Civil Action No. MJG-03-1329.United States District Court, D. Maryland.
February 3, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JAMES BREDAR, Magistrate Judge
This action has been referred for a Report and Recommendation on plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and for discovery of the billing records of defendant’s attorney. (Paper No. 106). No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, it is hereby recommended that the motion for attorney’s fees be granted in part and denied in part and that the motion for discovery be denied.
I. Background
The complaint, filed in May 2003, was cast in four counts, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act; discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act. In sum, it was alleged that the plaintiff suffered gender discrimination in pay and conditions of employment and that she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. She alleged lost income as well as non-economic damages and sought punitive damages. (Paper No. 1).
Page 2
The Court, in September 2004, awarded summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination counts, but denied summary judgment on the retaliation counts. (Paper NO 39). The case went to trial in June 2005, at which time the plaintiff was partially successful in seeking the exclusion of certain evidence. (Paper No. 70). The jury trial in the case lasted three days, at the close of which the jury awarded a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Ultimately, a judgment was entered in the amount of $83,714.99, consisting of $33,714.99 in back pay, $2,453.40 in compensatory damages and $47,546.60[1] punitive damages. (Paper No. 91).
II. Standard of Review
A prevailing plaintiff in cases such as this ordinarily is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. The amount of the award is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). What is reasonable, under the circumstances of each case, is left to the discretion of the Court, aided by the application of the twelve factors articulated in Johnson v.
Page 3
Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (5th
Cir. 1974). See, Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226
(4th Cir. 1978).
III. The Fees
Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount $189,262.20. (Paper No. 92). The defendant has responded, suggesting that an appropriate fee award is no more than $55,674.00. (Paper No. 98).[2]
In advance of any calculation, the undersigned notes one of the many well-made points of Magistrate Judge Grimm in Thompson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002 WL 31777631 D. Md., Nov. 21, 2002):
. . . It is not the Court’s burden to sift through literally hundreds of pages of billing records to look for similar instances of allegedly improper billing entries when the challenging parties have not thought the effort sufficiently important to undertake themselves.
Id., Page 10. In sum, the undersigned will not do what the defendant will not do and only those entries specifically challenged by the defendant will be considered herein. In keeping
Page 4
with that posture, it is noted that the defendant affirmatively states that it does not contest the hourly rates of $275 for partners and $225 for associates sought by the plaintiff. Inasmuch as those rates, although at the top, are within the guidelines set forth in Appendix B to the Local Rules of this Court, they will not be disturbed.
Moving to the identified charges in dispute, the defendant objects to specific entries totaling of 217.90 hours of Mr. Lebau’s time and 126.30 hours of Ms. Jefferson’s time, on the ground that the entries insufficiently identify the work performed. The undersigned has compared the objections to the time entries and the objections will be addressed in seriatim:
Mr. Lebau’s Time Entries
04/22/02-sustained .90 05/10/02-sustained 2.20 08/09/02-sustained .30 10/22/03-overruled 10/30/02-overruled 11/01/02-overruled 11/05/02-overruled 11/07/02-overruled 01/07/03-overruled 01/14/03-overruled 01/28/03-overruled 03/27/03-overruled 03/28/03-overruled 04/15/03-overruled 06/02/03-overruled 06/03/03-overruled 06/06/03-sustained .50 06/23/03-sustained 1.00 12/04/03-overruled 12/10/03-overruled 01/19/04-sustained .20 02/04/04-overruled
Page 5
02/05/04-sustained 1.20 02/24/04-overruled 03/11/04-overruled 03/08/04-sustained 3.00 06/25/03-sustained .50 07/22/03-sustained 2.50 07/23/03-overruled 07/31/03-sustained 1.40 08/21/03-sustained 3.90 09/01/03-sustained 1.50 09/25/03-overruled 10/09/03-overruled 11/20/03-sustained 1.50 11/24/03-sustained 4.50 11/25/03-sustained .50 11/26/03-overruled 12/01/03-overruled 12/16/03-sustained .60 01/05/04-overruled 03/23/04-overruled 09/28/04-overruled 03/11/04-overruled 03/11/04-overruled 03/11/04-overruled 03/17/04-overruled 03/20/04-overruled 03/24/04-overruled 03/30/04-sustained 1.50 04/21/04-overruled 04/02/04-overruled 05/04/04-overruled 05/14/04-sustained 3.30 05/18/04-sustained 4.00 05/19/04-overruled 05/20/04-sustained 3.20 05/25/04-overruled 06/10/04-overruled 06/12/04-overruled 06/22/04-sustained 3.00 06/25/04-overruled 06/28/04-overruled 06/28/04-overruled 06/30/04-overruled 07/02/04-sustained 12.50 01/21/05-sustained 4.70 01/22/05-sustained 4.20 01/25/05-sustained 1.20 01/30/05-overruled
Page 6
02/01/05-overruled 02/08/05-overruled 02/09/05-overruled 02/10/05-overruled 02/14/05-sustained 1.40 02/16/05-sustained 1.40 02/21/05-overruled 05/12/05-overruled 05/17/05-overruled 05/20/05-sustained 6.30 05/24/05-sustained 2.70 05/27/05-sustained 2.00 05/31/05-sustained 8.60 06/02/05-sustained 1.20 06/04/05-sustained 1.20 06/08/05-sustained 8.10 06/14/05-overruled 06/15/05-sustained 12.00 06/18/05-sustained 7.90 06/23/05-overruled 08/12/05-overruled 08/15/05-sustained .50
Total 115.60
Ms. Jefferson’s Time Entries
12/08/03-sustained .20 12/15/03-sustained 2.50 05/03/04-overruled 05/03/04-overruled 09/03/03-overruled 09/04/03-overruled 12/16/03-overruled 12/17/03-overruled 12/18/03-overruled 12/22/03-overruled 01/07/04-overruled 01/14/04-overruled 03/03/04-sustained .50 03/04/04-sustained 1.75 03/11/04-sustained 2.00 03/15/04-sustained 2.50 03/16/04-sustained 2.00 04/28/04-sustained 2.00
04/29/04-sustained 2.00 05/03/04-sustained 1.50
Page 7
05/04/04-sustained 1.50 05/05/04-sustained 2.50 05/10/04-sustained 2.00 05/12/04-sustained 1.50 09/27/04-sustained .05 03/21/05-sustained .25 03/24/04-sustained 1.50 04/07/05-sustained 1.00 04/07/05-sustained .50 05/05/05-sustained 2.50 05/09/05-sustained 2.00 05/10/05-sustained 1.50 05/11/05-sustained 4.00 05/12/05-sustained .25 05/12/05-sustained 2.50 05/16/05-sustained 4.00 05/16/05-sustained 1.00 05/18/05-sustained 1.50 05/18/05-sustained 3.50 05/19/05-sustained 2.50 05/23/05-sustained .60 05/23/05-sustained 3.00 05/25/05-sustained 4.00 05/25/05-sustained .20 06/01/05-sustained 3.50 06/02/05-sustained 3.00 06/07/05-sustained 2.00 06/07/05-sustained 1.00 06/07/05-sustained .20 06/08/05-sustained .40 06/08/05-sustained 2.00 06/09/05-sustained .50 06/13/05-sustained 3.00 06/15/05-sustained 4.00 06/16/05-sustained 1.00 08/02/05-sustained .10 08/04/05-sustained .10 08/04/05-sustained 1.00 08/08/05-sustained 2.00 08/09/05-sustained 1.00 08/10/05-sustained 3.00 08/11/05-sustained .10 06/30/05-sustained 1.00 07/05/05-sustained 3.50 07/06/05-sustained 1.00 08/22/05-sustained .40 08/23/05-sustained 3.00 08/24/05-sustained 2.00
Page 8
08/25/05-sustained 2.50 08/29/05-sustained 3.00 08/30/05-sustained 4.00 08/31/05-sustained 3.00 09/01/05-sustained 2.00
Total 114.10
By the calculation of the undersigned, the sustained objections to the entries would work a reduction in fees in the amount of $31,789.00 in the fee allocable to Mr. Lebau’s time and $25,672.50 in the fee allocable to Ms. Jefferson’s time, for a total reduction of $57,461.50 from the claim of $189,262.20, leaving a claim of $131,800.70.
Considering the fee petition as a whole, the undersigned finds particularly salient certain of the Johnson factors. There was nothing novel, difficult or particularly undesirable about this case — the jury, in fact, was able to find that the conduct of the defendant was egregious — and the case required no unusual skill on the part of counsel. There is no indication that other employment was precluded by acceptance of the case nor was any time limitation imposed by the client or the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the undersigned does not view the result obtained in the grandiose terms trumpeted by the plaintiff. In short, it is the view of the undersigned that the consideration of the Johnson factors militates in favor of a 20 percent percentage reduction in the fee sought. By the calculation of the undersigned, a 20 per cent reduction of $131,350.50 leaves a remainder of $105,440.56.
Page 9
Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the Court issue an Order awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff in the amount of $105,440.56. It is further recommended that the Court deny plaintiff’s discovery motion (Paper No. 105) regarding defense counsel’s billing records.
Page 1