Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETROLEUM SALES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALERO REFINING COMPANY

–CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

 No. C-05-3526 SBA (JCS)

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

At oral argument on Defendant’s Attorneys’ Fees Motion, the Court ordered Defendant to

provide a break-down of all hours billed by each attorney and the applicable rates in order to allow

the Court to calculate and/or adjust the lodestar amount. The Court also asked that Defendant

provide the dates on which each billing rate was raised. On May 4, 2007, Defendant filed an

additional declaration that contained a break-down of hours billed and applicable rates. The total

amount on that break-down, however, does not correspond to the amount sought on the Motion. 

Rather, it exceeds the amount sought on the Motion by some $30,000. Defendant notes in a footnote

that the “amount billed” for two of the listed attorneys includes fees that were not, in fact, billed but

rather were “written off,” which apparently accounts for this discrepancy. Defendant fails to

identify the specific amounts that were “written off.” 

Defendant is ordered to provide the Court a revised break-down of the time and rates for

which fees are sought on the Motion. The Court expects that the total fees billed will be the same

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 128 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court does not, however, authorize Defendant to seek fees for additional time that has not

already been brought to the Court’s attention.

2

amount as Defendant requested in the Motion. Any discrepancy must be explained in detail.1 If the

break-down includes fees that were “written off,” Defendant shall identify the exact amount for each

attorney that was written off, as well as the specific time entries that were written-off. Defendant

shall also provide the exact date for each attorney on which any billing rate was raised, as previously

requested by the Court. 

Defendant shall file a revised break-down, including the above-described information

regarding billing rates, no later than Wednesday, May 16, 2007. Plaintiff shall be permitted to

file a response no later than Friday, May 18, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 128 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2