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

ELIZABETH TACKABERRY and J.E.L., a

minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem,

Jovita Muñoz Lopez,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

SHERIFF GREGORY AHERN, individually

and in his official capacity, SANTA RITA

JAIL, CITY of LIVERMORE, LIVERMORE

POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE SWEENY,

in his official capacity and individually,

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC, and

DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05762 WHA

ORDER RE:

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The parties have reached an agreement to end this suit, to which a minor is a party. 

Settlement of a minor’s claim can only be completed with court approval, pursuant to Cal. Code

Civ. Proc. 372, and the parties accordingly seek such approval from the Court. Counsel for

plaintiffs have submitted attorneys’ fees sought in the form of a percentage of the settlement,

but have not accounted for their time spent in this proceeding. Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks 25% of

the settlement allotted to minor J.E.L., and 33% of the settlement allotted to Ms. Tackaberry.

Before the undersigned considers approval of the parties’ settlement, counsel for

plaintiffs must provide a meaningful accounting of their time spent in this matter. The

Case 3:08-cv-05762-WHA Document 71 Filed 06/17/10 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

following procedure must be used for any attorneys’ fees sought. It is structured to allow for a

thorough evaluation of time expended.

1. No later than JULY 17, 2010, plaintiffs’ attorneys must file and serve a detailed

declaration, organized by discrete projects, breaking down all attorney and paralegal time

sought to be recovered. 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

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

Case 3:08-cv-05762-WHA Document 71 Filed 06/17/10 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

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. 

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05762-WHA Document 71 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3