Iguacu, Inc. v. Filho

Filing 392

ORDER by Judge Seeborg denying request for emergency relief 390 , directing further meet and confer, and resetting schedule for briefing and hearing on attorney fee motion. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

IGUAÇU, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

ANTONIO CABRERA MANO FILHO,

17

Defendant.
____________________________________/

No. C 09-0380 RS
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
“EMERGENCY” RELIEF,
DIRECTING FURTHER MEET AND
CONFER, AND RESETTING
SCHEDULE FOR BRIEFING AND
HEARING OF ATTORNEY FEE
MOTION

18
19

Defendant’s “emergency motion for expedited briefing and hearing” is denied, and his

20

underlying motion to motion to compel is denied without prejudice. The parties are directed to

21

engage in further meet and confer discussions, at a minimum telephonically, but preferably face-to-

22

face, regarding the subject matter of this dispute. The parties should bear in mind that (1) there is no

23

bright line rule that a party seeking attorney fees must produce contemporaneous time records, or

24

even billing invoices, (2) attorney fee motions must nevertheless be supported by adequate detail

25

and documentation to permit meaningful opposition and analysis, and (3) the risk to a moving party

26

of not providing sufficient support for the fee claim is that any award will be reduced accordingly, if

27

not denied in whole. Additionally, the ability to redact privileged or work-product information from

28

1

billing records generally suffices to overcome objections on those grounds. Submission of records

2

for in camera review will ordinarily not be permitted.

3

These observations are general. The adequacy of the documentation submitted by plaintiff

4

has not been reviewed at this juncture, and nothing in this order should be read as implying that it

5

either is or is not sufficient.

6
7

The hearing on the motion for attorney fees is continued to February 20, 2014. The
opposition brief shall be filed by January 30, 2014, and any reply one week thereafter.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: December 30, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2