Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02258/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02258-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

cal 

1 02cv2258

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUNDANCE IMAGE TECHNOLOGY,

INC., a California corporation;

Plaintiff,

v.

CONE EDITIONS PRESS, LTD., a Vermont

corporation,

Defendants. 

and related cross-claims

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 02cv2258 B (AJB)

Order Setting Award of Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees 

[Doc. No. 436]

Per the Court’s Order dated October 16, 2006, Defendants’ submitted a memorandum and

supporting fee declaration and Plaintiffs’ submitted an Opposition thereto. Based upon the moving

papers and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby sets the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees

for Defendants Motion to Compel at $7,017.50. 

Discussion

Defendants’ seek $16,198.00 for a total of 58.7 hours of time incurred in bringing the Motion to

Compel Supplementation of 28 separate requests propounded upon the two Plaintiffs and preparation of

the supporting fee declaration requested by the Court. The 58.7 hours consists of 35.4 hours by Mr.

Sklar at a rate of $325 per hour; 1.6 hours by Mr. Price at a rate of $275 per hour; 18.3 hours by Mr. Luu

at a rate of $225 per hour; and 3.4 hours by a law clerk at a rate of $40 per hour.

Case 3:02-cv-02258-JM-AJB Document 455 Filed 12/05/06 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

27

28

1

 See Defendants’ Exh. 1 at 10-12, 15, and 17.

2

 Id. at 19.

3

 Id. at 20-21.

4 Id. at 23. 

2 02cv2258

Defendants’ argue that their respective usual hourly rates should be applied in calculating the fee

award, as opposed to the blended $175 per hour rate actually billed to the client, because the attorneys’

respective hourly rates are well within the range charged by attorneys in the Los Angeles area with

similar expertise. Alternatively, Dependants’ argue that the Court should apply an average hourly rate

of $281 per hour, which represents the average billing rate charged by attorneys in the Los Ageles area

according to an economic survey conducted in 2005. Defendants further request that the Court order the

fee award be paid forthwith.

Plaintiffs’ contend that the nearly 60 hours in attorney time requested by Defendants is excessive

for preparation of the 25 page motion, 9 page reply and 6 page fee declaration. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’

argue that the Defendants should be limited to the hourly rate of $175 per hour that Defendants actually

charged the client for preparation of the motion to compel. 

Upon review of the billing statements submitted by Defendants, as well as the arguments

presented by the parties, the Court finds the billable hours and amount requested by Defendants to be

excessive. Specifically, the Court finds hours billed by Defendants for the following to be unwaranted:

1) review of documents or responses produced by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants requests;1

 2) time

billed for the meet and confer process with opposing counsel;2

 and 3) telephone conferences with the

Court regarding scheduling,3 attendance and review of the Court’s order taking the motion under

submission.4 As such, the Court finds the 18.6 hours attributable to these items to be unreasonable and

unjustified, and, therefore, reduces the number of requested billable hours sought by the Defendants

accordingly to 40.1 hours. However, even at this reduced number of billable hours, Defendants are stilll

seeking nearly an hour of billable time per page for the motion (25 pages), reply (9 pages) and fee

declaration (6 pages). As such, the Court finds that the hourly rate of $175 per hour that was actually

billed to the client to be reasonable for the services rendered.

Case 3:02-cv-02258-JM-AJB Document 455 Filed 12/05/06 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

27

28

3 02cv2258

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby awards Defendants $7,017.50 in attorney fees

incurred in bringing the motion to compel. Plaintiffs’ request that the fee award be held in abeyance

until the conclusion of this case is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ shall tender the awarded fees to Defendants on

or before December 20, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2006

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:02-cv-02258-JM-AJB Document 455 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3