Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER RE CLASS COUNSEL

AND RE TRIAL ISSUES

This order approves James C. Sturdevant and Mark T. Johnson as additional class

counsel based on the recently submitted materials. Counsel will be mindful of the need to be

efficient. In this regard, it has been the Court’s own experience, based on a quarter century of

trial work and six years on the bench, that a case of this size can be tried with two lawyers in the

courtroom and one paralegal plus one lawyer and one paralegal back at one office, during each

trial day. There will be times that more are needed and times that fewer are needed and times

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 456 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 3
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

that some of the courtroom personnel can be spared to work back at the office in preparation for

upcoming trial events. For purposes of attorney’s fees petitions, please be mindful of the

foregoing expectations.

Make sure that all time records are kept so as to be assembled later by “project.”

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. 

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

The inefficiencies in having two firms involved will have to be dealt with in any fee

petition. Mr. Wallace’s suggested practice of a “5-10 %” voluntary reduction may (or may not)

be enough to constitute “billing judgment.”

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 456 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 3
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

* * *

Two additional points.

All counsel should be aware that this entire case must be tried within a three-week

period. The Court is confident that this can be done if crisp examinations are the norm. The

press of other cases awaiting their own trial date does not afford us more time. Plan

accordingly.

Finally, if there is any single legal issue that both sides can agree on for an early

disposition (i.e., by early January), then the Court will try to set an expedited briefing schedule. 

Please confer and let the Court know by Thursday the 15th at noon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 456 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3