Atwell v. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER re: affidavits of costs & fees 41 - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. By 7/22/11 SPX shall submit to ct & cnsl for Atwell the billing memo in matter as well as affidavit re: experience & background of attys who provided legal svcs for claimed cos ts & fees.; 2. SPX may redact any priv info contained in billing memo & submit priv log describing priv asserted.; 3. Should SPX submt redacted version of billing memo SPX shall also file under seal w/ ct an unredacted version.; 4. By 7/29/11 cnsl for pltf may submit supp'l objs to costs & fees asserted by SPX. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 07/13/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL ATWELL,
Plaintiff
v.
SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-1271
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of the affidavits of
costs and fees (Doc. 41) filed by defendant SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. (“SPX”),
on June 21, 2011, in response to the memorandum and order of the court dated
June 6, 2011 (Doc. 39), granting costs and fees to SPX incurred as a result of
plaintiff Michael Atwell’s (“Atwell”) discovery violations, but deferring calculation
of a dollar figure pending receipt of said affidavits, and it appearing that SPX failed
to provide any information on the experience and background of counsel providing
the legal work forming the basis for the costs and fees, and it further appearing that
SPX provided only a summary of costs and fees, but not the underlying billing
memorandum for the legal work performed, (see Doc. 41, Ex. A ¶¶ 7-8 & n.1), and
upon further consideration of the objections to the asserted costs and fees (Doc. 42)
filed by counsel for Atwell, wherein counsel objects to many of SPX’s time entries
and asserts that “the entries are not specific enough to address the reasonableness
thereof,” (Doc. 42, at 3), and the court concluding that in order to assess the

reasonableness of SPX’s asserted costs and fees, both the court and counsel for
Atwell need to review the detailed billing memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1.

On or before July 22, 2011, SPX shall submit to the court and counsel
for Atwell the billing memorandum in the above-captioned matter as
well as an affidavit regarding the experience and background of the
attorneys who provided the legal services for the claimed costs and
fees.

2.

SPX may redact any privileged information contained in the billing
memorandum and submit a privilege log so describing the privilege
asserted.

3.

Should SPX submit a redacted version of the billing memorandum,
SPX shall also file under seal with the court an un-redacted version.

4.

On or before July 29, 2011, counsel for plaintiff may submit
supplemental objections to the costs and fees asserted by SPX.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge