Planned Parenthood Southeast, Inc. et al v. Bentley et al

Filing 278

ORDER directing as follows: (1) plfs' 277 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs is set for final submission, without oral argument, on 8/12/2016; (2) plfs are to file a Brief and evidentiary materials by 7/15/2016, as further set out; (3) def s are to file their Response and any evidentiary materials by 8/5/2016, as further set out; (4) plfs may file a Reply Brief by 8/12/2016; (5) the discussion of the evidence in the briefs must be accompanied by a specific reference, by page and line, to where the evidence can be found, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/12/16. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
SOUTHEAST, INC., on behalf
of its patients,
physicians, and staff,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LUTHER STRANGE, in his
official capacity as
Attorney General of the
State of Alabama, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv405-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It is ORDERED as follows:
(1)
costs

Plaintiffs’

(doc. no. 277)

motion
is

for

set

attorneys’

for

final

fees

and

submission,

without oral argument, on August 12, 2016.
(2)

Plaintiffs

are

to

file

a

brief

evidentiary materials by July 15, 2016.
brief,

plaintiffs

articulated

in

Am.

should
Civil

address

Liberties

In
the

Union

and
their

factors
of Ga. v.

Barnes,

168

F.3d

423

(11th Cir. 1999).

See

also

Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010);
Bivins

v.

Wrap

(11th Cir. 2008)

It
(per

Up,

Inc.,

curiam);

548

Dillard

F.3d
v.

1348

City

of

Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2000); Norman v.
Hous.

Auth.

of

City

(11th Cir. 1988);
Inc.,

488

F.2d

of

Montgomery,

Johnson
714

v.

Ga.

836

F.2d

Highway

(5th Cir. 1974)*;

Hearn

1292

Express,
v.

Gen.

Elec. Co., 1996 WL 937034 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 1996)
(Thompson, J.); Gay Lesbian Bisexual All. v. Sessions,
930 F. Supp. 1492 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (Thompson, J.).
(3) Defendants are to file their response and any
evidentiary materials by August 5, 2016.

In

their

brief, defendants should address, among other things,
what they believe to be

reasonable hourly fees; the

particular items or categories of time to which they
object and why; the particular items or categories of

* In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

2

expenses

to

which

they

object

and

why;

and

any

modification of the total fees and expenses they wish to
raise based on other defenses.
(4) Plaintiffs may file a reply brief by August
12, 2016.
(5) The discussion of the evidence in the briefs
must be accompanied by a specific reference, by page
and line, to
the

where

supporting

the

evidence

can

be

found

in

and attached documents, affidavits,

depositions, etc.

The parties are reminded of the

following cautionary instructions from the Eleventh
Circuit:
(A) The

fee

applicant

bears

the

burden

of

“establishing entitlement and documenting the
appropriate hours and hourly rates.”

Norman,

836 F.2d at 1303.
(B) This burden includes (i) supplying the court
with specific and detailed evidence from which
the

court

hourly

can

rate,

determine
(ii)

3

the

maintaining

reasonable
records

to

show the time spent on the different
and

(iii)

setting

out

with

claims,

sufficient

particularity the general subject matter
the

time

expenditures

court can

so that the district

assess the time claimed for each

and every activity.
(C) “A

of

well-prepared

Barnes, 168 F.3d at 427.
fee

petition

include a summary,” that is,

also

would

a “grouping [of]

the time entries by the nature of the activity
or stage of the case.”

Id. (emphasis added)

(citation omitted).
(D) A fee applicant should also exercise “billing
judgment,”

id.

(citation

omitted),

that

is,

the applicant should “exclude from [his] fee
applications

excessive,

redundant,

or

otherwise unnecessary hours, which are hours
that would be unreasonable to bill to a client
and therefore to one’s adversary irrespective
of

the

skill,

reputation

or

experience

of

counsel,” id. (emphasis omitted) (citation and

4

internal quotation marks omitted).
(E) “Those

opposing

fee

obligations, too.
to

carry

out

‘objections

have

In order for [this] court[]

[its]

and

applications

duties

proof

from

in

this

fee

area,

opponents’

concerning hours that should be excluded must
be specific and ‘reasonably precise.’”

Id.

(quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301).
(F) “It should ... be noted that in line with the
goal

of

obtaining

evidence

objectivity,

necessarily

must

satisfactory

speak

to

rates

actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits.
Testimony that a given fee is reasonable is
therefore
rate.”

unsatisfactory

evidence

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299.

of

market

Or, to put

it another way: “Generalized statements that
the

time

spent

was

reasonable

or

unreasonable ... are not particularly helpful

5

and

not

entitled

to

much

weight.”

Id.

1301.
DONE, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

at