LONG v. FAIRBANK FARMS INC et al

Filing 431

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARGARET LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRBANK FARMS
RECONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendant & Third-Party
Plaintiff,
v.
GREATER OMAHA PACKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:09-cv-592-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PROCEDURAL ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE

On March 28, 2013, the Court held a conference of counsel to discuss how to proceed on
the pending Application for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (ECF No. 416). Attorneys Ralph Weber
and Paul Catsos appeared in-person and Attorneys Shawn Stevens and Michael Carter appeared
telephonically for Fairbank Reconstruction Corporation (“Fairbank”). Attorneys Alison Denham
and Stephen Ellenbecker appeared in-person for Greater Omaha Packing Company (“GOPAC”).
Having considered counsels’ arguments and representations, the Court now ORDERS as follows:

(1) Fairbank’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (ECF No. 416) is hereby DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. With the agreement of counsel, any renewed application for
attorney’s fees filed in accordance with this Order (and any other later related orders
entered by this Court) shall be deemed a timely fee request.

(2) Within thirty days of this Order, Fairbank shall file a renewed application for attorneys’
fees and costs. To the extent the renewed application relies on materials that were
previously filed with the May 2012 Application (ECF No. 416), Fairbank need not re-file
those materials and may simply cite to its prior exhibits. Fairbank’s renewed application
shall include an estimate of the requested prejudgment interest due as of the date of the
filing of the renewed motion. Fairbank shall provide a courtesy copy of all of the
exhibits that support its renewed request, including the exhibits previously filed as
attachments to ECF No. 416, to the Court on either CD or paper.
(3) Within twenty-one days of the filing of Fairbank’s renewed application, GOPAC may
choose to initially respond by serving on Fairbank up to twenty (20) written
interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.

Said interrogatories shall be solely

focused on issues raised in Fairbank’s renewed fee request, including any commingling
of fees incurred in the Long and Smith cases with any other Northeast Outbreak cases or
other work done on behalf of Fairbank Reconstruction Corporation. If GOPAC chooses
to forego any interrogatories, its response to the renewed application for attorney’s fees
shall be filed within thirty days of the filing of Fairbank’s renewed application.
(4) Fairbank shall respond to any interrogatories served by GOPAC within thirty days in
accordance with the basic procedure laid out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) &
(d). Within twenty-one days of receiving Fairbank’s responses to GOPAC’s fee-related
interrogatories, GOPAC shall file any objection to Fairbank’s renewed application for
attorney’s fees. To the extent that GOPAC has any objections to the interrogatory
responses it received from Fairbank, those objections shall be raised in the response to
the renewed application. The Court will not hold any discovery conferences or allow any
further discovery until GOPAC has submitted its written response to Fairbank’s renewed
fee request. Upon review of that response, the Court will consider allowing any further
discovery or further compelled responses to any interrogatory only if GOPAC’s response
to the renewed application provides a specified showing as to how compelling a further
response or allowing further discovery would provide a basis for limiting the amount or
type of fees sought in the renewed application.

2

(5) A reply memorandum to the fee request may be submitted in accordance with Local Rule
7.
(6) Fairbank is hereby placed on notice that the Court may require it to submit in camera
unredacted copies of any legal billing records in order to make a final determination that
any commingled fees have been adequately and reasonably excluded from the renewed
fee request. The Court will make a final determination as to whether such an in camera
submission will be required after the renewed application for attorney’s fees is fully
briefed.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 28th day of March, 2013.

3