Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY G. HEMPHILL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF )

THE ESTATE OF JAMES J. )

RYSKAMP, JR., et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1319 OWW/SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT

UNDER SEAL (Doc. 99) AND

VACATING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'

FEES SET FOR JUNE 16, 2008

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an interim award of

attorneys' fees and costs. This motion is set for hearing on

June 16, 2008.

Plaintiff couples the motion for attorney's fees with an ex

parte motion to file the attorneys' detailed billing records

under seal as Exhibit H to the Declaration of Clarissa King. 

Plaintiff requests that the detailed billing records be reviewed

only by the Court in camera, without disclosure to Defendants. 

Plaintiff contends that disclosure of the detailed billing

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 115 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

records to Defendants could be detrimental to her prosecution of

the remaining claims in this action because the billing records

contain points of strategy, research, and other confidential

information protected by the attorney-client and work product

privileges.

Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff's

motion for interim award of attorneys' fees and costs or to

Plaintiff's ex parte application to file the detailed billing

records under seal. Nonetheless, Plaintiff's motion to file the

billing records under seal is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks as an

interim award $445,282.50 in attorneys' fees and $25,903.05 in

costs. A party opposing a fee application has a burden of

rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district

court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours

charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its

submitted affidavits. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901, 904

(9th Cir. 1987). Defendants cannot perform this task without

access to Plaintiff’s detailed billing records. Plaintiff’s

assertion that the summary of tasks filed in support of the

interim fee award motion fulfills her obligation to Defendants

and the Court to substantiate the fee request is unpersuasive

because it denies Defendants the ability to defend against and

sustain the burden of rebuttal. It also deprives the Court of a

thorough review of the parties’ positions in resolving the

interim fee motion. 

An award of interim attorneys’ fees is discretionary with

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 115 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the Court and the Court cannot exercise its discretion without a

fully informed response from Defendants.

For the reasons stated:

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to file Exhibit H to the

Declaration of Clarissa King under seal is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

2. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for an interim award

of attorneys' fees and costs set for June 16, 2008 is VACATED,

subject to resolution of the issue. Plaintiff is ordered to

either withdraw the motion for an interim award of attorneys’

fees and costs or to file Exhibit H to Ms. King’s declaration and

renotice the motion for hearing in accordance with the Court’s

civil law and motion calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 115 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 3