Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00924/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00924-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:10cv924-MHT

) (WO) 

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Following discovery violations by defendant City of

Montgomery, this court ordered sanctions in the amount of

50 % of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees attributable

to the delay caused by the city’s conduct. Adams v. City

of Montgomery, 282 F.R.D. 627, 636 (M.D. Ala. 2012).

Because the parties have been unable to agree on a

reasonable fee, this court must determine the appropriate

amount. For the reasons given below, the court awards

plaintiff Willie Adams $ 20,406.20 in reasonable costs

and attorney’s fees.

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 14
1. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206,

1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit

adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the

former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of

business on September 30, 1981.

2

I. STANDARD FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

When awarding attorney’s fees, this court must first

calculate the “lodestar” fee: the product of the number

of hours reasonably expended to litigate the case and the

reasonable hourly rate for work performed by similarly

situated attorneys in the community. Norman v. Housing

Authority of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.

1988). After determining the lodestar, the court then

addresses whether the award should be adjusted upwards or

downwards. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’

Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565-66 (1986).

In conducting this inquiry, the court is guided by

the twelve factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway

Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).1 See

also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 (1983)

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 14
3

(endorsing the Johnson factors). These twelve factors

are: 

“(1) the time and labor required; (2)

the novelty and difficulty of the

questions; (3) the skill requisite to

perform the legal service properly; (4)

the preclusion of employment by the

attorney due to acceptance of the case;

(5) the customary fee; (6) whether the

fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time

limitations imposed by the client or the

circumstances; (8) the amount involved

and the results obtained; (9) the

experience, reputation, and ability of

the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’

of the case; (11) the nature and length

of the professional relationship with

the client; and (12) awards in similar

cases.” 

Id. at 430 n.3.

The fee applicant bears the burden of “establishing

entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and

hourly rates.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303. This burden

requires “specific and detailed evidence from which the

court can determine the reasonable hourly

rate[,] ... records to show the time spent on the

different claims, and the general subject matter of the

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 14
2. For a discussion of the merits, see Adams v. City

of Montgomery, 2012 WL 1414979 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2012),

and Adams v. City of Montgomery, 2012 WL 1952294 (M.D.

Ala. May 30, 2012).

4

time expenditures.” ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427

(11th Cir. 1999). A fee applicant must also exercise

“billing judgment” and exclude hours that are “excessive,

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S.

at 434.

II. BACKGROUND

An eleventh-hour discovery revelation forced the

continuation of the original trial date and precipitated

a protracted dispute about whether certain documents were

privileged and properly withheld. This court has already

provided a detailed account of the city’s discovery

violations. Adams v. City of Montgomery, 282 F.R.D. 627

(M.D. Ala. 2012).2

 In short, the court found that the

city had not provided Adams with a privilege log and had

improperly withheld certain documents (such as the signed

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 4 of 14
3. The court also found that some of the documents

withheld by the city were protected by the work-product

doctrine. However, the city failed to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)’s requirement to

supply a privilege log when withholding documents based

on a purported privilege.

5

witness statements).3

 In light of the city’s conduct, the

court ordered that:

“The city will pay Adams's reasonable

costs and attorneys' fees related to

[Walter] Lilley's deposition because the

city failed to notify Adams about

Lilley's role in the internal-affairs

investigation. The city will also pay

half of Adams's reasonable costs and

attorneys' fees for the six motions

addressed in this opinion (Doc. Nos. 80,

81, 83, 88, 90 & 94) as well as for the

evidentiary hearing of May 16, 2012.

The court finds that these sanctions are

appropriate because of the city's

initial failure to disclose the [Samuel]

Alexander documents, the non-privileged

Lilley documents, and the privilege log.

These sanctions are further appropriate

given the city's inconsistent positions

on whether the Alexander and Lilley

documents were disclosed in September

2011 and whether these documents were

privileged. The court, however, awards

only 50 % of Adams's reasonable costs

and attorneys' fees because Adams's

attorneys should have been more diligent

in noticing these discovery problems in

the fall of 2011 and brought them to the

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 5 of 14
4. Wilkinson originally submitted a time sheet with

a typographical error: 2.3 hours for work related to the

May 7, 2012, hearing instead of 12.3 hours. Wilkinson

subsequently corrected the record during the Johnson

hearing.

6

court's attention before the eve of

trial.”

Adams, 282 F.R.D. at 636. Accordingly, the sole issue

before the court is the reasonableness of Adams’s fee

request.

III. DISCUSSION

Adams’s attorneys request the following fee award:4

Attorney Hours Rate Total

Cynthia

Formean

Wilkinson

49.0 $ 375 $ 18,375.00

Alicia K.

Haynes

50.0 440 22,000.00

Karen

Cleveland

2.5 215 537.50

Paralegal 25.0 125 3,125.00

Costs N/A N/A 100.00

Total N/A N/A $ 44,137.50

50% of Total N/A N/A $ 22,068.75

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 6 of 14
7

While the jury was deliberating during the first

trial, the court conducted a hearing on the attorney’s

fees issue. The court’s discussion of reasonable hourly

rates, reasonable hours, and the Johnson factors is

informed by that hearing and evidence submitted on the

record.

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

“The rate of attorney’s fees is that of the place

where the case is filed.” Cullens v. Georgia Dep’t of

Transp., 29 F.3d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir. 1994). This case

was filed in Montgomery, Alabama, and “the court’s

determination of attorney’s fees must also be guided by

the prevailing market rate.” Simpleville Music v.

Mizell, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1163 (M.D. Ala. 2007)

(Thompson, J.).

At the Johnson hearing, Cynthia Foreman Wilkinson

testified that she has been practicing law since 1989 and

has worked in the labor and employment field for around

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 7 of 14
8

a decade. Alicia K. Haynes stated that she has been an

attorney for 25 years and has worked exclusively in labor

and employment law for the past two decades. Both

Wilkinson and Haynes testified that the other’s hourly

rate was reasonable. They also averred that their

associate’s (Karen Cleveland) and their paralegal’s rates

were reasonable. Adams’s attorneys have submitted

opinions in similar cases from across Alabama showing fee

awards in the range of their hourly rates.

The court finds that, notwithstanding Haynes’s

experience in the field of employment law, her hourly

rate is inflated. The court notes that Haynes is

charging rates more appropriate for Birmingham. Perhaps

because it is a much smaller city, Montgomery’s legal

rates are lower than Birmingham’s. To take one example:

“In this market, the Court has found the range of

$ 300.00 to $ 375.00 applicable for attorneys with over

20 years of experience. It also has found the applicable

range for attorneys with 10 years of experience at

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 8 of 14
9

$ 200.00 to $ 250.00, and the applicable range for an

attorney one to two years of experience at $ 160.00 to

$ 185.00.” Alfa Corp. v. Alfa Mortgage, Inc., 560 F.

Supp. 2d 1166, 1180 (M.D. Ala. 2008) (Watkins, J.); see

also Gaylor v. Comala Credit Union, 2012 WL 1987183, *3

(M.D. Ala. June 1, 2012) (Thompson, J.) (using the same

fee structure); Simpleville Music, 511 F. Supp. 2d at

1163 (same). 

As such, the court will reduce Haynes’s hourly rate

to $ 375. The court further finds that a $ 215 hourly

rate for a newly minted attorney (Cleveland) is

unreasonable and reduces her hourly rate to $ 185. The

court concludes that Wilkinson’s hourly rate of $ 375 and

the paralegal rate of $ 125 are reasonable.

B. Reasonable Hours

The city makes several objections to Adams’s fee

request. The city claims that Adams’s counsel are not

entitled to fees for a hearing conducted on May 7, 2012,

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 9 of 14
10

because that hearing fell outside the scope of the

court’s sanctions order. Although not explicitly

enumerated in the sanctions order, the May 7 hearing

addressed two of the six motions for which the court

awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The entire

purpose of the May 7 hearing was to sort out the rapidly

developing discovery dispute and decide whether a

continuation of the trial was necessary. As such, the

court finds that the May 7 hearing falls within its

sanctions order as work on two of the six motions

addressed in that opinion.

The city similarly believes that fees requested for

a response to the deposition of city investigator Walter

Lilley, Jr., are outside the court’s order. On this

point, the court’s sanctions order specifically

encompassed “reasonable costs and attorneys' fees related

to Lilley's deposition.” Adams, 282 F.R.D. at 636

(emphasis added). Haynes’s 1.5 hours for drafting a

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 10 of 14
11

response to the city’s deposition-related objection falls

within that language.

The city also alleges duplicate billing for work on

the same motions. To be sure, Adams’s counsel spent a

considerable amount of time on the discovery dispute. So

did this court. The city’s shifting legal and factual

positions necessitated a thorough investigation of the

record. The court finds no evidence of duplicate billing

given its own experience with this complicated discovery

dispute.

Finally, the city asserts Adams’s counsel billed too

much time for the May 16, 2012, hearing. Wilkinson and

Haynes billed 5.5 and 6 hours respectively. Court records

indicate the hearing lasted for one hour and 20 minutes.

After factoring in preparation time and the three-to-four

hour round-trip drive between Birmingham and Montgomery,

the court finds that Wilkinson’s and Haynes’s requests for

the May 16 hearing are reasonable.

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 11 of 14
5. The court also corrected the figure for costs due

to a rounding error in Adams’s attorneys’ submission.

Adams’s counsel requested a mileage rate of $ 0.555 for

180 miles, which is $ 99.90, not $ 100. 

12

C. The Johnson Factors

After adjusting for local hourly rates, the lodestar

figure is calculated as follows:5

Attorney Hours Rate Total

Wilkinson 49.0 $ 375 $ 18,375.00

Haynes 50.0 375 18,750.00

Cleveland 2.5 185 462.50

Paralegal 25.0 125 3,125.00

Costs N/A N/A 99.90

Total N/A N/A $ 40,812.40

50% of Total N/A N/A $ 20,406.20

Adams’s attorneys have submitted oral and written

evidence related to the Johnson factors. The court finds

that Wilkinson’s and Haynes’s skill and reputation, the

awards in other civil rights cases, and the contingent fee

arrangement point toward an increase in the lodestar

figure.

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 12 of 14
6. As the court detailed in its sanctions opinion,

“Adams’s attorneys should have recognized the city’s

discovery violations prior to May 2012.” Adams, 282

F.R.D. at 635. Specifically, Adams’s counsel should have

noticed irregularities in the Bates Stamped documents

that had been disclosed and uncovered the city’s failure

to turn over of the Alexander documents. Adams’s

counsel, however, are not at fault for their failure to

uncover the so-called Lilley documents given the city’s

failure to provide a privilege log or mention Lilley’s

existence.

13

However, the court concludes that Adams’s counsel’s

failure to uncover promptly some of the discovery

violations precludes an increase in the lodestar figure.6

Under the Johnson factors, the “results obtained” were

less impressive because of Adams’s attorneys’ delay. If

this dispute had been resolved earlier, the continuation

of the trial would have been unnecessary. Additionally,

the compressed nature of the discovery dispute

artificially increased other Johnson factors–-“the time

and labor required,” “the novelty and difficulty of the

[discovery] questions,” “the preclusion of employment by

the attorney due to acceptance of the case,” and the “time

limitations imposed ... by the circumstances”–-that would

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 13 of 14
7. Similar considerations factored into the court’s

sanctions decision to award only 50 % of reasonable

attorneys fees and costs.

normally mitigate in favor of an increase in the lodestar

figure. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 430 n.3. In other words,

the discovery dispute would have required far less time

and energy if it had been sorted out months before trial.7

* * *

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Willie

Adams’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. No. 120) is

granted and that attorney’s fees and costs in the amount

of $ 20,406.20 are awarded to plaintiff Adams from

defendant City of Montgomery.

DONE, this the 18th day of November, 2013.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 235 Filed 11/18/13 Page 14 of 14