Cheatham v. Knox County et al

Filing 57

ORDER that the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R 53 and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Jeanette Harris's Motion for Attorney Fees 45 . As recommended by Magistrate Judge Guyton, counsel for defendant Harris has sub mitted an affidavit with his records for time spent on this litigation. In accordance with Magistrate Judge Guytons recommendation, plaintiff will now be afforded fourteen days in which to respond to the revised request and time records submitted by counsel for defendant Harris [Doc. 54] or to file a notice of no objections. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 1/7/13. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
DIANE CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:10-CV-541
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

ORDER
This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the
“R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton [Doc. 53]. In the
R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends granting in part and denying in part
Defendant Jeanette Harris’s Motion for Attorney Fees [Doc. 45]. Magistrate Judge
Guyton recommends [Doc. 53] that counsel for defendant Harris submit an affidavit of
his time records related to this litigation from the time of plaintiff’s deposition on March
23, 2012, until the Court dismissed this action on July 12, 2012, and that counsel be
directed to state why the cost of obtaining medical records was not submitted through the
Eastern District of Tennessee’s Bill of Costs procedure.

Magistrate Judge Guyton

additionally recommends that plaintiff be afforded fourteen days, pursuant to Local Rule
7.1, to respond to the revised request for attorney fees and the documentary evidence
presented. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has

passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant Jeanette Harris, a Knox County Sheriff’s
Deputy, and other defendants, for the violation of her constitutional rights as well as for
violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 [Doc. 1].

The Court entered a

Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 39] and Order [Doc. 40], granting defendant Harris’s
motion for summary judgment [Doc. 21].

Defendant Harris now seeks reasonable

attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Local Rule 54.2, arguing that the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint were
frivolous, unreasonable, and foundationless [Doc. 45].
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a
provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . . .” In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton
first finds that defendant Harris is a prevailing party for purposes of § 1988, as she
prevailed on the merits of the case when the Court granted her motion for summary
judgment. Magistrate Judge Guyton also notes that plaintiff does not dispute defendant
Harris’s status as a prevailing party. Magistrate Judge Guyton then finds that after the
completion of the deposition of plaintiff, it was apparent from plaintiff’s testimony that
her claims were groundless. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Guyton finds that through
2

any further litigation of the claims beyond that point, plaintiff was pursuing groundless
claims. Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends that an award of attorney’s fees from the
date of the deposition through the date on which the case was closed would be
appropriate.
With the motion for attorney’s fees, counsel for defendant Harris submitted an
affidavit [Doc. 45-1], in which he asserted that his rate at the time was $200.00 per hour,
which Magistrate Judge Guyton finds to be reasonable. Given the lack of specificity and
breakdown of the fees in that affidavit, however, Magistrate Judge Guyton finds it
impossible to distinguish which fees would be appropriately awarded in light of his
recommendation. As to the request for reimbursement of costs for copies of medical
records, Magistrate Judge Guyton finds that those costs should be reimbursed only if the
copies were obtained after the deposition of plaintiff and if the cost had not already been
reimbursed through the Eastern District of Tennessee’s Bill of Costs procedure.
Following the entry of the R&R, counsel for defendant Harris submitted an
additional affidavit [Doc. 54]. In this affidavit, counsel clarifies that while he mistakenly
informed Magistrate Judge Guyton at the hearing on the motion that the deposition of
plaintiff was on March 23, 2012, the deposition actually took place on March 14, 2012,
and counsel received and reviewed the transcript of the deposition on March 22, 2012.
Accordingly, counsel includes hours spent in defense of the matter from March 22, 2012,

3

until the action was dismissed on July 12, 2012. The billing summary attached to the
affidavit, including entries from March 22, 2012, to July 12, 2012, totals $5,560.00.
In counsel’s affidavit, he asserts that he spent $64.57 acquiring plaintiff’s medical
records and that he inadvertently omitted such cost from the bill of costs timely filed in
July 2012. Counsel asserts that to the extent that the costs may no longer be timely
allocated, the request for such costs is withdrawn. In accordance with Magistrate Judge
Guyton’s findings and in considering the representation of counsel, the Court finds that
the expense incurred by counsel in obtaining copies of medical records was not timely
submitted and may not be recovered at this time.
After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate
Judge Guyton’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its
ruling.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 53] and

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Jeanette Harris’s Motion for
Attorney Fees [Doc. 45]. As recommended by Magistrate Judge Guyton, counsel for
defendant Harris has submitted an affidavit with his records for time spent on this
litigation.1 In accordance with Magistrate Judge Guyton’s recommendation, plaintiff will
now be afforded fourteen days in which to respond to the revised request and time

1

In accordance with counsel’s representation that he mistakenly informed Magistrate
Judge Guyton that the deposition of plaintiff took place on March 23, 2012, rather than March
14, 2012, the Court finds it acceptable that counsel’s submission of time records includes time
spent reviewing the deposition transcript and holding a telephone conference on March 22, 2012.
4

records submitted by counsel for defendant Harris [Doc. 54] or to file a notice of no
objections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5