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

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., 

a United Kingdom corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER RE ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND COSTS

1. As recently held, both sides are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

2. The following procedure will be used to determine the amount of an award

herein. It will be structured to allow meaningful evaluation of the time expended. 

3. No later than JULY 29, 2010, counsel on both sides must file and serve a detailed

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

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 181 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 5
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

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

4. 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). 

5. 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. 

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 181 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 5
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

This cross-tabulation will help illuminate all timekeepers’ respective workloads and roles in the

overall case. 

6. The declarations 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. 

7. 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. 

8. If the opposing party doubts the accuracy of the declaration, then the moving

party must immediately produce the original underlying time records for inspection upon

request. The opposing party must then file and serve any opposition. In this case, the

opposition will be due FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after plaintiff’s and defendant’s detailed

declarations are filed. If the opposing party contends that any item or project was excessive,

then the opposition must explain why and provide a declaration setting forth completely all time

expended by the opposing party on the same and on similar projects, in the same format

described above, so that symmetry may be considered, making available the underlying records

for inspection if requested. If any billing rates are challenged, then the opposition must state the

billing rates charged to the opposing party for all professionals representing the opposing party

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 181 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

in the case and their experience levels. The opposing declaration must also state, as to each

project, the percentage of the project the opposition contends was directed at issues on which

fees are awardable, stating reasons for the percentage. This percentage should then be applied

against the project total to isolate the recoverable portion. 

9. The opposing submissions may not simply attack the numbers in the application. 

It must also set forth a counter-analysis. The counter-analysis should be in the same format

required of the applicant, arriving at a final number. The opposition must clearly identify each

line item in the application challenged as excessive, improper or otherwise unrecoverable and

explain why. The opposition, for example, may annotate (legible handwriting will be

acceptable) the applicant’s declaration to isolate the precise numbers at issue. 

10. With the benefit of both sides’ filings, representatives of the parties with final

decision authority shall meet in person and confer to try to resolve all differences as to the

amount. If no agreement is reached, the moving party must file and serve a declaration showing

full compliance with this paragraph, explaining when, where and who met, their decision

authority, how long they met, what documents were reviewed together, and the principal points

of disagreement. This must be done within 28 CALENDAR DAYS of the filing of movant’s

detailed declaration. 

11. If no agreement is reached, a special master shall be appointed. If the parties

cannot agree on a special master, then the Court shall select a special master. The parties must

so advise the Court on this within 28 CALENDAR DAYS of the filing of movant’s detailed

declaration. 

12. The special master shall have all the powers set forth in FRCP 53(c) and

FRCP 54(d)(2)(D). The parties shall provide the special master with copies of all motion

papers and other documents relevant to this dispute. The special master shall review the briefs

and declarations by the parties on the pending motion, hear argument, and then determine a

reasonable amount to award, including any fees on fees. The special master shall also

determine the extent to which any discovery should be permitted — with the caution that further

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 181 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 5
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

discovery should be the exception and not the rule. The special master shall then prepare and

file a report on recommended findings and amount. 

13. Absent any supplementation allowed by the special master, the foregoing

submissions (together with the briefs already filed) shall be the entire record for the motion. 

There will be no replies unless allowed later by the special master. Any further submissions for

the special master’s use should not be filed with the Court. If objections are later made to the

special master’s report, the objecting party must file a declaration submitting to the Court a

complete appendix of relevant communications with the special master. 

14. The Court will allocate the fees of the special master in a fair and reasonable

manner, taking into account the reasonableness of the parties’ respective positions and the

special master’s recommendation in this regard. The special master’s compensation shall be

deducted from the attorney’s fee award. The Court will, however, reserve final judgment on

allocation of the expense of the special master until a final determination of the fee issue. A

final award shall then be entered. 

15. Costs will be determined in strict compliance with the local rules. If a review is

sought regarding taxable costs, then the issue may also be referred to a special master (or may

not). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 181 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 5