RAAB v. CITY OF OCEAN CITY, NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 118

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 6/26/2017. (dmr)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 114)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
Monica RAAB,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil No. 11-6818 (RBK/KMW)
:
v.
:
Opinion
:
CITY OF OCEAN CITY,
:
NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
:
Defendant(s). :
___________________________________ :
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on remand after the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, in Raab v. City of Ocean City, N.J., 833 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2016), affirmed in part and
reversed in part this Court’s denial of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C § 1988. The Court of
Appeals affirmed this Court’s April 6, 2015 Order denying Defendant Officer Jesse Scott Ruch’s
(“Defendant”) motion for attorney’s fees, but reversed this Court’s Order denying Plaintiff
Monica Raab’s motion for attorney’s fees. The Third Circuit remanded the matter for this Court
to determine the appropriate amount of fees to which Plaintiff is entitled. For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court provided a more detailed recital of the facts in its August 8, 2014 Opinion

granting in part two Motions for Summary Judgment brought by Defendant and its coDefendants Ocean City and Ocean City Police Department (“OCPD”). Raab v. City of Ocean
City, No. Civ. 11-6818 (RBK/KMW), 2014 WL 3894061, at *1–3 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2014).

Therefore, the Court will only provide a brief summary sufficient to resolve the instant motion.
On the morning of May 10, 2010, Defendant arrived outside Plaintiff’s residence, where
a trailer had been parked for approximately one month, and decided that the trailer should be
towed. Id. at *1. Fifteen minutes later, Plaintiff appeared outside, claimed the trailer as her
brother-in-law’s, and attempted to move it into her driveway upon learning that it would be
towed. Id. While she was pulling the trailer, it came into contact with Defendant. Id. Plaintiff
then walked toward her house to call her husband, and along the way removed her nightgown,
exposing her breasts. Id.
After Plaintiff returned outside, another man pulled up and asked if he could help move
the trailer. Id. at *2. Defendant agreed. Id. Plaintiff began assisting the man push the vehicle, and
at this point Plaintiff asserts Defendant used force on her. Id. Plaintiff alleges he grabbed her
right arm from behind, attached a handcuff to the right wrist, and threw her on the ground. Id.
While on the ground, Defendant supposedly continued to pull and twist the handcuff, which
pulled her arm in various directions and slammed her head onto the ground. Id. Defendant, by
contrast, asserts that Plaintiff set down the trailer, began cursing at him, and pushed him with her
forearm. Id. Defendant claims he then grabbed her wrist and she fell onto the ground. Id. While
on the ground, she began flailing her legs, which prompted Defendant to detain her for his and
her own safety. Id.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, along with its co-Defendants Ocean City
and OCPD, on November 21, 2011 (Doc. No. 1). Against Defendant, Plaintiff brought counts of
unlawful search, false arrest, excessive force, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Compl. at 5–18. This Court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the
false arrest claim, but denied summary judgment as to the excessive force and assault and battery

2

claims, in an Opinion and Order issued August 8, 2014 (Doc. Nos. 70, 71). Plaintiff and
Defendant subsequently entered into a settlement agreement on November 25, 2014, for the sum
of $150,001.00 minus attorney’s fees. Pl.’s Mot. for Att’y’s Fees, Pompelio Decl. Ex. C.
Defendants Ocean City and OCPD, and Plaintiff filed respective Motions for Attorney’s Fees, on
September 8, 2014 (Doc. No. 75) and December 23, 2014 (Doc. No. 90). This Court denied both
Motions on April 6, 2015 (Doc. Nos. 100, 101).
The parties filed an appeal and cross-appeal of the Court’s denial of attorney’s fees on
May 4, 2015 and May 5, 2015 (Doc. Nos. 102, 103). The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of
Defendants Ocean City and OCPD’s Motion, reversed the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion, and
remanded the matter for the Court to determine the appropriate amount of fees. Raab, 833 F.3d.
Plaintiff then submitted a Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees on October 27, 2016 (Doc.
No. 114).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides courts with discretion to grant a “reasonable attorney's

fee” to a “prevailing party” in a § 1983 action. In general, a prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily
be awarded attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would make an award unjust. Hensley v.
Eckerhardt, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). The burden of proving that a request for attorney’s fees is
reasonable rests on the party seeking the fees. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d
Cir. 1990). To satisfy this burden, the petitioner must “submit evidence supporting the hours
worked and rates claimed.” Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). The district court is afforded
a “great deal of discretion” to adjust the awarded fee in light of the opponent’s objections. Id.
The starting point of a district court’s analysis is the lodestar amount, which is “the number of
hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. (quoting

3

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). “The Court may not make a finding of reasonableness based on a
generalized sense of appropriateness, but must rely on the record.” Acosta v. Nat’l Packaging,
Inc., No. 09-701, 2010 WL 3001191, at *8 (D.N.J. July 28, 2010) (citing Evans v. Port Auth. of
N.Y. & N.J., 273 F.3d 346, 361 (3d Cir. 2001)). In fact, “it is necessary that the Court go line, by
line, by line through the billing records supporting the fee request” in order to satisfy the
required reasonableness inquiry. Evans, 273 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Culpable Conduct

Defendant argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and award Plaintiff no
attorney’s fees. In support, Defendant cites Addie v. Kjaer, where the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party due to its culpable actions. 836
F.3d 251, 255 (3d Cir. 2016). Addie is inconclusive here, for several reasons. First, the facts are
inapposite: Addie is a breach of contract case that stemmed from the sale of an island and was
highly complex due to misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches committed on the part of all
the parties. Id. at 253–54. This present matter involves a single plaintiff and defendant who
litigated § 1983 claims that are common to many cases involving the use of force by a police
officer. In addition, the district court in Addie declined to award attorney’s fees because all
parties had been found to have breached the contract, the breaches were “inextricably
intertwined,” and the jury had awarded damages to both sellers and buyers. Id. at 254, 260. No
such circumstances are presented by this case.
Defendant nonetheless attempts to analogize to Addie by arguing that Plaintiff here also
exercised culpable conduct and contributed to Defendant’s use of force; its brief again details the
behavior of Plaintiff leading up to her arrest, including how the trailer bumped into Officer Ruch

4

and she exposed herself. The Court, however, has already considered such conduct in its decision
to deny summary judgment to Defendant on the count of excessive force. See Raab, 2014 WL
3894061, at *8. As the Opinion stated, an analysis of excessive force turns on the “facts and
circumstances confronting” an officer, which includes the severity of the suspected crime and the
immediate threat posed to officers. Id.; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). The
Court proceeded to analyze the situation faced by Defendant, including Plaintiff’s behavior, and
nonetheless determined that summary judgment on the excessive force claim was inappropriate.
Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant confuses the standard of review that the Addie
court applied. The Third Circuit’s opinion was a review for abuse of discretion on the part of the
district court. See Addie, 836 F.3d at 260. It did not hold that a court must categorically reduce or
eviscerate attorney’s fees when the requesting party had some responsibility for the events that
proceeded. In conclusion, the Court will not exercise its discretion to deny all attorney’s fees to
Plaintiff.
B.

Lodestar Amount
1.

Hourly Rate

Defendant next contests the hourly rate claimed by Plaintiff. A reasonable hourly rate is
generally reflected in the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Maldonado v.
Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2001). Specifically, the fee applicant bears the burden of
producing sufficient evidence that the requested rates correspond with the prevailing rates in the
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and
reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984).1 Plaintiff submits that the rates of

1

Where the reasonable hourly rate for fees is disputed, a district court must hold a hearing “only
where the court cannot fairly decide disputed questions of fact without it.” Blum v. Witco Chem.
Corp., 829 F.2d 367, 377 (3rd Cir. 1987). Here, the Court does not hold a hearing to determine
5

$325 for partner and $225 for associate attorney are reasonable. In support, she presents an
affidavit by Gregg L. Zeff, a lawyer who owns and practices at a law firm in Mt. Laurel, New
Jersey, that attests the requested rates are reasonable in light of the attorneys’ degrees of
experience, specialization in plaintiff-side civil litigation, and legal community of this venue.
Pl.’s Br., Zeff Decl., ¶¶ 8–12. Plaintiff also relies on the Attorney Fees schedule published by the
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (“CLS”), which shows that an attorney of more than
25 years’ experience charges $620 to $650 per hour and an attorney of 6 to 10 years’ experience
charges $270 to $340 per hour.
The Court finds that Zeff’s affidavit supports the hourly rates proposed by Plaintiff. The
affidavit discusses the rates that are reasonable specific to the local community and the attorneys’
experience. These numbers are also congruent with the CLS schedule; the Third Circuit has
endorsed use of the schedule to determine fees for the Philadelphia market, and courts in this
District have also done the same for South Jersey. See Maldonado, 256 F.3d at 187; Spectrum
Produce Distrib., Inc. v. Fresh Mktg., Inc., No. Civ. 11-06368 JBS, 2012 WL 2369367, at *5
(D.N.J. June 20, 2012); Bilazzo v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 876 F. Supp. 2d 452, 470
(D.N.J. 2012).
Defendant does not address or refute Plaintiff’s evidence. Instead, Defendant points to
cases where the court has applied lower rates. The court in Connor v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt.
Servs., however, rejected Plaintiff’s evidence because it pertained to the New York and North
Jersey market. No. Civ. 09-cv-1140 (NLH), 2012 WL 608483, at *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2012), on
reconsideration, No. Civ. 09-cv-1140 (NLH), 2012 WL 6595072 (D.N.J. Dec. 18, 2012). And
the court in D’Orazio v. Wash. Twp. adopted the rate proposed by the defendants due to the

the hourly rate because the parties have submitted sufficient evidence to guide the Court’s
decision.
6

numerous affidavits they submitted and the specificity lacking in the plaintiffs’ submissions. No.
Civ. 07-5097 (JEI/KMW), 2011 WL 6717427, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2011), aff’d in part,
remanded in part, 501 F. App’x 185 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, Defendant did not present its own
affidavits, nor does vagueness plague Plaintiff’s Motion.
Lastly, Defendant submits that Plaintiff has a contingency fee arrangement and thus
should not recover additional money under § 1099. The Supreme Court has squarely rejected this
argument and stated that § 1988 and contingent fee contracts do not interfere with one another.
See Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 90 (1990). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met
her burden of demonstrating her requested hourly rates.
2.

Number of Hours

Plaintiff claims a total of $300,316.50 in fees, for work done prior to the appeal on
attorney’s fees and work completed on the appeal itself. Defendant raises various objections to
the bill. The Court will address each of those objections in the sections below and tabulates the
hours it reduces in Part IV. In total, the Court reduces the fees charged by $53,611.25, for a total
attorney’s fees award of $246,705.25.
a.

Excessive Hours

The number of hours used to calculate the lodestar must reflect the amount of time
“reasonably expended on the litigation.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Excessive, redundant, or
unnecessary hours are not reasonably expended and should be excluded from the calculation. Id.
at 434. Defendant objects at various points that the hours charged by Plaintiff were excessive.
See, e.g., Pl.’s Br., Rizzo Cert. Ex. A, at 2 (09/22/2011, “Commence . . . .”); id. at 7 (11/07/2011,
“Research . . . .”). The Court has reviewed these entries and finds that they involved complex

7

legal tasks, such as legal research and brief drafting, which reasonably required the time
expended. As such, the Court does not reduce any of the entries for being excessive.2
b.

Vagueness

In this Circuit, “[a] fee petition is required to be specific enough to allow the district court
‘to determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed.’” Washington v.
Phila. Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1037 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In
order to meet that standard, the petition should include “some fairly definite information as to the
hours devoted to various general activities, e.g., pretrial discovery, settlement negotiations, and
the hours spent by various classes of attorneys, e.g., senior partners, junior partners, associates.”
Id. (citations omitted). However, “it is not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent
nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each
attorney.” Id. (citations omitted).
The Court finds that some explanations of times billed by Plaintiff are generally worded
and do not contain enough detail for an evaluation of whether they are reasonable. Entries of
“[s]earch re: news stories,” “review[ing] discovery documents,” “[r]ec’d docs to file,” and
similar such descriptions are vague. See, e.g., Pl.’s Br., Rizzo Cert. Ex. A, at 11 (01/18/2012,
“Search . . . .”); id. (01/20/2012, “Review and review . . . .”); id. at 49 (11/08/2013,
“Rec’d . . . .”). The Court disallows these submissions. Contrary to Defendant’s arguments,
however, the Court will not reject entries of document review merely because they do not
contain the number of pages reviewed. Defendant provides no precedent mandating such
specificity, nor is the Court aware of any such cases.
2

The Court notes, however, that Defendant lodged other objections to many of these same
entries. Thus, while the Court does not discount any time for the reason of excessiveness, it may
have done so on other grounds. The entries reduced by the Court, and the reasons for doing so,
are documented in Part IV.
8

c.

Secretarial Work

Courts commonly reduce fee awards “when a lawyer spends time on tasks that are easily
delegable to non-professional assistance.” Halderman by Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp., 49 F.3d 939, 942 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). On the other hand, where lead
partners review discovery or spend time on other menial tasks because the partner’s special
knowledge of the case is required to adequately perform such tasks, they may be billed at the
partner’s hourly rate. See e.g., Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Res. Dev. Co., Inc., 981 F. Supp.
876, 882 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that partners’ time spent taking notes on redactions and
discovery properly billed at partner rate because of past problems with inappropriate redactions
by other party).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s time submissions, the Court notes multiple entries where
Plaintiff charged associate- or partner-level rates for work such as electronically filing
documents, printing, scanning, troubleshooting technical problems, and sending payments. See,
e.g., Pl.’s Br., Rizzo Cert. Ex. A, at 2 (09/23/2011, “Review . . . .”); id. at 5 (10/21/2011,
“Rec’d . . . .”); id. at 6 (10/28/2011, “Receipt . . . .”). These tasks are easily delegable to nonprofessional staff, so the Court discounts them. Other charges claimed by Defendant to be
secretarial, however, actually require special knowledge of the case, for instance locating a
particular piece of evidence in discovery materials. See, e.g., id. at 16 (07/10/2012, “Review
police report . . . .”). These entries the Court does not reduce and allows to be billed at the
attorney rate.
d.

Other Defendants

Defendant requests deductions for the hours devoted to handling the case against coDefendant Ocean City. A plaintiff can recover for work directed towards other defendants if she

9

“can establish that such hours also were fairly devoted to the prosecution of the claim[s] against
the defendants over whom plaintiff prevailed.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1185 (3d
Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts should refrain from
mechanically applying a percentage reduction, however, unless there is a “necessary percentage
relationship between the number of (parties sued) and the lawyer time spent on each.” Baughman
v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 583 F.2d 1208, 1215 (3d Cir. 1978) (citations omitted).
In this case, the Court finds it can distinguish between work expended on the case against
Defendant versus its co-Defendants Ocean City and Ocean City Police Department. For example,
Plaintiff billed for preparing the response brief to a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by
the co-Defendants that was separate from the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant.
See, e.g., Pl.’s Br., Rizzo Cert. Ex. A, at 56–58. Plaintiff also charged Defendant for time spent
conferring with and replying to counsel for its co-Defendants Ocean City and Ocean City Police
Department. See, e.g., id. at 43 (08/12/2013, “Rec’d . . . .”; 08/13/2013, “Telephone . . . .”). For
these and similar entries, the Court deducts the hours from the fee award.
e.

Block Billing

Defendant also argues that the Court should discount any entries that are block billed.
“Block billing is a time-keeping method by which each lawyer and legal assistant enters the total
time daily spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time expended on specific tasks.”
United States v. NCH Corp., No. Civ. 98-5268 (SDW)(MCA), 2010 WL 3703756, at *4 (D.N.J.
Sept. 10, 2010) (citations omitted). Block billing is an acceptable practice because it “saves time
in that the attorney summarizes activities rather than detailing every task.” Id. (citations omitted).
Thus, “[block billing] will be upheld as reasonable if the listed activities reasonably correspond
to the number of hours billed.” Id. Although block billing may often result in a number of vague

10

entries, rather than excluding an entire entry, the court should examine the listed activities and
the time spent conducting each activity to determine “whether the hours reasonably correlate to
all of the activities performed.” Id. “Where the court is unable to separate unrecoverable time
from recoverable time in such billing entries, the court may reject the entire billing entry.”
Walker v. Gruver, No. 1:11-CV-1223, 2013 WL 5947623, at *13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2013).
Per a review of Plaintiff’s time submissions, the Court finds some entries where Plaintiff
comingles work that is reasonably billed, with work that is vaguely described, secretarial, or
pertains solely to the other Defendants. In these instances, the Court reduces the hours to reflect
only the work that could be reasonably billed. Otherwise, where the block billed entry solely
contains work that Plaintiff reasonably completed on the case, the Court does not reduce the time
charged.
f.

Travel Time

In the Third Circuit, “travel time is an out-of-pocket expense under § 1988 that is
generally recoverable ‘when it is the custom of attorneys in the local community to bill their
clients separately for [it].’” Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Attorney Gen. of State of N.J.,
297 F.3d 253, 267 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Travel time is generally compensable in
New Jersey. Abrams v. Lightolier Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1225 (3d Cir. 1995). However, courts have
reduced the billing rate, oftentimes by fifty percent, where the party fails to show that it
performed legal work during the travel. See Posa v. City of E. Orange, No. Civ. 03-233 (FSH),
2005 WL 2205786, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2005) (collecting cases). The Court will follow that
lead and similarly compensate Plaintiff for travel time at fifty percent the base rates. Where
Plaintiff block bills for travel and other work, the Court applies the fifty percent reduction to the

11

entire entry; the block billed descriptions do not provide enough detail for the Court to separate
out and differentially treat the travel and non-travel time.
C.

Partial Success

In addition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s award should be reduced by the number
of unsuccessful claims, in reliance on McKenna v. City of Phila., 582 F.3d 447, 457 (3d Cir.
2009). According to the Third Circuit, “where a party brings claims that do not depend on the
same sets of facts and legal theories as the claims on which the party has succeeded, fees should
not be awarded for work on those unrelated claims.” Id. Where the claims involve “a common
core of facts” or are based on “related legal theories,” there should be no reduction. Id. (quoting
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435). Applying this rule, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s
conclusion that the malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive force
claims were unrelated to that of false arrest. Id. In another case, the Third Circuit found that
counts for excessive force and failure to train were intertwined. Rapp v. City of Easton, 77 F.
App’x 88, 91 (3d Cir. 2003).
In this case, Plaintiff’s claims for false arrest, excessive force, and assault and battery all
arise from the same encounter: Defendant’s decision to tow the trailer, interactions with Plaintiff,
arrest of Plaintiff, and use of force during the arrest. Because all the counts depend on this same
set of facts, they are related, and the failure of some is not grounds to reduce the total fee award.
D.

Rejection of Joint Offer of Judgement

Defendant further argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(d) precludes recovery
for work billed after Defendant made an initial settlement offer of $150,001.00. Rule 68(d)
requires that the offeree pay the costs incurred after the offer was made if the judgment that the
offeree obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer. The parties dispute whether a

12

judgment, as referenced in the provision, includes a judgment post settlement. The Third Circuit
has not addressed the issue, and the parties have identified only a few nonbinding decisions that
have spoken on the matter. See Good Timez, Inc. v. Phoenix Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 754 F.
459, 464 (D.V.I. 1991); Lang v. Gates, 36 F.3d 73, 76–77 (9th Cir. 1994); Deferio v. Bd. of Tr. of
State Univ. of N.Y., No. 5:11-CV-0563 (GTS/RFT), 2014 WL 295842, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 27,
2014). The Supreme Court has, however, has opined that Rule 68(d)’s purpose is to “prompt[]
both parties to a suit to evaluate the risks and costs of litigation, and to balance them against the
likelihood of success upon trial on the merits.” Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 5 (1985).
Given the paucity of relevant case law, this Court will take as guidance the Supreme
Court’s articulation of the provision’s purpose, encouraging a party to seriously weigh a
settlement offer against proceeding to trial. Thus, the Court holds that Rule 68(d) applies only to
final judgments obtained after trial and allows Plaintiff to recover for work completed following
Defendant’s initial offer.
E.

Costs

Plaintiff additionally claims $31,736.07 in costs, for expenses in photocopying; mileage,
parking, and tolls; mailing; online legal research; deposition transcript fees; expert fees; and
mediation fees. Taxation of costs is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which permits recovery for:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any
materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

13

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
Further costs are available to a party who brought a § 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
“when it is the custom of attorneys in the local community to bill their clients separately for
them.” Abrams, 50 F.3d at 1225. “[A] district court generally has broad discretion in imposing
costs.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 454 (3d Cir. 2000), as amended (Sept.
15, 2000).
The Third Circuit has found reproduction expenses, travel expenses, and postage to be
recoverable under § 1988. Abrams, 50 F.3d at 1225. Thus, the Court will allow reimbursement
for photocopying; mileage, parking, and tolls; and mailing. In addition, the Court finds that
online research charges are costs customarily billed separately to clients and therefore awards
them here. See Apple Corps. Ltd. v. Int’l Collectors Soc’y, 25 F. Supp. 2d 480, 498 (D.N.J. 1998)
(allowing costs for Lexis). The Court will also permit Plaintiff to recover for deposition
transcripts under § 1920(2), as Plaintiff states they were necessary to the litigation. While
Defendant contends that costs for deposition transcripts are allowable only if “used at trial”
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.1(g)(7), § 1920(2) requires only that transcripts be “obtained for
use in the case.” The Third Circuit has confirmed both that § 1920(2) permits the taxation of
costs for depositions used in summary judgment motions and that Local Rule 54.1(g)(7) must
give way to § 1920 where the two conflict. In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112, 139
(3d Cir. 1999). Thus, this Court will award deposition transcript expenses as part of costs.
As for expert witness fees, the Court notes that they are only recoverable in suits brought
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981a, and not § 1983. See Roccisano v. Twp. of Franklin, No. Civ.
11-6558 (FLW)(LHG), 2015 WL 3649149, at *21 (D.N.J. June 11, 2015) (collecting cases). 28

14

U.S.C. § 1821 nonetheless provides payment of a standard witness fee of $40 per day of
testimony; however, Plaintiff presents no documentation of testimony provided by its experts. As
such, the Court awards no costs for work done by expert witnesses. Lastly, the parties agreed to
evenly split the fee for mediation; the Court will not disturb that allocation at this juncture. See
D’Orazio, 2011 WL 6717427, at *8. In conclusion, the Court reduces the cost by $20,150.00, to
a total of $11,586.07.
IV.

APPENDIX
A.

Attorney’s Fees

Attor Description
Date
ney (First Word)
9/20/2011 PRR Review . . . .

Vagueness
Reduced
Original
Reduction
Hours
Hours
2.1
-2.1
0

$325.00

Reduced
Original
Reduction
Bill
Bill
$682.50 -$682.50
$0.00

Rate

1/20/2012 NFP

Review . . . .

0.7

-0.7

0

$225.00

$157.50

-$157.50

$0.00

2/23/2012 PRR

Review . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$325.00

$65.00

-$65.00

$0.00

2/11/2013 PRR

Attend . . . .

10

-3.4

6.6

$325.00

11/8/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

12/23/2014 PRR

Cont'd . . . .

2.2

-1

1.2

$325.00

$715.00

-$325.00

$390.00

Review . . . .

1.6

-1.6

0

$325.00

$520.00

-$520.00

$0.00

9/3/2015

PRR

Attor Description
Date
ney (First Word)
12/21/2011 NFP
Rec'd . . . .
1/5/2012

Rate
$225.00

Reduced
Original
Reduction
Bill
Bill
$112.50 -$112.50
$0.00

Receipt . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

8/30/2012 NFP

Log . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

9/24/2012 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

11/30/2012 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

Discuss . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

6/4/2013

PRR

Secretarial Work
Reduced
Original
Reduction
Hours
Hours
0.5
-0.5
0

$3,250.00 -$1,105.00 $2,145.00

NFP

10/24/2013 NFP Retrieved . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

Retrieve . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

NFP

Print . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

4/11/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1

-1

0

$225.00

$225.00

-$225.00

$0.00

6/2/2014

NFP

Scan . . . .

0.6

-0.6

0

$225.00

$135.00

-$135.00

$0.00

9/16/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/17/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

9/22/2014 NFP

Scan . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

1/9/2014

NFP

1/22/2014 NFP
3/3/2014

15

12/23/2014 NFP Retrieved . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

1/13/2015 NFP

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

1/14/2015 NFP Organize . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

2/12/2015 NFP Organize . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

5/18/2015 NFP

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

$157.50

-$157.50

$0.00

Scan . . . .

Search . . . .
Electronically . .
5/19/2015 NFP
..
6/2/2015 NFP
Scan . . . .

0.7

-0.7

0

$225.00

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

6/11/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

9/8/2015

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.4

-0.4

0

$225.00

$90.00

-$90.00

$0.00

9/21/2015 NFP

Scan . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

10/19/2015 NFP

Scan . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

11/9/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.6

-0.6

0

$225.00

$135.00

-$135.00

$0.00

11/30/2015 NFP Attempted . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

10/18/2016 NFP

0.4

-0.4

0

$225.00

$90.00

-$90.00

$0.00

Search . . . .

Attor Description
Date
ney (First Word)
11/11/2011 NFP Search . . . .
12/19/2011 NFP

Rate
$225.00

Original
Reduced
Reduction
Bill
Bill
$180.00
-$90.00
$90.00

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

12/28/2011 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

12/28/2011 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

1.4

-1.4

0

$225.00

$315.00

-$315.00

$0.00

8/3/2012

Rec'd . . . .

Other Defendants
Original
Reduced
Reduction
Hours
Hours
0.8
-0.4
0.4

NFP Reviewed . . . .

9/10/2012 PRR

Review . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

11/27/2012 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

2.5

-2.5

0

$225.00

$562.50

-$562.50

$0.00

12/3/2012 NFP Commence . . . .
12/4/2012 NFP Continuing . . . .

2.5

-2.5

0

$225.00

$562.50

-$562.50

$0.00

3/19/2013 NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

5/29/2013 NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

6/24/2013 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

6/24/2013 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

6/26/2013 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

8/12/2013 NFP

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

8/13/2013 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

9/4/2013

PRR

Emails . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$325.00

$65.00

-$65.00

$0.00

9/5/2013

PRR

Review . . . .

1.6

-1.6

0

$325.00

$520.00

-$520.00

$0.00

9/5/2013

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/6/2013

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1.2

-1.2

0

$225.00

$270.00

-$270.00

$0.00

9/6/2013

NFP

Google . . . .

0.8

-0.8

0

$225.00

$180.00

-$180.00

$0.00

9/11/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

10/10/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

1.7

-0.7

1

$225.00

$382.50

-$157.50

$225.00

10/23/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

Rec'd . . . .

16

10/24/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

10/25/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

10/31/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

11/1/2013 NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

11/25/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

12/5/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

12/10/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

12/11/2013 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

12/20/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/9/2014

NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/9/2014

NFP

Email . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/10/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

1/13/2014 NFP

0.4

-0.4

0

$225.00

$90.00

-$90.00

$0.00

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

1/5/2014

Rev'd . . . .

PRR Telephone . . . .

1/15/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/16/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

1/16/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

1/17/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/20/2014 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.6

-0.6

0

$325.00

$195.00

-$195.00

$0.00

1/20/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

4

-4

0

$225.00

$900.00

-$900.00

$0.00

1/21/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

3

-3

0

$225.00

$675.00

-$675.00

$0.00

1/23/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

3.7

-3.7

0

$225.00

$832.50

-$832.50

$0.00

1/23/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

1/23/2014 NFP

Email . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/23/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

1/30/2014 NFP

Retrieve . . . .

0.6

-0.6

0

$225.00

$135.00

-$135.00

$0.00

1/30/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

1/31/2014 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

1/31/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

3

-3

0

$225.00

$675.00

-$675.00

$0.00

2.5

-2.5

0

$225.00

$562.50

-$562.50

$0.00

2/7/2014

NFP Commence . . . .

2/10/2014 NFP Commence . . . .

5.5

-5.5

0

$225.00

2/11/2014 NFP Continue . . . .

2.3

-2.3

0

$225.00

$1,237.50 -$1,237.50
$517.50

-$517.50

$0.00

2/12/2014 NFP Continue . . . .

2

-2

0

$225.00

$450.00

-$450.00

$0.00

2/13/2014 NFP Continue . . . .

5

-5

0

$225.00

$1,125.00 -$1,125.00

$0.00

$0.00

2/14/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

3.5

-3.5

0

$225.00

$787.50

-$787.50

$0.00

2/16/2014 PRR

Review . . . .

1.8

-1.8

0

$325.00

$585.00

-$585.00

$0.00

2/16/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

2/17/2014 PRR

Review . . . .

0.8

-0.8

0

$325.00

$260.00

-$260.00

$0.00

2/17/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1.4

-1.4

0

$225.00

$315.00

-$315.00

$0.00

2/17/2014 NFP

Discuss . . . .

4

-4

0

$225.00

$900.00

-$900.00

$0.00

2/17/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

3

-3

0

$225.00

$675.00

-$675.00

$0.00

17

2/18/2014 NFP Organize . . . .

1

-1

0

$225.00

$225.00

-$225.00

$0.00

2/19/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

2/20/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

Receipt . . . .

1.1

-1.1

0

$325.00

$357.50

-$357.50

$0.00

3/3/2014

PRR

3/6/2014

NFP Retrieved . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

3/19/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

3/24/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$325.00

$65.00

-$65.00

$0.00

3/26/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

3/26/2014 NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

3/26/2014 NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

3/26/2014 NFP

Search . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

3/27/2014 PRR

Emails . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

3/27/2014 PRR

Further . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

0.4

-0.4

0

$325.00

$130.00

-$130.00

$0.00

4/10/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .
4/11/2014 PRR

0.4

-0.4

0

$325.00

$130.00

-$130.00

$0.00

4/11/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

Receipt . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

4/14/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

4/17/2014 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

4/17/2014 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$325.00

$65.00

-$65.00

$0.00

4/22/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

4/29/2014 PRR Telephone . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

4/29/2014 NFP

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

Discuss . . . .

9/8/2014

PRR Telephone . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

9/8/2014

PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

9/8/2014

NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

9/8/2014

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

9/9/2014

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/10/2014 NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

9/16/2014 PRR

Emails . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

9/18/2014 PRR

Emails . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

9/18/2014 PRR

Revise . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$325.00

$65.00

-$65.00

$0.00

9/18/2014 NFP

Revise . . . .

0.3

-0.2

0.1

$225.00

$67.50

-$45.00

$22.50

9/18/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

9/18/2014 NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

9/19/2014 NFP Continue . . . .

1.2

-1.2

0

$225.00

$270.00

-$270.00

$0.00

9/19/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/19/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/19/2014 NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

9/23/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

12/4/2014 NFP

Email . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

12/4/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

18

12/4/2014 NFP

Conduct . . . .

2

-2

0

$225.00

$450.00

-$450.00

$0.00

12/12/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.6

-0.6

0

$225.00

$135.00

-$135.00

$0.00

12/12/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.8

-0.8

0

$225.00

$180.00

-$180.00

$0.00

12/23/2014 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

12/29/2014 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.4

-0.4

0

$325.00

$130.00

-$130.00

$0.00

12/29/2014 NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

12/30/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

4

-4

0

$225.00

$900.00

-$900.00

$0.00

1/2/2015

NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/2/2015

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/2/2015

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/5/2015

PRR

Review . . . .

1.1

-1.1

0

$325.00

$357.50

-$357.50

$0.00

1/5/2015

NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

1/5/2015

NFP Continue . . . .

5

-5

0

$225.00

1/5/2015

NFP Commence . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

1/5/2015

NFP

Discuss . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

1/5/2015

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.9

-0.9

0

$225.00

1/6/2015

PRR

Review . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$325.00

1/6/2015

NFP

Provide . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

1/6/2015

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1

-1

1/6/2015

NFP Continue . . . .

0.8

1/6/2015

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1/6/2015

NFP

Review . . . .

1/6/2015
1/6/2015
1/6/2015
1/7/2015

$1,125.00 -$1,125.00
-$112.50

$0.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

$202.50

-$202.50

$0.00

$162.50

-$162.50

$0.00

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

0

$225.00

$225.00

-$225.00

$0.00

-0.8

0

$225.00

$180.00

-$180.00

$0.00

0.6

-0.6

0

$225.00

$135.00

-$135.00

$0.00

0.7

-0.7

0

$225.00

$157.50

-$157.50

$0.00

NFP Commence . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

NFP

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

NFP Commence . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1.4

-1.4

0

$225.00

$315.00

-$315.00

$0.00

1/10/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1.5

-1.5

0

$225.00

$337.50

-$337.50

$0.00

1/19/2015 NFP

Email . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

5/5/2015

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

10/7/2015 NFP

Search . . . .

0.4

-0.4

0

$225.00

$90.00

-$90.00

$0.00

10/19/2015 PRR

Review . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

10/19/2015 NFP

Draft . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

10/19/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1

-1

0

$225.00

$225.00

-$225.00

$0.00

10/19/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.4

-0.4

0

$225.00

$90.00

-$90.00

$0.00

10/19/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

2.5

-2.5

0

$225.00

$562.50

-$562.50

$0.00

10/21/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

10/27/2015 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

10/28/2015 NFP

Retrieve . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

11/2/2015 NFP Commence . . . .

2.3

-2.3

0

$225.00

$517.50

-$517.50

$0.00

11/3/2015 NFP Continue . . . .

2

-2

0

$225.00

$450.00

-$450.00

$0.00

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

11/6/2015 NFP

Draft . . . .

Rec'd . . . .

19

$112.50

$0.00

12/8/2015 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$325.00

$97.50

-$97.50

$0.00

12/10/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.2

-0.2

0

$225.00

$45.00

-$45.00

$0.00

12/10/2015 NFP

Pcall . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

12/11/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.3

0

$225.00

$67.50

-$67.50

$0.00

12/18/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

PRR

Review . . . .

0.8

-0.8

0

$325.00

$260.00

-$260.00

$0.00

3/27/2016 NFP

Travel . . . .

5

-5

0

$225.00

9/15/2016 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$225.00

$22.50

-$22.50

$0.00

9/16/2016 PRR

Receipt . . . .

0.1

-0.1

0

$325.00

$32.50

-$32.50

$0.00

10/18/2016 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.5

-0.5

0

$225.00

$112.50

-$112.50

$0.00

3/9/2016

Attor Description
ney (First Word)
9/25/2011 NFP Update . . . .
Date

Block Billing
Reduced
Original
Reduction
Hours
Hours
1.2
-0.2
1

$1,125.00 -$1,125.00

$0.00

$225.00

Reduced
Original
Reduction
Bill
Bill
$270.00
-$45.00
$225.00

Rate

10/26/2011 NFP Download . . . .

2.5

-0.5

2

$225.00

$562.50

-$112.50

$450.00

10/28/2011 NFP

2.1

-0.5

1.6

$225.00

$472.50

-$112.50

$360.00

2.5

-1

1.5

$225.00

$562.50

-$225.00

$337.50

1/25/2012 NFP Discussing . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

2/29/2012 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

1/9/2012

Printed . . . .

NFP Continue . . . .

4/2/2012

NFP

Finalize . . . .

0.9

-0.7

0.2

$225.00

$202.50

-$157.50

$45.00

4/4/2012

NFP

Meet . . . .

2.3

-1.8

0.5

$225.00

$517.50

-$405.00

$112.50

5/3/2012

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.6

-0.2

0.4

$225.00

$135.00

-$45.00

$90.00

5/14/2012 NFP

Review . . . .

1.3

-0.3

1

$225.00

$292.50

-$67.50

$225.00

6/12/2012 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

2

-1.5

0.5

$225.00

$450.00

-$337.50

$112.50

1.5

-1

0.5

$225.00

$337.50

-$225.00

$112.50

6/13/2012 NFP Continue . . . .
7/24/2012 NFP

Search . . . .

0.5

-0.3

0.2

$225.00

$112.50

-$67.50

$45.00

8/2/2012

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

1.5

-0.5

1

$225.00

$337.50

-$112.50

$225.00

9/10/2012 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.8

-0.3

0.5

$225.00

$180.00

-$67.50

$112.50

11/8/2012 NFP

Scan . . . .

0.5

-0.4

0.1

$225.00

$112.50

-$90.00

$22.50

12/6/2012 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1

-0.2

0.8

$225.00

$225.00

-$45.00

$180.00

1/31/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

3/7/2013

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

2.3

-1.8

0.5

$225.00

$517.50

-$405.00

$112.50

4/3/2013

NFP

Down . . . .

0.2

-0.1

0.1

$225.00

$45.00

-$22.50

$22.50

5/8/2013

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

2

-1

1

$225.00

$450.00

-$225.00

$225.00

6/6/2013

NFP

Pcall . . . .

1

-0.1

0.9

$225.00

$225.00

-$22.50

$202.50

Review . . . .

0.3

-0.2

0.1

$325.00

$97.50

-$65.00

$32.50

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

2

-1

1

$225.00

$450.00

-$225.00

$225.00

8/26/2013 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.5

-0.3

0.2

$225.00

$112.50

-$67.50

$45.00

8/29/2013 NFP

Print . . . .

0.8

-0.6

0.2

$225.00

$180.00

-$135.00

$45.00

9/16/2013 NFP

Copy . . . .

2.5

-2

0.5

$225.00

$562.50

-$450.00

$112.50

12/3/2013 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1.7

-0.9

0.8

$225.00

$382.50

-$202.50

$180.00

1/18/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

1

-0.4

0.6

$225.00

$225.00

-$90.00

$135.00

6/25/2013 PRR
8/7/2013

20

1/20/2014 NFP Retrieved . . . .

0.4

-0.2

0.2

$225.00

1/27/2014 NFP Commence . . . .

7

-3.5

3.5

$225.00

$90.00

-$45.00

$45.00

$1,575.00 -$787.50

$787.50

1/30/2014 NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.6

-0.3

0.3

$225.00

$135.00

-$67.50

$67.50

6/2/2014

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

2.5

-0.5

2

$225.00

$562.50

-$112.50

$450.00

9/8/2014

NFP

Search . . . .

0.7

-0.2

0.5

$225.00

$157.50

-$45.00

$112.50

Final . . . .

1.5

-1

0.5

$225.00

$337.50

-$225.00

$112.50

Rec'd . . . .

12/23/2014 NFP

0.6

-0.4

0.2

$225.00

$135.00

-$90.00

$45.00

1/13/2015 NFP Continue . . . .

1/6/2015

NFP

2.3

-0.3

2

$225.00

$517.50

-$67.50

$450.00

4/27/2015 NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

5/4/2015

NFP

Draft . . . .

0.6

-0.3

0.3

$225.00

$135.00

-$67.50

$67.50

5/5/2015

NFP

Draft . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

5/6/2015

NFP

Rec'd . . . .

0.3

-0.1

0.2

$225.00

$67.50

-$22.50

$45.00

5/12/2015 NFP

Search . . . .

0.6

-0.3

0.3

$225.00

$135.00

-$67.50

$67.50

6/1/2015

NFP

Rev'd . . . .

0.7

-0.5

0.2

$225.00

$157.50

-$112.50

$45.00

9/3/2015

NFP Organize . . . .

1

-0.8

0.2

$225.00

$225.00

-$180.00

$45.00

11/5/2015 NFP

Print . . . .

0.4

-0.2

0.2

$225.00

$90.00

-$45.00

$45.00

10/18/2016 NFP

Search . . . .

0.5

-0.3

0.2

$225.00

$112.50

-$67.50

$45.00

Attor Description
ney (First Word)
9/23/2011 NFP
Travel . . . .
Date

4/5/2012

Travel Time
Original
Reduced
Reduction
Hours
Hours
4
0
4

$225.00

Original
Reduced
Reduction
Bill
Bill
$900.00 -$450.00 $450.00
$1,237.50 -$618.75

Rate

NFP

Travel . . . .

5.5

0

5.5

$225.00

8/30/2012 NFP

Travel . . . .

2.5

0

2.5

$225.00

$562.50

8/31/2012 NFP

Travel . . . .

6

0

6

$225.00

$1,350.00

8/31/2012 NFP

Travel . . . .

2.5

0

2.5

$225.00

$562.50

2/12/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

8.8

0

8.8

$225.00

$1,980.00

2/13/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

2

0

2

$225.00

$450.00

2/14/2013 NFP Continue . . . .

10.5

0

10.5

$225.00

$2,362.50

2/28/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

12.5

0

12.5

$225.00

$2,812.50

3/24/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

3.5

0

3.5

$225.00

$787.50

4/17/2013 PRR

Attend . . . .

10.5

0

10.5

$325.00

$3,412.50

4/24/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

8.5

0

8.5

$225.00

$1,912.50

6/25/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

2.5

0

2.5

$225.00

$562.50

6/26/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

3.5

0

3.5

$225.00

$787.50

6/27/2013 NFP

Travel . . . .

2.5

0

2.5

$225.00

$562.50

6/11/2014 PRR

Attend . . . .

9

0

9

$325.00

$2,925.00

6/11/2014 NFP

Travel . . . .

9

0

9

$225.00

$2,025.00

11/25/2014 PRR

Travel . . . .

3.5

0

3.5

$325.00

$1,137.50

11/25/2014 NFP

Travel . . . .

3.5

0

3.5

$225.00

$787.50

21

-$281.25
-$675.00
-$281.25
-$990.00
-$225.00
-$1,181.25
-$1,406.25
-$393.75
-$1,706.25
-$956.25
-$281.25
-$393.75
-$281.25
-$1,462.50
-$1,012.50
-$568.75
-$393.75

$618.75
$281.25
$675.00
$281.25
$990.00
$225.00
$1,181.25
$1,406.25
$393.75
$1,706.25
$956.25
$281.25
$393.75
$281.25
$1,462.50
$1,012.50
$568.75
$393.75

B.

Costs
Reduced
Original
Reduction
Cost
Cost
$500.00 -$500.00
$0.00

Date

Description (First Words)

10/23/2012

032225, Dr. Maureen Gottfried . . . .

11/27/2012

007787, Arvind Baliga M.D. . . . .

1/18/2013

010083, Dr. Richard Celeste . . . .

$3,000.00 -$3,000.00

$0.00

7/25/2013

011161, Center for Emotional Fitness . . . .

$5,500.00 -$5,500.00

$0.00

8/26/2013

010083, Dr. Richard Celeste . . . .

$5,000.00 -$5,000.00

$0.00

$750.00

11/7/2013

007787, Arvind Baliga M.D. . . . .
083281, Shore Therapy . . . .

$2,500.00 -$2,500.00

$0.00

1/14/2014

083281, Shore Therapy . . . .

$1,100.00 -$1,100.00

$0.00

2/25/2014

007787, Arvind Baliga M.D. . . . .

9/26/2014

092213, Joseph C. Visalli, Esq. . . . .

$300.00

-$300.00

$0.00

12/31/2013

V.

$300.00

-$750.00

-$300.00

$1,200.00 -$1,200.00

$0.00

$0.00
$0.00

CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees

and Costs is GRANTED IN PART.

Dated:

6/26/2017

s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United State District Judge

22