Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 1430

ORDER re 1424 MOTION with Proposed Order for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Payment of Disputed Attorneys' Fees for 19th Quarter of Monitoring and Enforcement filed by Paul Redd, Richard Johnson, Jeffrey Franklin, Ronnie Dewberry, George Ruiz, Luis Esquivel, George Franco, Danny Troxell, Gabriel Reyes, Todd Ashker. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 03/25/2021. (rmilc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

TODD ASHKER, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (RMI)
ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1425, 1426
MATHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Now pending before the court are a pair of disputes about attorneys’ fees (dkts. 1424,

15

1425) that were referred to the undersigned (dkt. 1423) for the preparation of findings and a

16

recommendation. The Settlement Agreement (dkt. 424-2) in this case provides, in pertinent part,

17

that “Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs for work reasonably performed

18

on this case . . . [thus] [o]n a quarterly basis, Plaintiffs may file motions for reasonable attorneys’

19

fees accrued in monitoring and enforcing CDCR’s compliance with this Agreement.” Id. at 21-22

20

(emphases added). The fee amount relating to the first four quarters of monitoring was litigated

21

before Judge James. See Order (dkt. 988) at 1-2 (denying request for an interim payment of

22

$703,771.20 because Plaintiffs had claimed a total of 6,778.4 hours of time spent without

23

submitting billing records, explaining that “the Court cannot determine whether the claimed hours

24

are reasonable.”); see also Order (dkt. 1023) (granting Plaintiffs’ subsequent fee request in part).

25

See Pl.’s Mot. (dkt. 1424) at 2. The fee amounts relating to the 5th through the 18th quarters were

26

resolved between the parties without the need for court intervention. Id.

27
28

On this occasion, however, the parties’ negotiations have stalled and they find themselves
at an impasse wherein Defendants reportedly object to a portion of the fees sought by Plaintiffs, as

well as seeking to recoup certain amounts that were previously remitted. Id. at 2-3, n.1. Plaintiffs’

2

fee request motion seeks attorneys’ fees and costs to the tune of $312,747.75 for the 19th

3

monitoring quarter based on approximately 1,139.1 hours of work done by six attorneys. See

4

Miller Decl. (dkt. 1424-1) at 2-3. In response, Defendants contend, inter alia, that while “Plaintiffs

5

have regularly submitted billing statements to Defendants [when] seeking reimbursement of

6

attorneys’ fees and costs” (Shryock Decl. (dkt. 1425-1) at 2), in conjunction with the currently

7

pending motion, Plaintiffs “did not support their request with any supporting documentation and

8

therefore failed to establish they are entitled to any fees for their work in Quarter 19.” Def.’s Opp.

9

(dkt. 1428) at 1. Defendants are correct in pointing out the deficiency in Plaintiffs’ fee request.

10

Without a set of detailed billing records indicating exactly how Plaintiffs’ many attorneys have

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

spent their 1,139.1 hours, there is no way for the court to gauge whether or not the expenditure of

12

that amount of time was reasonable.

13

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ are ORDERED to provide substantial billing documentation, no

14

later than Thursday, April 1, 2021, such as would enable the court to intelligently determine the

15

reasonableness of the expenditure of the hours claimed. In an organized, chronological, and

16

identifiable manner, Plaintiffs shall set forth sufficient billing details for the court to determine

17

exactly how much time each attorney has spent on each and every task for which remuneration is

18

sought, and in what capacity (i.e., researching, writing, editing, reviewing, attending a meeting,

19

attending court, and so on and so forth). If Defendants wish, they may file a response to Plaintiffs’

20

supplemental filing, no later than Thursday, April 8, 2021, through which they may lodge their

21

objections in response to Plaintiffs’ claimed justifications for the investments of time by their

22

counsel.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2021

25
26
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2