Slater et al v. Tagged, Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER Re Supplemental Evidence. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/18/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. TAGGED, INC., et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ MIRIAM SLATER, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C-09-3697 EMC ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE (Docket No. 44) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses, which is set for hearing on April 21, 2010. Having reviewed Plaintiffs' opening brief, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs provide supplemental evidence in support of their motion. More specifically, the Court orders that Plaintiffs provide: (1) The billing records for the attorneys and/or legal assistants who worked on the instant case. The Court notes that, based on the Kamber declaration, it appears that there were at least six different timekeepers from three different law firms. The billing records may be redacted to protect any attorney-client or work product privilege. (2) Declarations from each of the three law firms who worked on the instant case, supporting the claimed hourly rates requested. The Court acknowledges that Mr. Kamber has provided a declaration attached to which is a resume for the Kamber law firm; however, that resume /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 does not reflect the years of experience of Mr. Stampley. The other two law firms have not submitted any declarations. The supplemental evidence shall be filed and served by March 31, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?