Kingsbery v. David Paddison, Attorney-at-Law LLC ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MARJORIE E. KINGSBERY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 20-3192 DAVID PADDISON, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, L.L.C., ET AL. SECTION: “F” (5) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees. (Rec. doc. 69). The motion is unopposed. On January 12, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s first motion to compel and ordered Defendants to respond fully to requests for production 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 by January 19, 2022. (Rec. doc. 63). Defendants failed to respond to requests for production 5, 6, 7, and 11. Plaintiff then filed a renewed motion to compel and for sanctions. (Rec. doc. 66). This Court also granted that motion, reserving the right to Plaintiff to file the appropriate motion with supporting documentation to recover her fees and costs incurred in the filing of both motions to compel, should circumstances so warrant. (Rec. doc. 68). Plaintiff has now done so and seeks $3,187.50 in fees incurred in filing both motions to compel and this motion for attorney’s fees. (Rec. doc. 69). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 controls the awarding of attorney’s fees and costs after the resolution of a successful motion to compel. Rule 37 provides that “[i]f the motion [to compel] is granted – or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in makAiknegr tShoel sm. Iontcio. nv,. Shamrock Energy Sols., L.L.C. , No. CV 16-2560, 2021 WL 291256, at *8 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 1 2021). The “most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number oHf ehnosluerys v .r Eeacksoernhaabrlty expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” La. Power, &46 L1i gUh.tS .C 4o2. 4v., K43el3ls (t1ro9m83). The product of this calculation is called the “lodestar.” , 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995). TPehredruee i sv . aK e“nstnryo An.g e”x p rreel.s Wuminpntion that the lodestar calculation produces a reasonable fee. , 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010). The party seeking attorneys' fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees by submitting adequate documentation and time recoWrdesg noef rt hve. hStoaunrdsa rreda Isnosn. aCbol.y expended and proving the exercise of “billing judgment.” , 129 F.3d 814, 822 (5th Cir. 1997). Attorneys are required to make a good-faith effort to “exclude Hfreonmsl eay fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. . . .” , 461 U.S. at 434. Specifically, the party seeking the award musLte rsohyo wv. aClli tyh ooufr sH aocutsutaolnly expended on the case but not included in the fee request. , 831 F.2d 576, 585 n.15 (5th Cir. 1987). These requirements underlie the core principle that hours thatH aernes lneyot properly billed to one's client are likewise not properly billed to one's adversary. , 461 U.S. at 434. Once the Court determines the lodestaJor,h int smonu svt. Gtheeonr gcioan Hsiidgehrw tahye E axppprleiscsability and relative weight of the 12 factors set forth in , 488 F.2d 1 Certain exceptions apply to this presumptive award of fees and costs. None of those exceptions applies here. 2 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).J o hWnshoinle the Court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward adjustments if the factors so warrant, tSheee Wlodaetksitnasr vis. Fporredsiucme ptively correct and should be modified only in exceptional cases. , 7 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir. 1993). After calculation of the lodestar, the burden shifts to the party opposing the application to contest the reasonableness of the hourly rate requested and/or the reasonableness of the hours expended “by affidavit oRro dber ive.f Dweiltlahr csiupfrfiectieent specificity to give [the] fee applicants notice” of those objections. , 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3rd Cir. 1990). In this case, Plaintiff seeks an hourly rate of $375.00/hour for her attorney, Dale E. Williams. The Court finds this hourly rate to be reasonable in light of Williams’ education, experience, and the prevailingS erea tOefsf sihno trhei sM caorminme uCnonittyr.a cTthoirss ,C Ionuc.r tv .h Paasl mfo uEnnde rrgayt eOsf wfshitohrien, tLh.Lis.C r.ange to be reasonable. , No. 10-4151, 2014 WL 5039670, at *8 (E.D. La. Sept. 25, 2014) (finding that hourly rRaatneg oefr $S2te7e5l. 0S0er pves.r, LhPo uvr. Oforrle aann sa tMtoartnereiya lws i&th E sqeuviepn., Cyoe.ars of experience was appropriate); , No. 10-112, 2010 WL 3488236, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 27, 2010) (finding $395.00 per hour was reasonable fee for a partner attorney in New Orleans). Williams clerked for the late Chief Justice Pascal Calogero of the 2 The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor involved; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to this case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations; (8) the amount involvedS aeen dJo rhenssuolnts obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and, (12) awards in similar cases. , 488 F.2d at 717-719. Louisiana Supreme Court, is a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association, and has 30 years of practice experience in the area of employment law. Plaintiff also seeks eight and a half hours as reasonably expended on the two motions to compel and this motion to fix attorney’s fees. Plaintiff contends that the time spent was necessary to obtain the relief ultimately awarded by the Court. Counsel expended three hours on the first motion to compel and its reply, three and a half hours on the renewed motion to compel, and two hours on this motion to fix attorney’s fees. Given the underlying facts and circumstances of this lawsuit, and the underlying fact that Defendant’s recalcitrance forced Plaintiff to file two motions to receive responses to her discovery, the Court finds that eight and a half hours on three motions is not unreasonable. For theI fTo rIeSg OoRinDg ErReaEsDons, that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees (Rec. doc. 69) is granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $3,198t7h.50 in attorney’Fs efebersu. a ry New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of ___________________________, 2022. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE