PIGFORD, et al v. VENEMAN, et al

Filing 2043

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses, Incurred by Faya Rose Toure f/k/a Rose M. Sanders, for Implementation Work During the Period from January 1, 2015 - January 28, 2016 2023 . Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on May 20, 2016. Associated Cases: 1:97-cv-01978-PLF, 1:98-cv-01693-PLF (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOM VILSACK, Secretary,
)
United States Department of Agriculture,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )
)
CECIL BREWINGTON et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOM VILSACK, Secretary,
)
United States Department of Agriculture,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )
TIMOTHY PIGFORD et al.,

Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF)

Civil Action No. 98-1693 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses filed by Faya Rose Toure, a/k/a Rose M. Sanders (“Ms. Sanders”), which seeks
$11,871.20 for work performed and expenses incurred between January 1, 2015 and January 28,
2016, implementing the Consent Decree in this case. The United States Department of
Agriculture (“USDA”) does not dispute that Ms. Sanders is entitled to an appropriate fee for her
work on the final implementation of the Consent Decree during a portion of this time. Upon
consideration of Ms. Sanders’s time records, the parties’ arguments and documentary

submissions, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant Ms. Sanders’s motion in part
and deny it in part. It will award fees and expenses to Ms. Sanders in the amount of $7,500. 1
USDA argues that if fees are awarded, any fee award should be significantly
reduced because Ms. Sanders’s time sheets: (1) include three non-payable hours for work that
Ms. Sanders performed after the entry of the Wind-down Stipulation and Order, Dkt. 2008, on
November 2, 2015; (2) do not reflect contemporaneous record-keeping and therefore are
unreliable; (3) lack sufficiently detailed descriptions of the work she performed, precluding
adequate judicial review; (4) include non-payable hours she spent preparing a prior fee motion;
(5) include non-payable hours she spent “revising a one-sentence WHEREAS clause in the winddown stipulation, and contemplating whether to stipulate to her own revised language”;
(6) include non-payable hours she spent discussing non-essential issues with her husband, Hank
Sanders, a lawyer also representing the class; (7) include duplicative entries; and (8) include a
number of specific time entries that are inflated. See Opp. at 2-17. USDA’s bottom line is that
the fee awarded to Ms. Sanders should not exceed $2,533.28. Id. at 17. The Court does not
agree.
For now, the Court will not address each one of USDA’s separate arguments, but
will offer the following observations. USDA’s first argument has merit insofar as Ms. Sanders’s
time sheet includes three hours after November 2, 2015, and the Wind-down Stipulation and
Order provides for fees “for legal work performed by . . . Faya Rose Toure . . . on the wind down
1

Relevant papers reviewed by the Court with respect to this matter include the
following, for which docket entries refer to Civil Action No. 97-1978: Motion for Attorney’s
Fees, Costs, and Expenses, Incurred by Faya Rose Toure f/k/a Rose M. Sanders, For
Implementation Work During the Period From January 1, 2015 – January 28, 2016 (“Mot.”)
[Dkt. 2023]; Defendant’s Response to the Petition of Faya Rose Toure a/k/a Rose Sanders for
Final Implementation Fees (“Opp.”) [Dkt. 2024]; Sanders’s Response to Defendant’s Challenge
to Fee Petition [Dkt. 2035]; and Defendant’s Reply to Sanders’s Response [Dkt. 2034].
2

. . . up to and including the date of entry of this Stipulation and Order.” See Dkt. 2008 at 5,
¶ 1(a)(7) (Nov. 2, 2015). Likewise, USDA makes a strong case that the nearly three hours of
time Ms. Sanders spent litigating her prior fee motion on February 9, 2015 is not “work
performed . . . on the wind down,” see Dkt. 2008 at 5, ¶ 1(a)(7), or cannot be compensated at Ms.
Sanders’s hourly rate. See Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 56 F. Supp. 3d 19, 27 (D.D.C. 2014)
(“[F]ee litigation usually is not complex” and “[t]here is no reason[] why most of the work done
in the preparation of the fee petitions could not have been performed by a more junior (and less
expensive) attorney.”). On the other hand, several of USDA’s arguments lack merit. The Court
has already determined that Ms. Sanders’s work on the “WHEREAS clause” is compensable, see
Pigford v. Vilsack, No. 97-1978, 2015 WL 7432322, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2015), and therefore
the only question here is whether the time Ms. Sanders spent on the “WHEREAS clause” was
excessive. In that same prior Opinion, the Court also held that Ms. Sanders’s conversations with
her husband, Hank Sanders, were the sort of “brainstorming among attorneys” that “is precisely
the sort of work that counsel should do in the course of working to implement the Consent
Decree.” Id. at *5.
Having reviewed the time records submitted and having carefully considered the
submissions of counsel and the relevant case law, the Court concludes that a reasonable result
under all the circumstances would be to award Ms. Sanders $7,500 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses. The Court therefore will grant Ms. Sanders’s motion in part and give the parties thirty
days to file a stipulation agreeing to this determination as a final decision with no right of appeal
by any party. Alternatively, absent such an agreement, either side may file a motion to reopen or
for reconsideration — which the Court will grant, after which it will decide whether on the

3

merits movant has justified an award larger or smaller than $7,500. For these reasons, it is
hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses, Incurred by
Faya Rose Toure f/k/a Rose M. Sanders, For Implementation Work During the Period From
January 1, 2015 – January 28, 2016, Dkt. 2023, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty (30) days up to and
including June 20, 2016 to submit a stipulation agreeing to this determination as a final decision
with no right of appeal by any party, or, alternatively, a motion to reopen or reconsider; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the approval of the
stipulation, the United States Department of Agriculture shall pay Ms. Sanders $7,500 in
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
SO ORDERED

/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Court

DATE: May 20, 2016

4