Gonzalez v. Officer John Doe

Filing 38

ORDER Granting 33 Motion to Compel and 34 Motion for Sanctions re Discovery and awards Defendant Sheriff Gillespie $570.00 in attorney's fees, to be paid no later than 8/3/2015. Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide proper responses to the interrogatories and requests for production within 14 days of this Order. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to provide Defendant with his initial disclosures within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/1/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RODOLFO GONZALEZ,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Sheriff Gillespie’s motion to compel and request for

17

sanctions. Docket Nos. 33, 34. The deadline for responding to the motions has now passed. See

18

Local Rule 7-2(b) (providing 14-day response deadline). To date, no response has been filed

19

opposing the motions. See Docket. Accordingly, the motions may be granted as unopposed. See

20

Local Rule 7-2(d); Local Rule 54-16(e). The Court has also reviewed the motions and finds good

21

cause for granting them.

22

I.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
OFFICER JOHN DOE, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-00792-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 33, 34)

ATTORNEY’S FEES

23

Having determined that Defendant is entitled to recover his attorney’s fees incurred in

24

bringing his motion to compel, the Court turns to the calculation of the fees. Reasonable attorney’s

25

fees are generally calculated based on the traditional “lodestar” method. Camacho v. Bridgeport

26

Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the lodestar method, the Court determines

27

a reasonable fee by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation” by “a

28

reasonable hourly rate.” See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar figure

1

is presumptively reasonable. Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th Cir.

2

1988).

3

The Court “has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee and,

4

as a general rule, [an appellate court] will defer to its determination . . . regarding the reasonableness

5

of the hours claimed.” Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 2010)

6

(quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir.1993). In reviewing the hours claimed,

7

the Court may exclude hours related to overstaffing, duplication, and excessiveness, or that are

8

otherwise unnecessary. See, e.g., Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 (“Where the documentation of hours is

9

inadequate, the [court] may reduce the award accordingly”); see also Cruz v. Alhambra School Dist.,

10

601 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1191 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“the Court must eliminate from the lodestar time that

11

was unreasonably, unnecessarily, or inefficiently” spent).

12

The reasonableness of hours expended depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

13

Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978. To that end, in determining the reasonableness of hours spent in relation

14

to a discovery motion, the Court considers factors such as the complexity of the issues raised, the

15

need to review the record and pleadings, and the need to conduct legal research, in addition to the

16

length of the briefing. See Herb Reed Enters. v. Monroe Powell’s Platters, 2013 WL 3729720, *3,

17

2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97559, *31 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132794

18

(D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2013); see also Easley v. U.S. Home Corp., 2012 WL 3245526, at *3 (D. Nev.

19

Aug. 7, 2012).

20

A.

Reasonable Hours

21

The pending motion states that Defendant’s counsel spent 4 hours trying to obtain discovery

22

responses and preparing the pending motions. Docket No. 33, at 40-41, Dillard Decl. ¶ 8.

23

Defendant’s counsel did not attach billing records or outline how many hours he spent researching

24

and drafting the motion to compel. See Dillard Decl. ¶ 8. The brief submitted in support of the

25

motion contained roughly 3 pages of argument. See Docket No. 33. The discovery issues raised in

26

the motion to compel were not particularly complicated. Nor does it appear that extensive legal

27

research was required. Moreover, the only evidence submitted as to Defendant’s counsel efforts to

28

try to obtain discovery is a five-paragraph letter attached to the motion and his declaration that he
-2-

1

“spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel on May 18, 2015.” See id., at 37-38; Dillard Darcl. ¶ 7.

2

The Court finds the request by Defendant’s counsel for 4 hours trying to obtain discovery

3

responses and preparing the motion to compel to be unreasonable in light of the length and

4

complexity of the motion, as well as the amount of legal research required. Given the nature of the

5

issues raised, the Court finds that a reasonable amount of time was 3 hours.

6

B.

Hourly Rate

7

The next step in calculating the lodestar is to determine the attorney’s rates “calculated

8

according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” taking into account the rates

9

for “similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum

10

v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 & n.11 (1984). “Affidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney and other

11

attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases,

12

particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing

13

market rate.” United Steelworks of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

14

Defendant seeks a rate of $190 an hour. Defendant supports this rate with the declaration of

15

Mr. Dillard. See Docket No. 33, at 40-41. The Court finds that this rate is in line with the prevailing

16

market rate in the community for similar services by comparable lawyers. See, e.g., CLM Partners

17

LLC v. Fiesta Palms, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 171631, *16 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2013) (collecting

18

cases).

19

C.

Fees to be Awarded

20

In light of the reasonable hours and rates determined above, the Court hereby calculates the

21

lodestar as follows: 3 hours x $190 = $570.

22

...

23

...

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...
-3-

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Sheriff

3

Gillespie’s motion to compel and request for sanctions (Docket Nos. 33, 34) and AWARDS

4

Defendant Sheriff Gillespie $570 in attorney’s fees, to be paid no later than August 3, 2015.

5

Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide proper responses to the interrogatories and requests

6

for production within 14 days of this Order. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to provide Defendant

7

with his initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) within 14 days

8

of this Order.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: July 1, 2015

11
12
13
14

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-