Polite v. CACI International INC

Filing 82

ORDER the defendant is awarded attorney's fees against the plaintiff in the amount of $782.00 Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 10/3/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Willie J. Polite,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CACI, Inc. - Federal,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:15-1520-MGL-PJG

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the defendant’s affidavit of fees (ECF No. 69)
submitted in response to the court’s April 14, 2016 order granting without opposition filed the
defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 62). In its order, the court directed the defendant to submit
an affidavit detailing the attorney’s fees and costs associated with its motion to compel.
It is well established that the allowance of attorney’s fees is within a judge’s discretion. See
Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978). Generally, in calculating an
appropriate attorney’s fee award, the court begins with the lodestar amount, that is, “the number of
hours reasonably expended . . . multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 433 (1983). When an attorney has met his burden of showing that the requested rate and
number of hours are reasonable, the resulting product is presumed to be a reasonable fee. See Blum
v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 887 (1984). In determining whether any adjustment to this calculation is
necessary, the court may consider twelve factors originally established in Johnson v. Georgia
Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974), and adopted by the United States Court of

Page 1 of 3

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1978). These
factors include:
(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised;
(3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the
attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee
for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the
time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in
controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the
attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the
suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between
attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.
Barber, 577 F.2d at n.28.
The defendant’s attorney has submitted an affidavit in which he requests attorney’s fees
incurred from preparing and filing the defendant’s motion to compel in the amount of $782.00,
which is calculated based on 3.4 hours of time at a rate of $230 per hour.1 (Aff. of Fees and Costs,
ECF No. 69.) The defendant’s attorney itemizes the time expended in preparing the motion, as well
as multiple e-mails and phone calls with opposing counsel regarding the status of the requested
discovery responses. (Id.) The plaintiff has filed no objection to the amount requested for attorney’s
fees and has not challenged either the hourly rate requested or the reasonableness of the hours
expended.
Based on the foregoing factors and the information before the court, the court finds the sum
of $782.00 for attorney’s fees to be reasonable. It is therefore
ORDERED that the defendant is awarded attorney’s fees against the plaintiff in the amount
of $782.00.

1

The defendant’s attorney does not seek costs associated with filing the motion the compel.
Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 3, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3