Alvey v. Wells et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's prior 25 Order, Defendants shall pay Plaintiff the amount of $250 in reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel within 14 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/2/2019. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY ALVEY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 18-461-JWD-RLB
CAPTAIN JOHN WELLS, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees. (R. Doc. 26). The motion is
opposed. (R. Doc. 27). Plaintiff filed a Reply. (R. Doc. 30).
On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel asserting that Defendants did not
respond to certain written discovery. (R. Doc. 24). Defendants failed to file a timely opposition.
Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion to Compel and awarded Plaintiff the recovery of
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. Doc. 25). The Order provides that if the
parties could not reach resolution on a reasonable amount of expenses to be paid, Plaintiff may
file a Motion for Fees and Costs setting forth the reasonable amount of costs and attorney’s fees
to be paid by Defendants, including evidentiary support, incurred in obtaining the Court’s Order.
Plaintiffs now seek recovery of $445 as the measure of the reasonable attorney fees
incurred in obtaining the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s enrolled counsel, Donna Grodner, submits an
Affidavit and time records providing that her associate, Zatabia Williams, billed 3.56 hours at
$125 an hour with respect to the Motion to Compel. (R. Docs. 21-3, 26-4).
In opposing the motion, Defendants assert that the amount sought is excessive, Ms.
Williams’ hourly rate is too high, and recovery should not be allowed (or the hourly rate should

be reduced to $85 as a reasonable paralegal rate) because Ms. Williams is not enrolled in this
action or admitted to practice in the district. (R. Doc. 27).
Once a district court has determined that a party is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees,
as in this case, it must find the number of hours reasonably expended on the case1 and the
reasonable hourly rate for the attorney’s services. Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814,
822 (5th Cir. 1997). The court then multiplies those two figures together to determine the
“lodestar” amount of attorney’s fees. Id. The lodestar amount is presumed to be the reasonable
fee, but it may be adjusted upward or downward after consideration of the factors set forth in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–719 (5th Cir. 1974).2
Having reviewed the Motion to Compel, the documentation provided by Plaintiff, and the
briefing of the parties, the Court finds that $250 is a reasonable award of attorney fees incurred
in bringing Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The Motion to Compel does not address any
substantive disputes other than Defendants’ failure to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Second
Interrogatories and Requests for Production, which consist of two interrogatories and two
requests for production, on the date agreed upon by the parties. Given the brevity of the Motion
to Compel and supporting memorandum (which mostly reiterates language in the motion), the
Court finds a reasonable amount of time to expend on the Motion to Compel to be two hours
“spent in preparing the actual discovery motion.” See Areizaga v. ADW Corp., No. 14-2899,

Counsel is “charged with proving that they exercised billing judgment.” Winget v. Corporate Green, LLC, No. 090229, 2011 WL 2173840, *4 (M.D. La. 2011) (quoting Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development,
99 F.3d 761, 770 (5th Cir. 1996)). Attorneys exercise billing judgment by not charging for time that is unproductive,
excessive, or duplicative when seeking a fee award. Id.
2
Those factors include the following: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount of money involved and the results obtained;
(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and
length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id.
1

2016 WL 3406071, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2016). Ms. Williams’ hourly rate of $125 is
reasonable for an attorney in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. While Ms. Williams is not enrolled in this
action or admitted to practice in the district, there is no dispute that she drafted the Motion to
Compel and conferenced with defense counsel in her capacity as an attorney prior to the filing of
the Motion to Compel. There is nothing to indicate that defense counsel objected or otherwise
expressed concern over Ms. Williams’ capacity to handle these discussions.3
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the appropriate lodestar to be calculated at 2
hours at $125 an hour ($250). Plaintiff does not seek any costs in addition to attorney fees. The
Court finds no basis for reducing the lodestar figure.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (R. Doc. 26) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and this Court’s prior Order (R. Doc. 25), Defendants shall pay Plaintiff the
amount of $250 in reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel within 14
days of the date of this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 2, 2019.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

The Court will not weigh in here on whether the result in this matter would be the same had those concerns been
timely raised. Ms. Grodner is the only counsel of record. The Court will not deal with Ms. Williams or any other
unadmitted attorney in this matter. It would not be unreasonable for opposing counsel to make the same decision
with respect to matters required to be handled by counsel. In addition, the undersigned has previously addressed
Ms. Williams’s failure to be admitted in this Court and even provided assistance in introducing her to members of
the bar. She is responsible for her failure to become admitted.