Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LANCASTER, JEFFERY MILLS,

DEXTER WILLIAMS, WILLIAM DENNIS,

STEVE LIVADITIS, JIMMY VAN PELT,

H. LEE HEISHMAN III AND JOHNATON

GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER RE PROCEDURE FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

In order to better manage this case and to keep on top of attorney’s fees petitions, any

motion for attorney’s fees for any work done on this case prior to and including December 31,

2006, must be filed by FEBRUARY 1, 2007, to be heard on a normal 35-day track. Thereafter,

any motion for attorney’s fees must be on a six-month basis, i.e., within 30 days of the close of

the six-month period, June 30 and December 31 being the period ends.

The motion must be accompanied by a detailed declaration, organized by discrete

projects, 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

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 998 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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. 

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

All entries for a given project must be presented chronologically one after the other, i.e.,

uninterrupted by other projects, so that the timeline for each project can be readily grasped. 

Entries can be rounded to the nearest quarter-hour and should be net of write-down for

inefficiency or other cause. Please show the sub-totals for hours and fees per project, as in the

example above, and show grand totals for all projects combined at the end. Include only entries

for which compensation is sought, i.e., after application of “billing judgment.” For each

project, the declaration must further state, in percentage terms, the proportion of the project

directed at issues for which fees are awardable and must justify the percentage. This percentage

should then be applied against the project total to isolate the recoverable portion (a step not

shown in the example above). 

A separate summary chart of total time and fees sought per individual timekeeper (not

broken down by project) should also be shown at the end of the declaration. This

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 998 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

cross-tabulation will help illuminate all timekeepers’ respective workloads and roles in the

overall case. 

The declaration must also set forth (a) the qualifications, experience and role of each

attorney or paralegal for whom fees are sought; (b) the normal rate ordinarily charged for each

in the relevant time period; (c) how the rates were comparable to prevailing rates in the

community for like-skilled professionals; and (d) proof that “billing judgment” was exercised. 

On the latter point, as before, the declaration should describe adjustments made to eliminate

duplication, excess, associate-turnover expense, and so forth. These adjustments need not be

itemized but totals for the amount deleted per timekeeper should be stated. The declaration

must identify the records used to compile the entries and, specifically, state whether and the

extent to which the records were contemporaneous versus retroactively prepared. It must state

the extent to which any entries include estimates (and what any estimates were based on). 

Estimates and/or use of retroactively-made records may or may not be allowed, depending on

the facts and circumstances. 

Ordinarily, no more than one attorney and one paralegal need be present at a deposition;

more will normally be deemed excessive. Ordinarily, no more than one attorney need attend a

law-and-motion hearing; more will normally be deemed excessive. To allow for symmetry,

however, the award will take into account the staffing used by the opposing party. 

If the opposing party doubts the accuracy of the declaration, then the moving party must

immediately produce the original underlying time records for inspection upon request. The

opposing party must then file and serve any opposition. In this case, the opposition will be due

fourteen calendar days after plaintiff’s detailed declaration is filed. If the opposing party

contends that any item or project was excessive, then the opposition must explain why and

provide a declaration setting forth completely all time expended by the opposing party on the

same and on similar projects, in the same format described above, so that symmetry may be

considered, making available the underlying records for inspection if requested. If any billing

rates are challenged, then the opposition must state the billing rates charged to the opposing

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 998 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

party for all professionals representing the opposing party in the case and their experience

levels. The opposing declaration must also state, as to each project, the percentage of the

project the opposition contends was directed at issues on which fees are awardable, stating

reasons for the percentage. This percentage should then be applied against the project total to

isolate the recoverable portion. 

The opposing submissions may not simply attack the numbers in the application. It

must also set forth a counter-analysis. The counter-analysis should be in the same format

required of the applicant, arriving at a final number. The opposition must clearly identify each

line item in the application challenged as excessive, improper or otherwise unrecoverable and

explain why. The opposition, for example, may annotate (legible handwriting will be

acceptable) the applicant’s declaration to isolate the precise numbers at issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 998 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 4