Greene v. Brothers Steel Erectors LLC et al

Filing 218

ORDER granting 215 Motion to Compel, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 11/25/19. (jw)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT GREENE, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BROTHERS STEEL ERECTORS, LLC, )
THE STEWART PERRY COMPANY, )
INC., and R & T ACOUSTICS,
)
)
Defendants
)

CR-18-484-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Compel (Doc.No. 215) filed by Brothers Steel
Erectors, LLC, wherein it requests that the Court order co-Defendant Stewart Perry to
produce detailed billing records in support of Stewart Perry’s request for attorneys’ fees
from Brothers Steel Erectors. Stewart Perry responded in opposition to the motion
(Doc.No. 216) and Brothers Steel Erectors filed a reply in support of its position. (Doc.No.
217). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds as follows.
Brothers Steel Erectors was a Stewart Perry subcontractor on a construction project
when Plaintiff Robert Greene was injured after falling through a hole cut into the roof of
the building and covered by a pallet. Mr. Greene lifted the pallet, unaware of its intended
purpose, and stepped into the hole, falling to the ground below and suffering injury. Stewart
Perry filed a cross-claim against Defendant Brothers Steel Erectors seeking fees for its
costs in defending against Mr. Greene’s claims. Brothers Steel Erectors’ attorney requested
billing records from Stewart Perry. Stewart Perry responded by providing an affidavit

summarizing the hours dedicated to this case and the hourly billing rate, both on this case
and generally, for the associated attorneys.1 Brothers Steel Erectors seeks detailed billing
records in part because it was not the only subcontractor involved in the case and against
which Stewart Perry initially sought indemnification and Stewart Perry was initially sued
for its own negligence. As a result, Brothers Steel Erectors contends it is entitled to detailed
billing information so that it can ascertain which fees are attributable to its alleged
negligence, as opposed to the alleged negligence of Stewart Perry or one or more of the codefendants.
In response, Stewart Perry contends it has provided sufficient information to
Brothers Steel Erectors, it contends an affidavit is sufficient evidence under Oklahoma law
to support a request for fees. “Brothers can very easily compare what is contained in the
affidavit to the hours worked and fee charged by their own attorneys to determine whether
the time spent and the fee charged is reasonable.” (Doc.No. 216, p. 4). The Court disagrees.
This case involved multiple subcontractors of Stewart Perry and Brothers Steel
Erectors and it appears unlikely that Brothers Steel Erectors is responsible for all of the
fees incurred by Stewart Perry. Furthermore, Brothers Steel Erectors is not required to
assume that the time expended by Stewart Perry’s counsel in defending against the
allegations of Mr. Greene as they related to Brothers Steel Erectors would be equal to the

1
According to the affidavit provided to Brothers Steel Erectors by Stewart Perry’s counsel, Justin Hall, attorneys
devoted 403.13 hours to this case—Stewart Perry’s counsel calculates its hours at 411.73, however the numbers it
provides add up to 403.13. The rates vary by attorney for a total amount of fees billed of $46,866.30 in addition to
$7,911.00 costs. Mr. Hall also cites to the attorneys’ regular billing rates, noting the rates here were panel counsel
rates, and that a reasonable fee award based on regular rates would be $90,314.00. (Doc.No. 215-1).

2

time spent by Brothers Steel Erectors’ attorneys on its behalf. It is entitled to detailed billing
records to assess the reasonableness of the fee request.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Stewart
Perry’s attorneys shall provide detailed billing records to counsel for Brothers Steel
Erectors within ten days of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of November 2019.

3