Johnson v. Mai ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-00827-BLF (VKD) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 11 CHI MATL et al., Re: Dkt. No. 53 Defendants. qa 12 13 On August 20, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff Scott Johnson’s motion to compel v 14 || discovery responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and ordered Mr. Johnson to O 15 || submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs that “include[s] information sufficient for the © 16 || Court to determine that the fees and costs claimed are reasonable.” Dkt. No. 50 at 2. On 17 || September 3, 2020, Mr. Johnson filed a declaration from one of his attorneys stating only that her 18 billing rate is $350 per hour and seeking fees in the amount of $1,470. Dkt. No. 53. Because this 19 || declaration does not include information sufficient for the Court to determine whether the request 20 || is reasonable, the Court denies Mr. Johnson’s request. See Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. 21 |} C-09-04024 JSW (DMR), 2011 WL 588145, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) (describing 22 || requirements for assessing reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); see also Johnson v. Baird Lands, 23 Inc., No. 18-cv-05365-VKD, 2020 WL 3833278, at *2—5 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2020) (discussing 24 || billing rates for attorneys of different levels of experience in ADA matters). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 4, 2020 27 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge