Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00392/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00392-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

*

 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a “district court has discretion to use the lodestar method or the

percentage of the fund method in common fund cases.” Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 

2000) (securities case under the PSLRA) (quoting In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods.

Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE SIPEX CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

 /

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES.

 /

No. C 05-00392 WHA

ORDER RE TIME NOTES

Class counsel shall keep time notes adequate to allow the Court later on to understand

the projects undertaken and the time devoted to each, as follows:

Under either the percentage or the lodestar method, counsel will be required at the

conclusion of the case to submit to the Court a description of work done in the case to allow a

comparison of fees requested with the hourly work done and the efficiency of the work.* Such

description would likely take the form of a declaration setting forth each discrete project and

breaking down all attorney and paralegal time sought to be recovered. For each project, there

must be a detailed description of the work, giving the date, hours expended, attorney name, and

task for each work entry, in chronological order. A “project” means a deposition, a motion, a

witness interview, and so forth. It does not mean generalized statements like “trial preparation”

or “attended trial.” It includes discrete items like “prepare supplemental trial brief on issue X.” 

The following is an example of time collected by a project. 

Case 3:05-cv-00392-WHA Document 43 Filed 06/23/05 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

2

PROJECT: ABC DEPOSITION (2 DAYS IN FRESNO)

Date TimekeeperDescription Hours x Rate = Fee

01-08-01 XYZ Assemble and photocopy exhibits for

use in deposition

2.0 $100 $200

01-09-01 RST Review evidence and prepare to

examine ABC at deposition

4.5 $200 $900

01-10-01 XYZ Research issue of work-product

privilege asserted by deponent

1.5 $100 $150

01-11-01 RST Prepare for and take deposition 8.5 $200 $1700

01-12-01 RST Prepare for and take deposition 7.0 $200 $1400

Project Total: 23.5 $4350

This is without prejudice to the possibility of a percentage fee method. The Court will,

at all events, want to know the actual time invested and whether it was efficiently performed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.0

Dated: June 23, 2005. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00392-WHA Document 43 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2