8 Plaintiff could be prejudiced because Plaintiff is not sure as to the subject or as to the facts or opinions that Defendants’ witnesses will 9 testify. Further, not striking Defendants’ witnesses would extend other deadlines farther down the litigation track in a manner 10 burdensome to both the Plaintiff and the Court. In addition, Plaintiff gave Defendants multiple opportunities to cure by notifying 11 Defendants of their defects in writing and during a telephonic conference, and Defendants failed to cure. Defendants argue that 12 their actions were done in bad faith. However, Defendants conduct does not amount to good faith. The most generous characterization 13 of Defendants’ conduct is lazy. Therefore, Defendants supplemental expert designations shall be stricken. 14 Id. at 7 (citations omitted). 15 Here, Defendants’ arguments as to monetary sanctions have largely already been 16 addressed in the previous order. The Court found that Plaintiff would be prejudiced, Plaintiff 17 gave Defendants an opportunity to cure, the Court’s docket would be disrupted, and Defendants 18 did not act in good faith. Defendants’ argument that testimony of treating physicians is important 19 to a trial on the merits is irrelevant in determining whether monetary sanctions are appropriate. 20 Thus, Defendants’ arguments are all unavailing as to monetary sanctions. 21 B. Reasonable Hourly Rate 22 Defendants did not address the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate. 23 The Court takes this issue up sua sponte. 24 “An award of attorney’s fees is calculated using the ‘lodestar method,’ whereby 25 the number of hours reasonably expended on litigation is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” 26 Price Simms Holdings, LLC v. Candle3, LLC, 2021 WL 1884995, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 27 2021) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Courts look to the forum district 28 1 | in determining the reasonable hourly rate. See Tenorio v. Gallardo, 2019 WL 3842892, at *2 2 | (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019). 3 Plaintiffs counsel’s hourly rate of $600/hour may be reasonable for the area in 4 | which she practices. However, such a rate is high for the Eastern District of California. In three 5 | cases in the last three years the Eastern District has found a reasonable rate to be between 6 | $425/hour and $450/hour. See Colfaxnet, LLC v. City of Colfax, 2020 WL 7024161, at *1 (E.D. 7 | Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (approving a rate of $425/hour); see also Firstsource Sols. USA, LLC v. 8 | Tulare Reg’! Med. Ctr., 2019 WL 2725336, at *8 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2019) (approving a rate of 9 | $450/hour for partners with at least 20 years of experience); and see Price Simms Holdings, LLC, 10 | 2021 WL 1884995, at *1 (approving a rate of $450/hour for partners). 11 Here, Plaintiffs counsel was a partner for fourteen years before she established her 12 | own practice in 2014. She has over 20 years of experience as an attorney. The Court finds that a 13 || reasonable rate for Plaintiff's counsel is $450/hour. This rate multiplied by 9.6, Plaintiffs 14 | counsel’s hours spent on the motion, equals $4,320. 15 16 I. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)(A), IT IS 18 | HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall pay an award of reasonable expenses in the amount 19 | of $4,320.00 to Plaintiff within 14 days of the date of this order. 20 21 | Dated: January 11, 2022 Sx

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:18-cv-01223

Filed Date: 1/12/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024