Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation v. Micron Optics, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER granting Defendant's request for fees incurred in connection with its Motion to Compel 42 . ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW CORPORATION and ROBERT L. CITROEN are ordered to pay Micron $5,831.85 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/3/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICRON OPTICS, INC., a Georgia
)
corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)
MICRON OPTICS, INC., a Georgia
)
corporation,
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW
)
CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
Counterdefendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:16-cv-00570-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

21
On August 28, 2017, the court issued an order granting Defendant/Counterclaimant Micron
22
Optics, Inc.’s (Micron) Motion to Compel Income and Tax Records. (Motion at ECF Nos. 42, 42-1 to
23
42-16, Order at ECF No. 52.) In that order, the court made a finding that the non-disclosure, responses
24
and objections of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation and Robert L.
25
Citroen (collectively, Citroen) were not substantially justified. (ECF No. 52 at 10-11.) As a result, the
26
court granted Micron’s request for an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred
27
in connection with the motion to compel. (Id. at 11.) The court directed Micron to file a document setting
28
forth the reasonable expenses, and allowed Citroen to file a response, and Micron to file a reply. (Id.)

1

Micron’s counsel filed a declaration and supporting documentation in connection with Micron’s

2

request for fees. (ECF Nos. 56, 56-1, 56-2.) Citroen filed a response (ECF Nos. 62, 62-1, 62-2), and

3

Micron filed a reply (ECF No. 63).

4
5

Micron seeks to recover $5,831.85 in fees for 22.87 hours of time at an hourly rate of $255 spent
related to the motion to compel. The time spent is itemized as follows:

6

Date

Attorney

Task

Hours

Amount

7

March 13, 2017

Ketner

Preparation of

.37

$94.351

.3

$76.502

.14

$35.703

.26

$66.304

4.5

$1,147.50

8

meet and confer

9

letter

10

April 13, 2017

Ketner

Attended meet

11

and confer

12

conference

13

July 3, 2017

Ketner

Preparing for

14

meet and confer

15

conference

16

July 3, 2017

Ketner

and confer

17
18

Attended meet

July 12-13-, 2017

Paek

Research in
support of

19

motion to compel

20
21
1

22

A total of 3.7 hours were spent preparing the meet and confer letter, and counsel estimates that ten
percent of that time related to the discovery issues raised in this motion to compel.

23
2

24

The meet and confer lasted one hour, and counsel estimates that thirty percent of the time related to the
issues raised in this motion to compel.

25
3

26
27
28

‘A total of .7 hours were spent preparing for a meet and confer conference, and counsel estimates that
twenty percent of that time related to issues raised in this motion to compel.
4

A total of 1.3 hours were spent at the meet and confer conference, and counsel estimates twenty percent
of that time related to issues raised in this motion to compel.
2

1

July 12-13, 2017

Park

2
3

Drafting motion

7.5

$1,912.50

1.6

$408

.3

$76.50

.4

$102

to compel
July 18, 2017

Ketner

Revising and

4

finalizing motion

5

to compel

6

August 3, 2017

Ketner

Reviewing

7

opposition to

8

motion to compel

9

August 8, 2017

Ketner

Researching

10

authority cited in

11

Plaintiff’s

12

opposition

13
14

August 10, 2017

Ketner

Preparing reply

3.2

$816

August 24, 2017

Ketner

Preparing

.6

$153

1.5

$382.50

2.2

$561

supplement to

15

reply

16
August 25, 2017

Ketner

Preparing for

17
hearing on
18
motion to compel
19

August 25, 2017

20

attending the

22

24
25
26
27

Traveling to and
from and

21

23

Ketner

hearing
TOTAL

$5,831.85

Citroen opposes the amount of fees requested, arguing: (1) it is based on estimates of the amount
of time spent on issues raised in the motion to compel when the local rule governing requests for
attorney’s fees requires an itemization of the costs and the actual time and labor spent; (2) the declaration
in support of the request for fees does not contain all information required by Local Rule 54-14; (3) the

28
3

1

time spent to prepare the motion totals 13.6 hours, which Citroen deems excessive and unreasonable for

2

a seventeen-page motion; (4) the time spent preparing the reply, 3.2 hours, for a five-page motion is

3

excessive; (5) the .6 hours spent preparing the supplemental brief is unreasonable because supplemental

4

briefing is not permitted; and (6) the time spent preparing for the hearing, and the 2.2 hours spent

5

traveling to and attending the hearing is excessive.

6

II. DISCUSSION

7

Citroen spends a good deal of time in its response raising arguments concerning the merits of the

8

motion to compel, which the court has already decided. While the court certainly respects the opinions

9

cited by Citroen of other judges within this district, as well as State Court Discovery Commissioner

10

Wes Ayres, the court is not obligated to follow these opinions. Notably, Citroen did not cite the decisions

11

and opinions he now relies on in his response to the motion to compel, and made no attempt to discuss

12

how the circumstances presented in those cases are analogous to those here. Citroen was free to file an

13

objection to the underlying order granting the motion to compel, but did not, and the time to do so has

14

expired. Arguments as to the propriety of the order granting the motion to compel are therefore remiss.

15

Citroen also argues that the court should exercise its discretion to deny the requested fees because

16

the tax documents it was ordered to produce do not show income from the sources sought by Micron.

17

Simply because the financial documents may not show the information that Micron hoped to glean from

18

them does not mean that Micron was not entitled to discovery of the documents in the first place, as the

19

court already determined. Had Citroen merely provided the relevant documents in the first place with

20

a protective order to alleviate any privacy concerns, neither the parties nor the court would have had to

21

expend time and resources in resolving this dispute.

22
23
24
25
26

The court will now turn to the substance of the fee request.
If the motion [to compel] is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is
provided after the motion was filed—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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

27

This is the rule, unless there was no good faith meet and confer effort before the motion was

28

filed, which is not the case here, or the opposing party’s nondisclosure was substantially justified, and
4

1
2
3
4
5
6

the court has already concluded it was not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii).
A. Estimates of Certain Portions of Fees Requested & Compliance with Local Rule 54-14
Relying on Local Rule 54-14, Citroen contends that the fees requested are unreasonable and that
Micron is not permitted to utilize estimates of the amount of time spent on issues related to this motion
during tasks that involved other discovery issues.
Preliminarily, the court will address the applicability of Local Rule 54-14 to a request for

7

attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). Local Rule 54-14 states that motions

8

for attorney’s fees must be filed within fourteen days after entry of final judgment or other order. Like

9

many of the Local Rules, the number of the rule—54-14—corresponds to Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure 54, which governs the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees after judgment is entered.

11

Therefore, Local Rule 54-14 would not apply to a request for fees under Rule 37. There is no

12

corresponding Local Rule for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Moreover, even if this request was

13

governed by Local Rule 54-14, under the provision for contents of the motion for Local Rule 54-14, the

14

precipitating language is “[u]nless the court orders otherwise.” LR 54-14(b). Here, the court “ordered

15

otherwise” when it directed Micron to file a document setting forth the reasonable expenses requested

16

in connection with the motion to compel.

17

Next, Citroen argues that Micron should not be awarded fees because counsel relies on estimates

18

of time spent on issues related to this dispute when two preparation sessions for a meet and confer and

19

the meet and confer conference involved additional discovery disputes. Citroen does not argue that the

20

estimates are not accurate, but that Micron should not be able to rely on estimates as to time spent on

21

issues involved in this motion at all. The court disagrees. The court appreciates the practical difficulty

22

of parsing out time on a billing sheet for each task in a single meet and confer session related to multiple

23

discovery disputes, and finds it sufficient that counsel included a reasonable estimate (which itself is

24

undisputed) in her declaration, under penalty of perjury, and as an officer of the court.

25

B. Time Spent Preparing the Motion

26

Citroen argues that the time spent to prepare the motion is excessive. The court disagrees.

27

4.5 hours were spent on research for the motion; 7.5 hours were spent on the initial drafting of the

28

motion; and, 1.6 hours were spent reviewing and finalizing the motion. The motion to compel itself is
5

1
2
3
4
5
6

seventeen pages long, and set forth a thorough summary of the history leading up to this discovery
dispute, and a careful analysis of case law related to the discovery of financial information and tax
documents, in particular. The court finds that the time spent on researching and preparing the motion
was reasonable.
C. Time Spent Preparing the Reply
Citroen also argues that the time spent preparing the reply brief is excessive. 3.2 hours were spent

7

on the reply brief. The court finds this was a reasonable amount of time spent responding to the

8

arguments asserted in Citroen’s response to the motion.

9

D. Time Spent Preparing the Supplement

10
11

Citroen argues that the time spent preparing a supplemental brief is not reasonable because
supplemental briefs are not allowed by the Local Rules.

12

In its reply brief, Micron relied on certain deposition testimony and noted that the transcripts

13

were not yet available. The court finds it was reasonable for Micron to spend .6 hours explaining that

14

testimony further and providing the actual transcripts.

15

E. Time Spent Preparing for, Traveling to, and Attending the Hearing

16
17
18
19

Finally, Citroen argues, without elaboration, that the time spent preparing for, traveling to and
from, and attending the hearing is excessive.
The court disagrees, and finds that the 1.5 hours spent preparing for the hearing, as well as the
2.2 hours spent traveling to and from and attending the hearing to be reasonable.

20

III. CONCLUSION

21

Micron’s request for fees incurred in connection with its motion to compel is GRANTED.

22

ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW CORPORATION and ROBERT L. CITROEN are ordered to pay Micron

23

$5,831.85 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: October 3, 2017.

26
27

__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
6