Jacobs et al v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated et al
ORDER denying 54 Motion for Leave. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/17/2021. (RMV)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al.,
Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file unredacted invoices in
support of their attorneys’ fee request. (Doc. 54.) On February 11, 2021, the Court denied
Defendants’ attorneys’ fees request within their motion for sanctions, noting that
Defendants had failed to meet their burden in showing that the fees that they requested
indiscriminately “redacted the descriptions for each billing entry in their entirety,” leaving
the Court to speculate as to whether the hours billed were reasonably expended. The law
is clear that the party seeking attorneys’ fees is responsible for demonstrating the
reasonableness of the requested amount by providing the Court with general descriptions
of the subject matter of billing time expenditures to enable the Court determine whether
the hours billed were reasonably expended. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438
n. 12 (1983). Now, Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its prior order and grant them
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
expenditures—evidence in Defendants’ possession prior to the filing of their motion for
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995).
for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a
showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention
earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). The court may deny a motion for
reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. Id. Here, Defendants have made no
showing of manifest error and have produced no new facts or legal authority that could not
have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. Nor do Defendants
seek to justify their prior request’s deficiencies or explain why they are only able to provide
the unredacted billing information now. Instead, Defendants appear to admit that their fees
motion was deficient, but ask for a second bite at the apple, arguing that their fee award
should not be denied due to what they characterize to be “formalistic defects.”
disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong
v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A party requesting fees
is expected to conscientiously prepare a motion; lack of diligence is no excuse.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2021.
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
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?