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)

Download PDF
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?