Jacobs et al v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Leave. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/17/2021. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR

Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file unredacted invoices in

17

support of their attorneys’ fee request. (Doc. 54.) On February 11, 2021, the Court denied

18

Defendants’ attorneys’ fees request within their motion for sanctions, noting that

19

Defendants had failed to meet their burden in showing that the fees that they requested

20

were reasonable.

21

indiscriminately “redacted the descriptions for each billing entry in their entirety,” leaving

22

the Court to speculate as to whether the hours billed were reasonably expended. The law

23

is clear that the party seeking attorneys’ fees is responsible for demonstrating the

24

reasonableness of the requested amount by providing the Court with general descriptions

25

of the subject matter of billing time expenditures to enable the Court determine whether

26

the hours billed were reasonably expended. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438

27

n. 12 (1983). Now, Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its prior order and grant them

28

leave to file a version of their billing that identifies the general subject matter of the time

(Doc. 53 at 3.)

The Court underscored that Defendants had

1

expenditures—evidence in Defendants’ possession prior to the filing of their motion for

2

sanctions.

3

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

4

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995).

5

for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a

6

showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention

7

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). The court may deny a motion for

8

reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. Id. Here, Defendants have made no

9

showing of manifest error and have produced no new facts or legal authority that could not

10

have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. Nor do Defendants

11

seek to justify their prior request’s deficiencies or explain why they are only able to provide

12

the unredacted billing information now. Instead, Defendants appear to admit that their fees

13

motion was deficient, but ask for a second bite at the apple, arguing that their fee award

14

should not be denied due to what they characterize to be “formalistic defects.”

15

disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong

16

v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A party requesting fees

17

is expected to conscientiously prepare a motion; lack of diligence is no excuse.

A motion

18

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave (Doc. 54) is DENIED.

19

Dated this 17th day of February, 2021.

20
21
22
23
24

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-

Mere