Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06493/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06493-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

MADHAV KAKANI, GENNADY BRIN

and RANJIV JAIN, on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ORACLE CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-06493 WHA

ORDER RE CLARIFICATION IN

ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Court has received Attorney Todd Schneider’s letter regarding the order granting

attorney’s fees. The letter is correct, the Court misunderstood how counsel arrived at their

lodestar of $399,745.50. The Court is now apprehensive, however, in awarding the yet larger

amount sought, at least without a detailed showing of how counsel arrived at their lodestar. If

counsel wishes to increase the amount beyond that already awarded in today’s order, then

counsel must submit, by JANUARY 3, 2008 AT NOON, declarations that break down the fees in

the following matter:

1. 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. 

Case 3:06-cv-06493-WHA Document 124 Filed 12/21/07 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

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 $170

0

01-12-01 RST Prepare for and take deposition 7.0 $200 $140

0

Project Total: 23.5 $4350

2. 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). 

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

the overall case. 

Case 3:06-cv-06493-WHA Document 124 Filed 12/21/07 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

4. 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. 

5. 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.

6. The breakdown should also include a detailed description of the amount of time 

and resources spent on preparing the collusive settlement rejected earlier in this litigation.

7. Please advise the Court by JANUARY 3, 2008 AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06493-WHA Document 124 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 3