ADAMS v. PENOBSCOT COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE et al

Filing 65

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration By JUDGE LANCE E. WALKER. (CJD)

Case 1:17-cv-00229-LEW Document 65 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 258

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

CLAIRE ADAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
PENOBSCOT COMMUNITY HEALTH )
CARE, ATHENAHEALTH, INC., AND )
)
DAVID LOXTERKAMP, MD,
)
Defendants
)

No. 1:17-CV-00229-LEW

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 28, 2020, I issued an order denying the application for attorney fees presented
by Defendants Penobscot Community Health Care and David Loxterkamp, MD, because
Defendants did not support the fee component of their application by the applicable deadline, but
instead assumed that the Court would permit Defendants to submit billing records and fee
affidavits sometime after it resolved the merits of the fee application. I denied the motion for
failure to comply with Local Rule 7(a), which reads, in relevant part:
(a) Submissions of Motions and Supporting Memoranda
Every motion shall incorporate a memorandum of law, including citations and
supporting authorities. Any affidavits and other documents setting forth or
evidencing facts on which the motion is based must be filed with the motion. …
D. Me. Loc. R. 7(a). I explained that the Local Rule does not “entitle a fee applicant to a bifurcated
fee-shifting procedure that addresses the merits first and the lodestar analysis second.” Order on
Defendants’ Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 61).

Case 1:17-cv-00229-LEW Document 65 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 259

Defendants now ask that I reconsider my determination, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In support of their position, Defendants observe that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C) provides that a
court may “decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of
services.” Motion for Reconsideration at 4.
The Advisory Committee Notes for the 1993 amendment of Rule 54(d) explain that “[t]he
amount of time” needed for fee applications “should be tailored to the particular case.” It also
advises that the court is “authorized to make a determination of liability for fees before receiving
submissions … bearing on the amount of an award,” and that a bifurcated approach “may be
appropriate in actions in which the liability issue is doubtful and the evaluation issues are
numerous and complex.”
When Defendants filed their unopposed motion to extend the deadline for their fee
application, they did not articulate a request for a bifurcated proceeding. Nor did their eventual
submission suggest the need for a bifurcated proceeding. Defendants could have and should have
articulated the need for bifurcation because, as they observed in their motion to extend, Rule 6
permits a “good cause” extension “if a request is made, before the original time or its extension
expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
Defendants not only failed to request a bifurcated proceeding when they sought the
extension of the deadline, they also failed to provide any cause for bifurcated proceedings in their
fee application; viz., they did not suggest the merits were close – anything but, according to them
– and they did not suggest that the fee evaluation issues were numerous and/or complex. If
Defendants had attempted to make a showing of good cause for a bifurcated fee proceeding, it is
doubtful they could have satisfied the standard. But having attempted a showing, at least they
2

Case 1:17-cv-00229-LEW Document 65 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 260

would have given the Court some reason to excuse the untimely presentation of evidence to
support their fee evaluation.
As it now stands, even as of the date of this Order, Defendants have not attempted to
articulate good cause for bifurcated proceedings. Instead, Defendants argue: “It is difficult to
understand how an applicant would request a bifurcated fees procedure … without proceeding as
Defendants did, or without filing a preliminary motion to bifurcate, an additional step that would
undermine one [of] the main purposes of bifurcation, efficiency.” Motion for Reconsideration at
5. In this District, amendments to the schedule are routinely afforded through the simple expedient
of a telephone conference with one of the Magistrate Judges. In such a call, however, a party
would need to articulate – in a case specific fashion – good cause for bifurcated fee proceedings.
Finding no mistake of law or fact, and finding no showing of good cause to conduct
bifurcated proceedings on Defendants’ fee application, the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
62) is DENIED. 1
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2020
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Failure to satisfy the good cause standard for timely amendment of the schedule obviates an inquiry into the
excusable neglect standard for untimely amendment of the schedule. In any event, I do not read the Motion for
Reconsideration to advance excusable neglect as a basis for Rule 60(b) relief. In footnote 1 to their motion,
Defendants do mention the idea of excusable neglect, but they do not brief it anywhere in the body of the motion.
Instead, the body of the motion briefs the matter entirely as a matter of legal or factual mistake on the Court’s part.
Motion for Reconsideration at 4; see also Reply at 4.
3