Skyline Advanced Technology Services v. Shafer
Filing
74
ORDER by Judge Robert M. Illman deferring ruling on (68) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 3:18-cv-06641-CRB; deferring ruling on (105) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 3:19-cv-00787-CRB. Because the resolution of Skyline's motion for attor neys' fees and costs is partially dependent on the resolution of Ms. Shafer's motion for review of the taxation of costs, the undersigned will reserve ruling on Skyline's motion until after the adjudication of Ms. Shafters motion. Afte r Ms. Shafer's motion for review is decided, Skyline and Ms. Shafer are ORDERED to jointly-file a letter brief forthwith outlining, in a streamlined and chronological fashion, the number of attorney hours (and hourly rate) spent on each task or other expense for which Skyline seeks recovery, as well as Ms. Shafer's point-by-point objections (if any). (rmilc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2020)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
EUREKA DIVISION
8
9
10
SKYLINE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
12
13
SABRINA SHAFER,
Case No. 18-cv-06641-CRB (RMI)
ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 68
Defendant.
14
15
SABRINA SHAFER,
Plaintiff,
16
17
Case No. 19-cv-00787-CRB (RMI)
Re: Dkt. No. 105
v.
18
SKYLINE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
SERVICES, et al.,
19
Defendants.
20
21
Now pending before the court is a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed in both of the
22
above-styled cases by Skyline Advanced Technology Services (“Skyline”) in connection with the
23
evidentiary spoliation motion on which it prevailed. In Case No. 19-cv-00787, Skyline filed a Bill
24
of Costs (dkt. 104) for $40,626.34, which was partially approved by the Clerk of Court for the sum
25
of $37,133.88 (dkt. 109). Subsequently, Ms. Shafer has filed a motion for review of the taxation of
26
the $37,133.88 in costs (dkt. 110) which remains pending. Meanwhile, Skyline’s motion for
27
attorneys’ fees and costs contains some overlap with its Bill of Costs and maintains that if Skyline
28
is awarded its full costs through its Bill of Costs, then certain amounts in the motion for attorneys’
1
fees and costs should be reduced to avoid double recovery. See e.g., Skyline’s Mot. (Case No. 19-
2
cv-00787-CRB) (dkt. 105) at 6 nn. 4, 5.
3
Because the resolution of Skyline’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is partially
4
dependent on the resolution of Ms. Shafer’s motion for review of the taxation of costs, the
5
undersigned will reserve ruling on Skyline’s motion until after the adjudication of Ms. Shafter’s
6
motion. After Ms. Shafer’s motion for review is decided, Skyline and Ms. Shafer are ORDERED
7
to jointly-file a letter brief outlining, in a streamlined and chronological fashion, the number of
8
attorney hours (and hourly rate) spent on each task or other expense for which Skyline seeks
9
recovery, as well as Ms. Shafer’s point-by-point objections (if any).
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2020
12
13
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
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?