Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04250/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04250-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Small Business League
Plaintiff
United States Small Business Administration
Defendant

Document Text:

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 The Court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Robert E. Belshaw, Esq. in Support of

Motion forAttorneys Fees, docket #53, together with the copies ofbilling invoices attached to it, in evaluating

the fee request. References in this order to time spent or work done are taken from those documents. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-4250 SI

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES

AND COSTS

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) permits the court to “assess against the United States

reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which

the complainant has substantially prevailed.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(4)(E). In this action, plaintiff American Small

Business League substantially prevailed in its request for a document under FOIA and, on that account, seeks

the award of fees and costs.

Defendant does not dispute that plaintiffsubstantially prevailed. It does, however, urge the Court either

to exercise it discretion to deny fees because the government’s withholding ofthe draft report had a reasonable

basis in law, or to substantially reduce the amount offees to be awarded. (Deft’s Oppo. at 2.) The Court does

not find it appropriate to deny fees, but will reduce the amount requested based on its analysis of the billing

information submitted by plaintiff.1

Defendant objects to payment of fees for time spent on plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal, on

plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, on plaintiff’s second motion for Vaughn index and on dealings with the

press and press releases. 
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

 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Declaration was not filed until August 24, 2005, just two days before the

hearing on this motion and well after defendant’s opposition papers were filed. Hence, defendant had no

meaningful opportunity to respond to these invoices prior to the hearing. 

3

 Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Declarationwas filed August 25, 2005, one day before the hearing.

4

 The Court does not find $1876.06 to be negligible.

2

The Court finds that, for the most part, plaintiff’s counsel spent their time wisely and reasonably in

pursuing their client’sinterestsin this case. Plaintiff’s counsel were caused to spend some additional hours by

defendant’s request for additionalbriefing and a second hearing on the question ofproduction ofthe document,

after the April 1, 2005 hearing on the same question, and plaintiff should be fully compensated for this.

However, the Court agrees that certain matters should not be compensated at all, and certain should

be only partly compensated. The Court agrees that the time spent on the motion to set aside the dismissal was

not reasonably expended, and should not be reimbursed. Based on the invoices submitted, this amounts to

approximately $5,150, which will not be awarded. The Court rejects defendant’s contention that no fees

should be awarded for the time spent on the fee petition. However, the Court also finds that excessive time

was spent on thinking about, researching and drafting the fee award. The records reflect almost $15,000 spent

on the fee motion, much of it unnecessary. The Court will reduce this amount by one-half, or $7,500. The

Court rejects defendant’s argument that no fees should be awarded forthe second Vaughn motion. The Court

agrees that time spent merely on press releases or responding to press phone calls should not be compensated.

The records are murky on this matter, but appear to include $55 on 10/06/04, $55 on 11/15/04, $27.50 on

11/16/04, $90 on 2/08/05, and some amount on 6/17/05. The requested fees will be reduced by $250 to

compensate for these entries. Finally, at the oral argument plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the $2,000

“courtesy discount” issued on 3/07/05 should be reflected in the fee award, reducing it by $2,000. 

In his SupplementalDeclaration,2 plaintiff’s counselstates that he has “recalculated” the fees and costs,

and requests the award of $71,124.12 in “fees and costs.” In his Second Supplemental Declaration,3 he states

that costs and expensesincurred were “negligible,”and itemizesthemat $1876.06.4 By process of elimination,

this must mean that plaintiff seeks $69,248.06 in fees. 

As to the costs, the Court finds that the $1660.83 in “Westlaw legal research costs” should properly
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

 There was no serious challenge to the $300 per hour billing rate for Mr. Belshaw, or the $130 and

$120 per hour billing rates for contract attorney Cottingham and contract paralegal Schuster, respectively. 

3

be treated as overhead, not costs,5 so compensable costs will be reduced by that amount to $215.23. 

As to the $69,248.06 in requested fees, they will be reduced by $14,900.06 ($5,150 for the motion

to set aside, $7,500 for the excess time spent on the fee motion, $250 for time spent with the press, $2,000

for the “courtesy discount,” and $.06 on principle). This produces a fee award of $54,348, which the Court

finds to be reasonable in this matter.

Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded $54,348 in attorneys fees and $215.23 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005

 SUSAN

ILLSTON

United States District Judge
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 The Court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Robert E. Belshaw, Esq. in Support of

Motion forAttorneys Fees, docket #53, together with the copies ofbilling invoices attached to it, in evaluating

the fee request. References in this order to time spent or work done are taken from those documents. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-4250 SI

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES

AND COSTS

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) permits the court to “assess against the United States

reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which

the complainant has substantially prevailed.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(4)(E). In this action, plaintiff American Small

Business League substantially prevailed in its request for a document under FOIA and, on that account, seeks

the award of fees and costs.

Defendant does not dispute that plaintiffsubstantially prevailed. It does, however, urge the Court either

to exercise it discretion to deny fees because the government’s withholding ofthe draft report had a reasonable

basis in law, or to substantially reduce the amount offees to be awarded. (Deft’s Oppo. at 2.) The Court does

not find it appropriate to deny fees, but will reduce the amount requested based on its analysis of the billing

information submitted by plaintiff.1

Defendant objects to payment of fees for time spent on plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal, on

plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, on plaintiff’s second motion for Vaughn index and on dealings with the

press and press releases. 
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

 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Declaration was not filed until August 24, 2005, just two days before the

hearing on this motion and well after defendant’s opposition papers were filed. Hence, defendant had no

meaningful opportunity to respond to these invoices prior to the hearing. 

3

 Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Declarationwas filed August 25, 2005, one day before the hearing.

4

 The Court does not find $1876.06 to be negligible.

2

The Court finds that, for the most part, plaintiff’s counsel spent their time wisely and reasonably in

pursuing their client’sinterestsin this case. Plaintiff’s counsel were caused to spend some additional hours by

defendant’s request for additionalbriefing and a second hearing on the question ofproduction ofthe document,

after the April 1, 2005 hearing on the same question, and plaintiff should be fully compensated for this.

However, the Court agrees that certain matters should not be compensated at all, and certain should

be only partly compensated. The Court agrees that the time spent on the motion to set aside the dismissal was

not reasonably expended, and should not be reimbursed. Based on the invoices submitted, this amounts to

approximately $5,150, which will not be awarded. The Court rejects defendant’s contention that no fees

should be awarded for the time spent on the fee petition. However, the Court also finds that excessive time

was spent on thinking about, researching and drafting the fee award. The records reflect almost $15,000 spent

on the fee motion, much of it unnecessary. The Court will reduce this amount by one-half, or $7,500. The

Court rejects defendant’s argument that no fees should be awarded forthe second Vaughn motion. The Court

agrees that time spent merely on press releases or responding to press phone calls should not be compensated.

The records are murky on this matter, but appear to include $55 on 10/06/04, $55 on 11/15/04, $27.50 on

11/16/04, $90 on 2/08/05, and some amount on 6/17/05. The requested fees will be reduced by $250 to

compensate for these entries. Finally, at the oral argument plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the $2,000

“courtesy discount” issued on 3/07/05 should be reflected in the fee award, reducing it by $2,000. 

In his SupplementalDeclaration,2 plaintiff’s counselstates that he has “recalculated” the fees and costs,

and requests the award of $71,124.12 in “fees and costs.” In his Second Supplemental Declaration,3 he states

that costs and expensesincurred were “negligible,”and itemizesthemat $1876.06.4 By process of elimination,

this must mean that plaintiff seeks $69,248.06 in fees. 

As to the costs, the Court finds that the $1660.83 in “Westlaw legal research costs” should properly
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

 There was no serious challenge to the $300 per hour billing rate for Mr. Belshaw, or the $130 and

$120 per hour billing rates for contract attorney Cottingham and contract paralegal Schuster, respectively. 

3

be treated as overhead, not costs,5 so compensable costs will be reduced by that amount to $215.23. 

As to the $69,248.06 in requested fees, they will be reduced by $14,900.06 ($5,150 for the motion

to set aside, $7,500 for the excess time spent on the fee motion, $250 for time spent with the press, $2,000

for the “courtesy discount,” and $.06 on principle). This produces a fee award of $54,348, which the Court

finds to be reasonable in this matter.

Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded $54,348 in attorneys fees and $215.23 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005

 SUSAN

ILLSTON

United States District Judge