Philips North America LLC v. Advanced Imaging Services, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00876-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADVANCED IMAGING SERVICES, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On May 3, 2022, the undersigned granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and 19 informed the parties that plaintiff would be awarded fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 230. ECF No. 118. The court stated 21 that the lodestar approach to fee calculation would be used, and an award would issue following 22 plaintiff’s submission of a proper billing statement; defendants were provided an opportunity to 23 object to plaintiff’s fee petition. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a timely petition for fees with 24 an appropriate billing statement. ECF No. 120. Plaintiff seeks compensation for a total of 70.30 25 billed hours at the rate of $350/hour (the local rate typically applied in this district) for a total 26 request of $24,605.00. ECF No. 120 at 4. Defendants filed an opposition arguing that plaintiffs 27 included improper fee categories in their request, including billing for meet and confer activities, 28 and that the time plaintiffs allegedly spent on the motion to compel was excessive. ECF No. 121. ] The court agrees with defendant that a fee award related to a motion to compel “does not 2 || entitle [plaintiffs] to recover fees for everything they have ever done related to discovery in this 3 || case.” However, it is not the case that time spent on meet and confer efforts is categorically non- 4 || compensable. See Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. California Dep’t of Educ., No. 2:11- 5 | CV-03471-KJM-AC, 2017 WL 2492850, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2017). To be recoverable, 6 || billable hours must be “sufficiently related” to the motion to compel at issue. Id. Here, the court 7 || has thoroughly reviewed the billing statement submitted by plaintiffs (ECF No. 120-2) as well as 8 | the associated affidavit and petition (ECF Nos. 120, 120-1). The court finds that the billed hours 9 || are sufficiently related to the motion to compel to be awardable. 10 Defendants further argue that the fee award must be apportioned to reflect that the motion 11 || to compel was not entirely successful: 1t was denied as to two discovery requests (representing 12 || two issues) and granted as to 51 discovery requests (representing four issues). ECF No. 121 at 4- 13 | 5; ECF No. 118 at 10. Plaintiff asserts that to account for the partial victory it excluded 25 hours 14 || from its request. ECF No. 120 at 2. Defendant argues this was not enough. ECF No. 125 at 4-5. 15 || According to the court’s calculations, 3.84% of plaintiff's motion was denied by question, and 16 || 33% was denied by topic. The court concludes that the reduction of 25 hours from what would 17 || have been a 95.3-hour bill (26%) sufficiently accounts for the portion of the motion to compel 18 || that was unsuccessful. 19 For all these reasons the fee petition is GRANTED, and plaintiffs are awarded the 20 || requested $24,605.00 in attorney’s fees. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | DATED: June 6, 2022 ~ 23 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28