ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 748

ORDER ON ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARD - The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Arch's request for attorney's fees and costs. Arch is awarded attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $81,611.39 to be paid by Lilly within 30 days of the date of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 8/17/2017. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01770-LJM-TAB

ORDER ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD
This matter pends on the Court’s prior order (the “Prior Order”) awarding attorney’s
fees and costs to Defendants, Arch Insurance Company and Arch Special Insurance
Company (collectively, “Arch”), in relation to their Motion to Compel the Depositions of
Ian S. Pettman and Mike Brown or, in the Alternative, to Strike the Affidavits of Ian S.
Pettman and Mike Brown, and Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 683. In the
Prior Order, the Court struck the affidavits of Ian S. Pettman and Mike Brown (the “JLT
Witnesses”), and all references thereto, as they appear in conjunction with Plaintiffs’, Eli
Lilly and Company and Lilly do Brasil, Ltda. (collectively, “Lilly’s”), Second Amended
Complaint and Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as well as any responses to
such documents. Id. at 23. The Court further ordered that “Lilly shall be required to pay
Arch’s costs in connection with [the] Motion,” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(5)(C) (“Rule 37(a)(5)(C)”). Id. at 21-23.
In light of the Court’s Prior Order, Arch’s counsel now seeks attorney’s fees and
expenses in the amount of $393,557.79. Dkt. No. 702, Ex. 1 (“Shadley Decl.”), ¶ 8. As
evidence of the fees asserted, Arch provided declarations from Fredric X. Shadley

(“Shadley”), Arch’s U.S. counsel from the law firm of Ulmer & Berne LLP (“Ulmer”), and
Paul M. Kirkpatrick, Arch’s UK counsel from the law firm of Shoosmiths LLP
(“Shoosmiths”), as well as itemized lists describing the legal services rendered and the
costs incurred by Ulmer and Shoosmiths in connection to this action. See generally,
Shadley Decl.; Dkt. No. 702, Ex. 2. Shadley stated that Ulmer performed legal services
related to this action at billable hourly rates ranging from $215 to $528 per hour. Shadley
Decl., ¶ 7. He also indicated that Shoosmiths charged between £135 and £350 per hour
for their legal services. Id. Furthermore, Shadley noted that “[t]o the extent possible and
reasonable under the circumstances, Arch’s counsel delegated necessary work to
associates and attorneys and trainees with lower billable rates in an effort to keep fees to
a minimum.” Id. Shadley claims that all of Arch’s costs and fees incurred in their efforts
to obtain the depositions of the JLT Witnesses fit into four categories: (1) “[a]ttorney fees
and costs incurred in relation to the proceedings under the Hague Convention, including
the filings and arguments before the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom,” totaling
$212,486.08; (2) “[t]he UK Court’s order requiring Arch to pay the JLT Witnesses’ attorney
fees incurred during the course of the UK Court proceedings, as required by UK law,”
amounting to $76,541.73; (3) “Arch’s meet and confer efforts with counsel for [Lilly] and
the JLT Witnesses during and after the proceedings before the UK Court in an effort to
resolve the discovery dispute and the issues raised in the Motion … without the need for
this Court’s intervention,” accounting for $21,257.20; and (4) “Arch’s briefing of the Motion
…, including oral argument and post-hearing status reports and conferences,” totaling
$83,290.78. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.

2

In response to Arch’s offered proof of fees, Lilly argues that Arch’s request of
$393,557.70 is excessive and unreasonable based on the Court’s Prior Order. Dkt. No.
721 at 1. Specifically, Lilly contends that Arch cannot recover its fees and costs for all of
its prior attempts to obtain discovery from the JLT Witnesses, including its efforts in the
UK Court, because the Court limited its attorney’s fees award to include only Arch’s costs
and fees associated with the Motion. Id. at 3-5. Lilly further asserts that, because the
Court did not award sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”) and
rejected Arch’s allegations of ethical violations, Arch’s attorney’s fees award should only
include the costs and fees associated with Arch’s Rule 37 motion to compel and should
not include any costs attributed to Arch’s motion to strike under Rule 56 or its assertions
of ethical violations. Id. at 5-11. In light of these restrictions, Lilly claims that Arch should
be entitled to recover no more than $21,952.54 in attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 10-11.
I. DISCUSSION
When a court grants a motion to compel, “the court must, after giving an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the
motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” unless (1)
“the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action;” (2) “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified;” or (3) “other circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). If a court grants in part and denies in part
a motion to compel, that court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the
reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Because district courts

3

are typically “in the best position to determine the reasonableness of an award for work
done on litigation in that court,” a district court’s determination of an award of attorney’s
fees is given great deference. Dobbs v. DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., 842 F.3d 1045, 1048
(7th Cir. 2016) (reviewing a district court’s award of attorney’s fees under an abuse of
discretion standard of review).
To determine what constitutes reasonable attorney’s fees under federal law, the
Court starts with the lodestar amount, calculated by multiplying the number of hours the
attorney reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. See
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547, 553
(7th Cir. 2014). As “the ‘centerpiece’ of attorney’s fees determinations,” the lodestar
calculation is applied to contingency fees and fixed fee arrangements. Pickett v. Sheridan
Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 639 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489
U.S. 87, 94 (1989)). While the lodestar calculation “yields a presumptively reasonable
fee, the court may nevertheless adjust the fee based on factors not included in the
computation,” such as the degree of success obtained and the reasonableness of the
attorney’s hourly rate. Montanez, 755 F.3d at 553 (internal citations omitted). Attorney’s
fees that are “ʻexcessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary’” are unreasonable and
should not be calculated into the lodestar amount. Johnson v. GDF, Inc., 668 F.3d 927,
931 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434). “A reasonable hourly rate is based
on the local market rate for the attorney’s services,” which is best evidenced by the rate
the attorney actually bills for similar work, or alternatively, by rates charged by similarly
experienced attorneys in the community or on similar cases. Montanez, 755 F.3d at 553
(internal citations omitted). “The party seeking the fee award bears the burden of proving

4

the reasonableness of the hours worked and the hourly rates claimed.” Spegon, 175 F.3d
at 550 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. 433).
Despite Arch’s initial request in the Motion to recover all of its fees associated with
the Motion “and its prior attempts to obtain the discovery addressed,” Dkt. No. 632 at 31,
the Court concluded in the Prior Order that Arch is entitled to recover only the attorney’s
fees and cost it incurred in connection with the Motion. Dkt. No. 683 at 23. Based on this
determination, the Court only intended to award Arch its attorney’s fees and costs that
directly resulted from its efforts to develop, draft, administer, and argue the Motion. The
Court did not intend to award Arch all of the costs and fees it incurred through its prior
attempts to obtain depositions of the JLT Witnesses. The Court also did not intend to
award Arch the fees it accrue through its efforts to negotiate with Lilly or JLT directly to
obtain the JLT Witnesses’ depositions. Therefore, Arch is not entitled to recover any of
its fees associated with its Hague Convention proceedings, its reimbursement of JLT’s
fees in the UK Court, or its meet and confer efforts.
Furthermore, while Lilly argues that the Court intended only to award fees in
connection with certain portions of the Motion, the Court did not indicate that the fees
awarded would be limited in such a manner. Although the Court did not grant Arch’s
primary form of relief by compelling the JLT Witnesses’ depositions, the Court did grant
Arch’s alternative request to strike the JLT Witnesses’ affidavits. Dkt. No. 683 at 23.
Furthermore, while the Court rejected Arch’s allegations of possible ethical violations, the
Court still determined that Arch should be able to recover its attorney’s fees for the Motion
based on Lilly’s prior actions in connection with Arch’s Hague Convention proceedings
that made the Motion necessary. Id. at 18-22. Therefore, because the Motion was

5

necessitated by Lilly’s actions and was granted in part and denied in part, Arch is entitled
to recover all of its attorney’s fees and costs associated with the development, drafting,
administration, and argumentation of the Motion as a whole under Rule 37(a)(5)(C). See
Estate of Wright v. Forgey, No. 2:13-CV-33-WCL-JEM, 2016 WL 2956699, at *2 (N.D.
Ind. May 23, 2016) (concluding that a plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under
Rule 37(a)(5)(C) where the court denied the plaintiff’s request to compel discovery but
granted the plaintiff’s request for alternative relief to set a briefing schedule because the
impasse caused by the defendants’ efforts to avoid discovery “would likely still be ongoing
if Plaintiff had not filed its motion to compel”).
In light of the Court’s restrictions set forth in the Prior Order, the Court will not
award Arch any fees that are not related to the development, drafting, administration, and
argumentation of the Motion. Therefore, because the Motion was only necessary after
the UK Court ordered that Arch would not be permitted to perform U.S.-style depositions
of the JLT Witnesses on March 16, 2017, see Dkt. No. 652, Ex. A-1, the Court limits its
review of Arch’s purported attorney’s fees to include only fees and costs incurred after
March 16, 2017. Based on the itemized invoices attached to the Shadley Decl., Arch
incurred fees and costs amounting to $105,117.89 after March 16, 2017. Shadely Decl.
at 69-254.
The Court further deducts all of Arch’s claimed attorney’s fees that are not directly
related to the development, drafting, administration, and argumentation of the Motion after
March 16, 2017. Because they relate to services other than those directly associated
with the Motion, the following charges are excluded from Arch’s award of attorney’s fees:

6

Date

Description

3/19/17

Review of 2008-2010 emails and documents in
preparation for Saltsgaver deposition
Drafted and revised meet and confer letter to
plaintiffs’ counsel based on JLT discovery and
demand for payment of fees
Review and provide substantive comment to draft
correspondence to plaintiffs’ counsel regarding meet
and confer regarding JLT affidavits and potential
motion to strike and motion for costs
Analyzed issues relating to demand for fees and
further discovery based on JLT proceedings in the UK
Finalized meet and confer letter regarding JLT costs

3/20/17
3/20/17

3/21/17
3/28/17

Hours and Fees

3/29/17

Communication with client regarding JLT’s costs and
attorney’s fees
3/29/17 Review correspondence to plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding meet and confer letter regarding JLT
discovery and witnesses
3/30/17 Developed strategy regarding service of United
Kingdom order on counsel and court in the United
States proceedings
4/4/17
Communication with United Kingdom counsel
regarding payment details for JLT’s costs
4/4/17
Reviewed communication from opposing counsel
regarding JLT depositions, documents, and costs
4/4/17
Review correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding meet and confer regarding JLT motion to
strike
4/6/2017 Review transcript of attorney argument at London
hearing regarding JLT discovery
4/10/2017 Communication with United Kingdom counsel
regarding judgment
4/12/17 Review transcript of English Court’s opinion
regarding JLT discovery
4/18/17 Drafted communication to opposing counsel
regarding JLT documents
4/25/17 Developed strategy, relating to motion to
strike/motion for sanctions; analyzed
correspondence from plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
MJ documents and strategy for motion relating to

7

FXS, 10.4 hours,
$5,241.60
JAK, 2.8 hours, $966.00
GMS, 0.4 hours, $158.00

JAK, 1.4 hours, $483.00
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
MBG, 0.1 hours, $34.50
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
MBG, 0.1 hours, $34.50
MBG, 0.1 hours, $34.50
MBG, 0.3 hours, $103.50
GMS, 0.2 hours, $79.00
GMS, 0.3 hours, $118.50)
MBG, 0.1 hours, $34.50
GMS, 0.4 hours, $158.00
MBG, 0.3 hours, $103.50
JAK, 2.3 hours, $793.50

Date

5/8/17
5/8/17
5/9/17
5/10/17
5/18/17
5/18/17
5/18/17
5/18/17

5/22/17
5/22/17
5/22/17
5/23/17
5/23/17
5/23/17

Description

Hours and Fees

same; analyzed issues relating to agency arguments
and issues relating to ethics issues in briefing 1
Review and analyze plaintiffs’ counsel’s
correspondence to J. Thomas regarding meet and
confer and proposals regarding JLT depositions
Reviewed letter from plaintiffs’ attorney regarding
JLT depositions and documents; reviewed letter
from plaintiffs’ attorney to JLT regarding the same
Drafted response to plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
joint efforts to obtain JLT depositions
Communication to opposing counsel regarding JLT
depositions
Communications with opposing counsel regarding
JLT depositions
Developed strategy regarding negotiations with JLT
Review communications from plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding JLT deposition issue
Confer with plaintiffs’ new counsel, A. Detherage,
regarding JLT depositions and issues involved in
reaching a viable resolution; confer with J. Klarfield
regarding facts as they occurred in London and
strategy to take in response to plaintiffs’ offering
Developed strategy regarding Barnes Thornburg
lawyer’s request to approach JLT regarding
depositions
Reviewed and analyzed JLT’s proposed stipulation
regarding depositions
Reviewed email from A. Detherage (plaintiffs’
attorney) regarding JLT depositions and call to same
Communication with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
negotiations with JLT about depositions
Prepare red-lined version of JLT’s deposition
stipulation
Review proposed stipulation from JLT’s counsel
regarding JLT witness depositions

1

GMS, 0.2 hours, $79.00
FXS, 0.3 hours, $151.20
MBG, 0.8 hours, $276.00
MBG, 0.1 hours, $34.50
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
MBG, 0.6 hours, $207.00
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
FXS, 0.6 hours, $302.40

MBG, 0.3 hours, $103.50
MBG, 0.5 hours, $172.50
FXS, 0.1 hours, $50.40
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
MBG, 0.8 hours, $276.00
GMS, 0.2 hours, $79.00

The Court finds that this charge is unrelated only to the extent it references work
performed to “[analyze] correspondence from plaintiffs’ counsel regarding MJ documents
and strategy for motion relating to same.” Shadley Decl. at 165. Therefore, the Court
only deducts one-third of the fees associated with this charge to reflect the work
performed on this task that is unrelated to the Motion.
8

Date

Description

5/23/17

Review communications among counsel regarding
negotiations involving JLT’s proposed stipulation
Review redline of JLT’s proposed stipulation
regarding JLT witness testimony
Worked on response and edits to JLT’s proposed
stipulated agreement as to depositions
Met and conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
JLT deposition proposal
Review continued negotiations among counsel
regarding JLT witness depositions
Reviewed draft email from plaintiffs’ attorney for
joint proposal to JLT’s counsel
Reviewed and analyzed plaintiffs’ counsel’s
proposed email to JLT regarding depositions
Drafted communication to opposing counsel
regarding JLT negotiations
Developed strategy with respect to JLT negotiations

GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50

Prepared for conference with JLT and plaintiffs’
counsel regarding depositions of Pettman and Brown
Attended conference with JLT and plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding depositions of Pettman and Brown
Analyzed issues relating to JLT discovery, including
conference call with counsel for JLT and plaintiffs
regarding proposed depositions, and analysis of
issues relating to document requests
Review communications among counsel regarding
production of additional JLT documents
Review communications among counsel regarding
continued negotiations involving JLT witnesses
Developed strategy relating to JLT discovery,
including analysis of law for witnesses’ voluntary
withdrawal of affidavits
Reviewed communication from JLT’s counsel;
developed strategy regarding response
Developed strategy relating to JLT proposal on
depositions and analyzed issues relating to voluntary
withdrawal of affidavits and issues relating to
chronology of Manufacturing Agreement and control
of Cosmopolis site

MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00

5/23/17
5/23/17
5/24/17
5/24/17
5/24/17
5/25/17
5/25/17
5/25/17
5/26/17
5/26/17
5/26/17

5/26/17
5/26/17
5/28/17
5/30/17
5/30/17

Hours and Fees

9

GMS, 0.2 hours, $79.00
FXS, 0.3 hours, $151.20
MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
FXS, 0.2 hours, $100.80
MBG, 0.5 hours, $172.50
MBG, 0.5 hours, $172.50
MBG, 0.8 hours, $276.00

MBG, 0.9 hours, $310.50
JAK, 1.3 hours, $448.50

GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
JAK, 0.6 hours, $207.00
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
JAK, 2.1 hours, $724.50

Date

Description

5/30/17

Review communications from JLT’s counsel
regarding continued negotiations regarding possible
JLT depositions
Evaluate JLT’s current proposal to resolve deposition
dispute and call to plaintiffs’ attorney regarding
same
Analyzed proposal from JLT regarding depositions

GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50

Analyze issues surrounding JLT depositions and offer
of JLT for some compromise, and how to respond
Drafted communication to client regarding most
recent JLT proposal on Pettman and Brown
Drafted correspondence to opposing counsel and
JLT’s counsel rejecting deposition proposal
Analyzed Rule 408 in connection with JLT deposition
negotiations
Case law research regarding FRE 408 in order to
determine if Arch has grounds to keep negotiations
with JLT regarding depositions confidential
Review communication with JLT’s counsel regarding
continued negotiations regarding JLT depositions
Case law research regarding FRE 408 in order to
determine if Arch has grounds to keep negotiations
with JLT regarding depositions confidential
Drafted memorandum summarizing results of case
law research regarding FRE 408 in order to
determine if Arch has grounds to keep negotiations
with JLT regarding depositions confidential
Reviewed and analyzed research on applicability of
Rule 408 to JLT negotiations
Reviewed correspondence from JLT’s counsel
regarding depositions
Analyzed issues relating to JLT negotiations over
discovery and preparation for upcoming motion
hearing
Drafted memorandum summarizing results of case
law research regarding FRE 408 in order to
determine if Arch has grounds to keep negotiations
with JLT regarding depositions confidential
Reviewed emails from JLT and plaintiffs’ attorney
regarding proposals for JLT depositions

FXS, 0.6 hours, $302.40

5/30/17
5/31/17
5/31/17
6/1/17
6/1/17
6/1/17
6/1/17
6/1/17
6/2/17
6/2/17

6/5/17
6/5/17
6/5/17
6/5/17

6/5/17

Hours and Fees

10

FXS, 0.5 hours, $252.00
MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00

MBG, 1.4 hours, $483.00
MBG, 1.6 hours, $552.00
MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00
ESP, 1.4 hours, $301.00
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
ESP, 2.4 hours, $516.00
ESP, 1.9 hours, $408.50

MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00
MBG, 0.3 hours, $103.50
JAK, 1.2 hours, $414.00
ESP, 1.3 hours, $279.50

FXS, 0.1 hours, $50.40

Date

Description

Hours and Fees

6/6/17

Communication with opposing counsel regarding JLT
deposition negotiations
Review communications from JLT’s counsel
regarding continued negotiations regarding JLT
witness depositions
Reviewed emails from JLT and plaintiffs’ attorneys
regarding offers and responses on depositions of JLT
affiants
Confer with Andy (plaintiffs’ attorney) regarding
negotiations with JLT; conference with the court
regarding JLT witness deposition negotiations and
negotiations on plaintiffs’ motion to suppress; calls
to plaintiffs’ attorneys after same 2
Reviewed JLT’s response offer on voluntary JLT
depositions
Reviewed email from JLT’s counsel regarding offer to
provide JLT witness depositions, and compare to
past offers
Communication to opposing counsel regarding JLT
negotiations
Supplemented communication to opposing counsel
regarding JLT negotiations about depositions
Review plaintiffs’ counsel’s communications
regarding further negotiations involving JLT
depositions
Supplemented response to JLT’s counsel regarding
negotiation efforts
Reviewed communication from plaintiffs’ counsel
regarding JLT depositions
Review communications from JLT’s and plaintiffs’
counsel regarding further negotiations involving JLT
depositions
Reviewed email from JLT attorney with additional
compromise offer on depositions; analyze open
issues and confer with co-counsel regarding our
response to the same

MBG, 0.3 hours, $103.50

6/6/17
6/6/17
6/6/17

6/8/17
6/8/17
6/13/17
6/14/17
6/16/17
6/19/17
6/19/17
6/19/17
6/19/17

2

GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
FXS, 0.3 hours, $151.20
FXS, 0.8 hours, $403.20

FXS, 0.2 hours, $100.80
FXS, 0.2 hours, $100.80
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
MBG, 0.6 hours, $207.00
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
MBG, 0.4 hours, $138.00
MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
FXS, 0.4 hours, $201.60

The Court finds that this charge is unrelated only to the extent it references services to
“[c]onfer with Andy (plaintiffs’ attorney) regarding negotiations with JLT” and to make
“calls to plaintiffs’ attorneys after same.” Shadley Decl. at 232. Therefore, the Court only
deducts two-thirds of the fees associated with this charge to reflect the work performed
on these tasks that are unrelated to the Motion.
11

Date
6/20/17
6/20/17

Description

Hours and Fees

Supplemented communication to opposing counsel
regarding JLT depositions
Supplemented communication to JLT’s counsel
regarding JLT depositions

MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00
MBG, 0.2 hours, $69.00

Id. at 71-241. Therefore, Arch’s attorney fee award shall be reduced by the amounts
attributed to these unrelated services in the amount of $21,329.00.
Furthermore, as stated above, fees that are considered excessive, redundant,
unnecessary, or otherwise unreasonable should also be excluded from an attorney’s fees
award. See Johnson, 668 F.3d at 931. As such, the following charges are excluded from
Arch’s attorney’s fees award as redundant of other charges assessed to Arch or as
otherwise unnecessary:
Date
4/17/17
4/19/17
5/9/17
5/10/17

5/22/17

Description

Hours and Fees

Drafted facts section to renewed motion to strike
discussing Lilly US’s control over JLT and its
employees Ian Pettman and Mike Brown
Reviewed and analyzed applicability of 18 USC 201
to civil actions
Review F. Shadley communications to client
regarding conference with Judge regarding motion
to strike JLT affidavits
Review M. Gramke communications to plaintiffs’
counsel regarding position on motion to strike and
for sanctions regarding JLT depositions and further
meet/confer regarding same
Developed strategy relating to upcoming oral
argument on discovery motions; drafted revisions to
proposed stipulation relating to JLT witnesses and
their depositions3

3

IT, 2.4 hours, $516.00
GH, 2.5 hours, $537.50
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50
GMS, 0.1 hours, $39.50

JAK, 2.8 hours, $966.00

Although this charge describes two different services that were provided to Arch, the
Court excludes the fees related to both of these services because the first description is
duplicative of a prior charge assessed to Arch and because the second description
references services that are unrelated to the Motion.
12

Date
6/22/17

Description

Hours and Fees

Review Arch response to plaintiffs’ supplemental
status report

GMS, 0.2 hours, $79.00

Shadley Decl. at 71-254. Therefore, Arch’s attorney’s fee award shall be reduced by the
costs associated with these services in the amount of $2,177.50.
In summary, starting with the attorney’s fees assess to Arch after March 16, 2016,
as the lodestar amount, the Court concludes that $21,329.00 should be excluded because
such fees were incurred for services that were not related to the development, drafting,
administration, and argumentation of the Motion; and that $2,177.50 should be excluded
because those fees were incurred for duplicative or unnecessary services. Therefore,
the total amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to Arch is $81,611.39.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Arch’s
request for attorney’s fees and costs. Arch is awarded attorney’s fees and costs in the
amount of $81,611.39 to be paid by Lilly within 30 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2017.

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Electronically distributed to all registered attorneys of record via ECF.

13