Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYNTHIA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C04-01312 JW (HRL)

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

On January 20, 2006, this court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

defendants’ second motion for sanctions. Among other things, defendants argued that the

financial disclosures of plaintiff’s expert, Stephen Prater, were misleading in that he attributed

time and income to insurance companies when he was actually retained by alleged insureds

(and vice versa). This court agreed and concluded that monetary sanctions were warranted. 

The January 20, 2006 Order invited defendants to submit detailed declarations:

(1) itemizing with particularity the otherwise unnecessary expenses

(including attorney fees) incurred in connection with the instant

motion which were directly caused by Prater’s mischaracterization

of the source of some of his income in his court-ordered financial

disclosures; and (2) setting forth an appropriate justification for

any attorney-fee hourly rate claimed.

(January 20, 2006 Order, Docket No. 191) (emphasis added).

*E-FILED ON 2/16/06*

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 209 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 5
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 Defendants initially requested a total of $9,352.28; however, in their reply

papers, defendants state that they incurred an additional $615.00 in fees for preparing their

reply.

2

Presently before this court are defendants’ declarations and supporting papers as to their

request for payment of their attorneys’ fees and costs. Having considered the supplemental

moving and opposing papers, the court issues the following order.

Defendants’ request for an award of $9,967.281 is overstated. Defendants’ request is

DENIED as to $4,193.50 in fees or costs incurred in:

• reviewing Prater’s financial disclosures in July 2005;

• preparing meet-and-confer correspondence in July 2005 as to the sufficiency of

Prater’s financial disclosures;

• preparing defendants’ first motion for sanctions (as to which defendants’ request

for fees and costs was denied); and

• attending Prater’s November 22, 2005 deposition during which defendants

learned of the failures which were the subject of their second motion for

sanctions.

(See Burnite Decl., Ex. A). The January 20, 2006 Order was limited to fees and costs incurred

in connection with defendants’ second motion for sanctions – and even then, only as to one of

three claimed failures which were raised in that motion. (See January 20, 2006 Order). 

Moreover, the order specified that the purpose of the award would be compensate defendants

for otherwise unnecessary fees or costs which were caused by that failure. (Id.) As noted

above, this court previously ruled on defendants’ first motion for sanctions and denied

defendants’ request for payment of fees and costs incurred in bringing that motion. (See

September 28, 2005 Order, Docket No. 150). Moreover, fees incurred in July 2005 for

reviewing Prater’s financial disclosures and preparing meet-and-confer correspondence as to the

same are not fees which were caused by the failure which was the subject of the award in this

court’s January 20, 2006 Order. Additionally, defendants indicated that the District Court

permitted them to depose Prater for an additional day on November 22, 2005 because his

deposition was not completed on September 28, 2005. As such, fees incurred in taking Prater’s

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 209 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 5
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 Defendants did not submit evidence supporting their counsel’s assertions as to

the reasonableness of their hourly rates. Moreover, while defense counsel’s description of

his activities indicate that the claimed fees were incurred in preparing the second motion for

sanctions as to “Prater’s mischaracterization of sources of income related to court-ordered

financial disclosures,” other entries indicate that defendants are claiming their fees incurred

as to the motion as a whole. (See Burnite Decl., Ex. A). Nonetheless, any doubts this court

may have as to the sufficiency of defendants’ showing as to the reasonableness of counsel’s

hourly rates, or as to the efficiency of the time spent on the identified issues, are eliminated

by the award of a fraction of defendants’ requested fees and costs.

3

deposition were not caused by the failure which was the subject of the award in the January 20,

2006 Order, notwithstanding that defendants discovered the mischaracterization of income

during that deposition session.

Moreover, the court is not inclined to award defendants the entire $3608.50 requested

for preparation of the second motion for sanctions nor the entire $1,144.00 requested for

defense counsel’s preparation for and attendance at the January 17, 2006 motion hearing. The

court finds that only approximately one-third of that effort was devoted to the failure which was

the subject of the award in this court’s January 20, 2006 Order. Because this court also heard

Prater’s separate motion for protective order on the same day, defendants were spared the

expense of attending two separate motion hearings. Accordingly, they will only be awarded

one-half of $58.28 claimed for mileage and parking costs.

Finally, defendants will only be awarded one-half of their requested $348.50 for fees

incurred in preparing their initial declarations in support of this fees and costs award, and their

request for an additional $615.00 for fees incurred in preparing their reply brief is DENIED. 

Much of defendants’ efforts appear to have been devoted to their attempt to justify an award for

fees and costs which were outside the scope of the January 20, 2006 Order.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT Prater shall pay to defendants their

reasonable fees and costs in the amount of $1,787.552

 on or before February 27, 2006. See

Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225, 232 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] court may impose

attorney’s fees against a non-party as an exercise of the court’s inherent authority to impose 

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 209 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 5
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

sanctions to curb abusive litigation tactics”).

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 16, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 209 Filed 02/16/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

5:04-cv-1312 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. bbohn@bohnlaw.com, jodie@bohnlaw.com; info@bohnlaw.com 

John T. Burnite jtb@kelher.com 

John C. Ferry jferry@kelher.com 

Kenneth R. Friedman kfriedman@frwlaw.us 

Richard Henry Friedman rfriedman@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Michael G. Glanzberg mgg@kelher.com 

Thomas M. Herlihy herlihy@kelher.com 

Barbara L. Lyons blyons@cpsmlaw.com 

Jeffrey K. Rubin jrubin@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 209 Filed 02/16/06 Page 5 of 5