Argus Leader Media v. United States Department of Agriculture

Filing 196

ORDER granting 194 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/19/2017. (JLS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, d/b/a Argus Leader, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 4:11-CV-04121-KES ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS Defendant. Plaintiff, Argus Leader Media, moves for additional attorney fees and costs for the fees incurred in filing the motion for attorney fees. Docket 194. Defendant, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), opposes the motion. For the reasons stated below, the court grants Argus’s motion. Argus moves for an additional fee of $2900 for 14.5 hours at $200 per hour as reasonable compensation for the time spent preparing the motion and brief to initially recover attorney fees. Such hours are compensable as “fees on fees.” See Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que Rest., 771 F.2d 521, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Additionally, the number of hours and the rate are both reasonable. Although Argus waited until after its initial attorney fees request was granted to file this motion, the court finds that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. In the event Argus is ultimately successful on appeal, the judgment for attorney fees and costs will also include this amount. Because Argus is entitled to an award of “fees on fees,” it is ORDERED that Argus’s motion for attorney’s fees (Docket 194) is granted in the amount of $2,900, which will be due and owing if the underlying order on the FOIA matter is affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judgment will be entered at that time. DATED this 19th day of October, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?