Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al v. Perry et al

Filing 139

Order by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 117 Motion for Attorney's Fees. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2020)

Case 3:17-cv-03404-VC Document 139 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03404-VC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE STATE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 117

This case presented the pure legal question of whether the Department of Energy was
required to publish certain efficiency standards in the Federal Register. Initially, there were two
lawsuits. The first was filed by a coalition of advocacy groups; the second by a coalition of
states. The lawsuits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs prosecuted the action side-by-side
(although the advocacy groups appeared to take the lead). This Court ruled for the plaintiffs on
cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling on appeal. The
Department then published the standards. On remand, the advocacy groups settled their claim for
attorney’s fees with the Department, but the states were unable to do so. Accordingly, they have
filed a motion for attorney’s fees. Their motion originally sought roughly $1.4 million, for
roughly 2,400 hours of work performed by 12 different attorneys. On reply, they dialed back
their request to just south of $1 million.
For virtually all the reasons given by the Department of Energy in its opposition brief, the
fee motion is unreasonable. Although the case was important and the legal issues complicated, it
was a pure legal question, with no depositions, no discovery of any other sort, and no significant
document production. Twenty-four hundred hours of work, at a cost of $1.4 million, would be

Case 3:17-cv-03404-VC Document 139 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 2

unreasonable even if the state plaintiffs were fully responsible for the result achieved in the case,
as opposed to half or less. This statement applies to the revised request for just under $1 million
as well.
The state plaintiffs have already wasted a great deal of the Department’s time and money
(not to mention their own) pursuing this fee request. It would be a further waste to hold a hearing
on this motion, or to sift through the sparse records submitted by the state plaintiffs to determine
an appropriate haircut using such an unreasonable starting point. Accordingly, the motion for
attorney’s fees and costs is denied entirely, without prejudice to refiling a motion that is both
more reasonable and better supported by billing records that do not contain so many redactions.
If the state plaintiffs decide to file a renewed motion, they should not expect to recover any fees
incurred in their efforts to recover fees. Any renewed motion is due within 21 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2020
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2