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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?