2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-19-2005 

# I n t e r f aith C omm O rg n v

. H oney wel l I n tl

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3702

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n t e r faith C omm Or gn v

. H oney w e l l I n tl " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 292. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/2921 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 3702

INT ERFA I TH CO MM UN I TY OR GANI ZA TI ON ; LA W RE NC E B AK ER ; MA RT HA W EB B H ERRING ; MA RG AR ET W EB B; RE V. W INS TO N C LA RK E;

MA RG AR I TA NA VA S

v. HONEYW ELL I NTERNATI ONAL, INC. f o rm erly kn o w n as A L L IE D S IGN A L , IN C .; R O N E D R E A L T Y O F JE R S E Y C IT Y , IN C .; R O N E D R E A L T Y O F UN IO N C IT Y , IN C .; W.R . G RA C E & C O M P AN Y ; E C A R G , IN C .;

W

. R. GRAC E, LT D. W.R . G RA C E & C O M P AN Y ; E C A R G , IN C .;

W.R . G RA C E , L T D ., D efen d a n ts/T h ird -P a rty P la in tiffs

v. H E L L E R -JE R S E Y C IT Y , L .L .C .; H O M E D E P O T , U .S .A .; S E A M AN F U R

N IT U R E C O M P AN Y , IN C ., T h ird -P a rty D efen d

a n ts H A C K E N S A C KR IV E R K E E P E R , IN C .; W I LL I AM SH EE HAN

v.2 HONEYW ELL I NTERNATI ONAL, INC. f /k/a A L L IE D S IGN A L , IN C .; R O N E D R E A L T Y O F JE R S E Y C IT Y , IN C .; R O N E D R E A L T Y O F UN IO N C IT Y , IN C .;

W

. R. GRAC E, LT D. H o n ey w ell In tern atio n al, In c.,

Appe l lant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt

for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. N os . 95- cv- 02097 & 00- cv- 01451) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e D enni s M

. C avana ugh

A r gued J une 30, 2005 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , B A R R Y , a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober 19, 2005) THOM AS H. M I LCH DANI E L A. CA NT OR ( AR GUE D) Ar n o l d & Po r t e r LLP 5 5 5 1 2 t h S t

. , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20004 RI CH AR D G

. TAR AN TO F a rr & T a ra n to 1 2 2 0 N i n e t e e n t h S t

. , N

. W. Sui t e 800 W as hi ngt on, D C 20036 DA VI D W

. FI ELD Low e ns t e i n Sa nd l e r PC 65 L i vi ngs t on A ve. R os el and, N J 070683 A tto rn e y s fo r Ap p e lla n ts B R U C E J. T E R R IS CA RO L YN S M I T H P RA VL I K KAT HL E E N L

. M I L L I AN ( AR GUE D) S A R A H A

. A D A MS L E M UE L B. T HOMAS Te r r i s , Pr a v l i k & M i l l i a n , LLP 1 1 2 1 1 2 t h S t

. , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 A t t or neys f

or Appel l ees , In ter fa ith C o m m u n ity O rg a n iza tio n , et a l. J OH N M

. AG NELLO C ar el l a, B y r ne, B ai n, G i l fi l l an, C ecc hi S tew a rt & O lste in 5 B ecke r Far m R oad R os el and, N J 07068 CHRI S TOP HER H. M ARRARO W al l ace , K i ng, M ar r ar o & B r ans on 1 0 5 0 T h o m a s J e f

f e r s o n S t r e e t , N

. W. Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D C 20007 A t t orneys f

or App el l ees, W .R . G ra c e & C o ., e t a l.

OP I NI ON

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge

. T h is case stem s f

ro m a law su it f

iledb y In terf aith C o mm u n ity O rg an izatio n (“IC O ”) ag ain st H o n ey w ell Inte rnat ional s ee king the c le anup of a heavily po ll uted ar ea4 al on g the bank s of the Hackensac k R iver in No rthern New J e r s e y . I CO pr e va i l e d at

tr i a l , and, a s ar e s ul t , m ove d for attorney fees pu rs uant to 42 U.S.C. § 6 97 2(e) . The Distri ct Co urt, afte r holding a heari ng on the m otion, awar ded ICO ov er $4. 5 m i l l i on i n fe e s . Hone y we l l now a

ppe a l s thi s awar d, r a i s i ng a n u m b er o f issu es. F irst, H o n ey

w ell arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredin awar di ng fe e s ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng m arke t r at e s i n W a s hi ngt on, DC , where ICO’s att orney s pra ct ic ed, r ather than in n orther n N ew Jersey , w h ere th e su it w as litig ated . We ag ree w ith Hone y we l l that , unde r

norm a l c i r c um s t anc e s , apr e va i l i ng party ’s attorney s s ho uld b e c om pensat ed base d o n m ar

ket r at es in th e v icin ag e o f

th e litig atio n . H o w ev er, if a p rev ailin g p arty c an s how that

i t r e qui r e d the part i c ul ar

e xpe rt i s e of c ouns e l fr om anothe r vi c i na ge , or

tha t l oc a l c ouns e l we r e unwi l l i ng t o t ake on the l i t i gat i on, the n i t

wi l l be e nt i t l e d t o c om

pe ns at i on ba s e d on prevai li ng rate s i n the comm un it y in wh ic h its attorney s pra ct ic e. T h e D istrict C o u rt co n clu d edth at IC O h adsatisf iedb o th of thes e e xcepti on s. Whil e we do n ot agre e that I CO sati sfie d the fir st exce ption, we ar e s at is fied that the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s fi ndi ng that

I CO ha d s at i s fi e d the s e c ond e xc e pt i on wa s not cl earl y er roneou s. We will ther efore affirm the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s deci si on to awar d com

pensat ion b as ed on prevai li ng m ar ket rates in Wash in g to n , D C . C o n co m itan tly , w e f in dth at IC O is enti tl ed to com

pensat ion f

or the travel t im e of its attorney s a s w ell as th e reaso n ab le f

ees o f its lo cal co u n sel. H o n ey w ell also sub m its th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredin its d eterm in atio n o f

p rev ailin g m ark et rates in Wash in g to n , D C

. Sp ec ific al ly , Hon ey

well contends that

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt erro n eo u sly

aw ard edco m

p en satio n b asedo n a m atrix o f h o u rly r at e s pr oduc e d by

I CO’ s att orne y s . W hi l e we que s t i on the a c c ur a c y of the m atr i x s up pl i e d b y

I CO ’ s att or

ne y s , we n o n eth eless co n clu d e th at th e D istrict C o u rt’s f in d in g in th is re gard was not cl earl y

er roneou s. Fo r this r ea son, we will affirm th e D istrict C o u rt’s d eterm in atio n o f th e ap p ro p riate h o u rly rates. I n a ddi t i on, Hone y we l l c ha l l e nge s s e ve r a l a s pe c t s of the fee awar d as e xces si ve or un ju st ifie d. Ho ney

well contends that ICO’s att orney s andit s e xp ert wit ness es devo te d too m any ho urs to a var ie ty

of ta sks, and that the Distri ct Co urt fai le d to con du ctA thor ough recita t i on of the fa c t s gi vi ng r i s e t o the 1 unde r l yi ng a c t i on c an be found i n our r e c e nt de c i s i on i n In terfa ith Co mm un it

y Organ iz ation v. Hon ey well Inte rn a ti on al, I

nc. , 399 F.3d24 8 (3 d C ir . 200 5) ( I COI ), ce rt. denie d , 125 S. Ct

. 2951 (200 5). 5 a s uf fici entl y thorou gh re view of

the hou rs cl ai m ed by

ICO’s attorney s andexpert

witnes se s. We agre e that the Distri ct C o u rt’s rev iew w as in ad equ ate, an dh en ce w e w ill v acate th o se a s pe c t s of the awar d c ha l l e nge d by Hone y we l l , and r e m and for fu rther procee ding s. We al so agre e that the fee re qu es t was ex cessiv e, b u t d o n o t qu an tif y o u r co n clu sio n o n th is p o in t, l e avi ng i t s r e s ol ut i on t o the Di s tr i c t Court on r e m and. H o n ey w ell ch allen g es th e D istrict C o u rt’s d ecisio n to aw ardf ees f o r th e co sts o f

o v ertim e an dtem

p o rary w o rk ers. W e c onc l ude that

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de c i s i on t o do s o wa s not an abuse of d is cr et ion, and w e wil l t here fo re affirm

that as pect of the award. Hon ey

well al so subm it s that the Distri ct Co urt e rr one ous l y

awar de d I CO c om

pe ns at i on for

t i m e s pe nt

by expert s who did n ot te st ify at tr ia l. Beca

use we c on cl ud e that th e relev an t statu te p erm its su ch aw ard s, w e rej ect th is co n ten tio n . H o n ey w ell arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt erro n eo u sly aw ar d e dI C O f

e e s f o r c e rt a i n t i m e s p e n t

b y i t s att o rn e ys li ti gati ng agai nst t

he other defendants in this suit . W e a gree wi th Hone y

we l l that the Di s tr i c t

Court fa i l e d t o de t e rm i ne w h eth er th e tim e in qu estio n w as actu ally relatedto IC O ’s su it a ga i ns t Hone y we l l , and wi l l the r e for e va c at e thi s a s pe c t of the aw ardan drem an df

o r f u rth er co n sid eratio n . F in ally , H o n ey w ell ch allen g es th e D istrict C o u rt’s d ecisio n to aw ardIC O n early $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 in p h o to co p yin g co sts b asedo n a rate o f tw en ty cen ts pe r pa ge . Be c aus e we c onc l ude that thi s r at e i s e xc e s s i ve , and b ecau se w e f

in dth at th e D istrict C o u rt d idn o t co n du ct a thorou gh re view of

the num ber of cop ie s c la im ed by

ICO’s att orne y s , we wi l l va c at e thi s port i on of the awar d and, a ga i n, rem an df o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s. I. Backgrou ndFact s andProcedural Hist ory 16 Mut ua l Che m i c a l Com

pany of Am e r i c a , at

one poi nt

the larg est ch ro m e m an u f

actu rer in th e w o rld , o p erateda p lan t in J e r s e y Ci ty , Ne w J e r s e y

fr om 1895 t o 1954. Dur i ng m uc h of thi s t i m e , Mut

ua l dum pe d i ndus tr i a l wa s t e r e s i due c ont a i ni ng hi ghc on c e ntr at i on s of

he xava l e nt

c hr om i um , akn ow n carc inog en, i n w et land s a long the banks of the Hac kensac k Ri ve r . Ove r

t i m e , Mut

ua l dum pe d ar ound 1. 5 m i l l i on t ons of wa s t e , whi c h ul t i m at e l y

de ve l ope d i nt o as e par at e l and m a s s “ 15 to 20 feet deep, on som e 34 acre s. ” I COI , 3 9 9 F .3 dat 2 5 2

. The dum pi ng e nde d i n 1954 whe n Mut ua l s ol d the pl ant

t o the A lliedC o rp o ratio n . A lliedw as later su cceed edb y A llied S ig n al, In c., an dth en b y

H o n ey w ell. N o sig n if

ican t ef f o rt w as m ad e to clean th e site f

o r alm o st th ree d ecad es. In 19 82 , the New Jers ey

Departm ent of E nv ir on m enta l Protec ti on (NJDEP ) i niti at ed effo rt s t o cle an up the s it e. Af te r a l ar ge l y uns uc c e s s ful att e m

pt t o fa s hi on at e m

por ary s ol ut i on, NJ DEP fi l e d s ui t

a ga i ns t Al l i e dSi gna l s e e ki ng t o for c e the c om pany t o t ake a c t i on. I n 1993, the part i e s a gr e e d t o ac ons e nt o rd er u n d er w h ich A llied S ig n al ag reedto p ay $ 6 0 m illio nto cl ean up the si te

. The c l e anup wa s s l ow i n ge tt i ng s t art e d. As ar e s ul t , I CO an df iv e resid en ts o f

th e su rro u n d in g co mm

u n ity b ro u g h t su it a ga i ns t Al l i e dSi gna l and s e ve r a l othe r de fe ndant s unde r

the c i t i z e n s ui t

pr ovi s i ons of the Re s our c e Cons e rvat i on and Re c ove ry Ac t ( RCRA) , 42 U. S. C. § 6972( a ) ( 1) ( B)

. Tha t s e c t i on perm it s i nd ividuals to bring suit a gainst any pers on “who has c ontr i but e d or

who i s c ontr i but i ng t o the pa s t or pr e s e nt handl i ng, s t or a ge , tr e atm e nt , tr ans port at i on, or di s pos a l of any s ol i d or ha z ar dous wa s t e whi c h m ay pr e s e nt an i mm i ne nt

and substantia l e nd angerm ent t o h ea lt h o r the environm ent. ” F o llo w in g a tw o -w eekb en ch trial, th e D istrict C o urt ru ledin f av o r o f IC O an dissu edan in

j u n ctio n requ irin g H o n ey w ell ( whi c h ha d s uc c e e de d Al l i e dSi gna l by tha t t i m e ) t o c l e an up the si te . A panel of this Cou rt affirm ed the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s d ecisio n , s e e I

COI , 399 F.3dat

25 2, and the Suprem e Cou rt de ni e d certio ra ri , se e Hon ey well Int’ l, Inc. v. Inte rf

aith Cm ty

. Or g. , 125 S. Ct. 295 1 (20 05 ). In it s opinion granti ng inju ncti ve re li ef, the Distri ct Co urt al so grante d ICO attorney fees pu rs uant to 42 U.S.C. § 6 97 2(e) , wh ic h p rovides that, in ac ti on s broug ht un der RCR A, the c ou rtO ne of t he i ni t i al defe ndant s w as E C A R G , a s ubs i di ar y of 2 W

. R

. G r ace & C o. , w hi ch ow ns par t of t he sit e. E C A R G fi l ed a su cc essf u l cross c lai m ag ains t H o n ey w ell , an d the D istri ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t E C A R G w a s the re f o re e n tit led to a tto rn e y f e e s a s w e ll. In t h e sam e op inion g ran ti n g IC O $ 4

. 5 m il li o n , the D ist ri ct C o u rt grant ed E C A R G ov er $7. 3 m i l l i on . T hat aw ard i s not before us. 7 “m ay awar d costs of

li ti gati on (i ncluding re as on able attorney an dex p ert w itn ess f

ees) to th e p rev ailin g o r sub stan tially prevai li ng party , whenever the c ou rt dete rm ines such an award i s a ppr opr i at e . ” I CO the n fi l e d aFe e Appl i c at i on s e e ki ng

2 r e i m bur s e m e nt

of $4, 706, 506. 09 i n fe e s ; i n as ubs e que nt fi l i ng, i t r e duc e d i t s r e que s t

t o $4, 587, 990. 22. Fol l owi ng e xt e ns i ve brie fing and a heari ng , the Distri ct Co urt fou ndthat

ICO w as en titledto $ 4 ,5 3 0 ,3 2 7 .0 0 in f ees. See I nter fait h C mty. Org. v. Ho neywel l I

nt’l , I nc. , 336 F. Supp . 2d 3 70 , 404 (D.N.J . 200 4) H o n ey w ell th en f

ileda tim ely

n o tice o f ap p eal. I I

. Appe l l at e Jur i s di c t i on The Di s tr i c t

Court pr ope r l y e xe r c i s e d jur i s di c t i on p u rsu an t to th e R C RA , 4 2 U .S .C . § 6 9 7 2 . T h e p arties sub m it that the Aug ust 26, 20 04 , order of the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

was a “final deci si on ” andthat

we ther efore m ay

exer ci se ju ri sdic ti on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w h ich g ran ts u s j u risd ictio n to rev iew “all fi na l de c i s i ons of the di s tr i c t c ourt s . ” A fe e awar d i s not ap p ealab le u n til it is redu cedto a d ef in ite am o u n t. See Polon sk i v. T ru m p T a j M a h a l A sso cs. , 1 3 7 F .3 d1 3 9 , 1 4 4 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Th er e i s no d is pu te that

the Aug ust 26, 20 04 , order re du ce d I CO’ s fe e awar d t o ade fi ni t e am ount for the pe r i od l e a di ng up to the ver dict

in this ca se . How ever , i n two subsequent orders date d A ug ust 30, 20 04 , andJune 15 , 200 5, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt gr ant e d I CO a ddi t i ona l fe e s t o c ove r the e xpe ns e s of l i t i ga t i ng th e f irst f ee ap p licatio n . In the Jun e 15, 20 05 , order , the Distri ct Co urt granted ICO an add it ional $36 2,50 5.44 in fees . Moreover, the Dis tr ic t C o u rt in d icatedin its A u g u st 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , o p in io n th at it w o u ld c ons i de r al at e r a ppl i c at i on for

fe e s r e l at i ng t o the c os t s of m on it oring the cl eanup. Th e quest ion thu s ari se s a s t o w hetherBy le tt er date d Aug ust 30 , 20 04 , ICO notifie d the Distri ct 3 Court that i t m a de am i nor

e rr or i n c a l c ul at i ng the fi na l fe e awar d. ( The Court

he l d that I CO wa s not

e nt i t l e d t o c om

pe ns atio n for $ 5 4 1 .0 8 relatin g to “lo cal trav el ex p en ses,” b u t it n eg lectedto dedu ct this am ou nt from

it s final awar d.) Ho ney

well sugg es ts that the Di s tr i c t

Court m ay have tr e at e d thi s l e tt e r a s am ot i on t o am e nd th e j u d g m en t p u rsu an t to Ru le 5 9 (e) o r a m o tio n to co rrect a clerical m istak e p u rsu an t to Ru le 6 0 (a), eith er o f w h ich m ig h t call in to qu estio n th e v alid ity o f th e n o tice o f ap p eal. See Fe d. R. App. P. 4(a) (4)( B)(i ). Ho wever, ther e i s no evidence i n the re cord that the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

constr ued ICO ’s le tt er

as a m otion u nd er

ei ther Rule 5 9 o r Ru le 60, s o we c onc l ude that i t i s not abar t o our j u r i s d i c t i on. B eca us e t he D i s t r i ct C our t does not appea r t o have act ed on t hi s l et t er , w e w i l l vaca t e t he por t i on of t he aw ar d r el at i ng t o t h e e r r o r n o t e d b y I CO

. 8 the s e l at e r

or de r s and de c l ar at i ons de pr i ve us of jur i s di c t i on, w h ich w e alw ay s h av e th e in d ep en d en t du ty to co n sid er. See Ri c hman Br os . Re c ords , I nc . v . U. S. Spr i nt

Communi c at i ons Co. , 953 F.2d14 31 , 144 6 (3dCir. 19 91 ). 3 The Court

of Appe a l s for

the Ni nth Ci r c ui t

a ddr e s s e d a s i m i l ar s e t of fa c t s i n Gates v . Rowland , 39 F .3d 1 43 9 (9th C ir

. 19 94 ). In concluding that it had j uris dict ion o ver a

part ia l fee awar d, that

Court obs e rve d: Th e fact s wei gh in favo r of review now . Legal i s s ue s de t e rm i ne d at

thi s s t a ge wi l l s m ooth the proces s for fu ture awar ds. The fees orders ar e f in al, an dth e d ef

en d an ts m

u st p ay th e p lain tif

f s’ coun se l. Th e c om

pliance peri odhas not been lim itedto a d ef

in ite tim e f

ram e, th u s rev iew co u ld be po s t po ne d f or m any y e ar s , i f n ot

gr ant e d n ow . The de fe ndant s s ugge s t

tha t the pe r i odi c m ot i ons b ef o re th e d istrict co u rt co u ldb e g ro up edan n u ally fo r possi ble a

pp ea ls . W e e ncou ra ge the dis tr ic t court t o g roup the m otions in som e s uch m anner. Ho wever, we ho ld that

the c la im pres entl y befo re us is re viewable

.W e r ece nt l y di s t i ngui s hed G at es i n In re D iet D rug s P ro d s. 4 L ia b . L it. , 4 0 1 F .3 d 143, 157 ( 3d Ci r . 2005)

. I n Di e t Dr ugs , we not e d that

“ futur e a djus tm e nt s ( i f any) to th e [fe e awar d be i ng ap p ealed ] w ill in clu d e serv ices th at h av e b een p erf o rm edas w ell as those t o b e per fo rm ed in the future. ” I d. at 1 5 7 n .2 4 . S u ch is n o t th e case h ere, as th e A u g u st 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , o rd er d ef in itiv ely r e s ol ve d I CO’ s fe e r e que s t for the pe r i od i n que s t i on. To fix the si ze of

a p re vail ing p arty ’s fee awar d, a c ou rt 5 m u s t d e t e rm i n e th e a

p p r o p r i at e b i l l i n g r at e f

o r th e p arty’ s att o rn e ys as w ell as th e n u m

b er o f h o u rs th o se atto rn e y s reaso n ab ly ex p en d edo n th e actio n . Se e Blum v . Ste ns on , 465 U. S. 886, 888 9 I d. at 14 50 . W e are pers uaded b y this logic. In a c om

plex 4 en v iro n m en tal actio n su ch as th is, m o n ito rin g w ill lik ely c ont i nue we l l i nt o the futur e . W e r e we t o c onc l ude tha t § 1291 bars ju ri sdic ti on ov er

awar ds such as this , we wou ld delay m e ani ngful a

ppe l l at e r e vi e w for

y e ar s i f not

de c a de s . Suc h a ho lding w ou ld contravene the Sup re m e Cou rt ’s adm on it ion that “the re qu ir em ent of f

inal it y is to be given a ‘prac ti ca l r ather than a t ec hn ic al constr

ucti on .’ ” Gi l les

pi e v . Uni te d States Ste e l Cor p. , 37 9 U .S. 148 , 152 (196 4) (c it at ion o m itte d). W e the r e for e c onc l ude that , i n a c om pl e x and ongoi ng actio n su ch as th is, § 1 2 9 1 sh o u ldn o t act as a b ar to o u r ex ercise of jur i s di c t i on ove r

afe e awar d whi c h r e s ol ve s a l l fe e c l a i m s for the pe r i od l e a di ng up t o ave r di c t

. I n s o hol di ng, we do not d ecid e w h eth er w e w ill h av e j urisd ictio n o v er an y p o ssib le a ppe a l s fr om

futur e fe e awar ds , but

not e our a gr e e m e nt

wi th the s e nt i m e nt e xpr e s s e d i n Ga tes that

a dis tr ic t c ou rt

is well -a dv is ed to g ro up su ch aw ard s so as to allo w f o r m ean in g f

u l ap p ellate r e vi e w. III. T h e A p p ro p riate H o u rly R ate: T h e F o ru m

Ru le an dits Exc e pt i ons A. I ntr oduc t i on The ge ne r a l jur i s pr

ude nc e gove rni ng the c a l c ul at i on of an aw ardo f

atto rn ey f ees an dth e stan d ardo f

ap p ellate rev iew is fam il iar, and w e s umm ar iz e i t i n the m ar gin. What is le ss cl ear 5( 1984) ( c i t i ng H en sley v. E ckerh a rt , 4 6 1 U

. S. 424 ( 1983) )

. The pr oduc t of an att orne y ’ s hour l y

r at e and the num

be r of hour s s pe nt is re ferr ed to as the “ lo d es ta r.” S ee, e.g ., Stu d

en t P u b . In terest Res e arc h Gr oup v . AT & T Be l l L a b s. , 842 F. 2d 1436, 1441 ( 3d Cir. 19 88 ) ( “ SP

I RG ”); se e als o P ennsyl

vania v. Delaw are Valle

y C itizen s’ Co u n cil fo r Clea n A ir , 478 U.S. 54 6 (19 86 ). A party s e e ki ng att orne y fe e s be ar s the ul t i m at e bur de n of show ing that it s request ed ho urly rate s and the h ou rs it cl ai m s are reaso n ab le. S

ee R o d e v. D ella rcip rete , 892 F. 2d 11 7 7 , 1 1 8 3 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). T o in itially satisf y th is b u rd en , “th e f

ee p etitio n er m

u st ‘s ub m it evidence supp orti ng the hou rs wo rked a nd r at e s c l a i m ed.’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Hensle

y , 461 U. S. at

433)

. If it w i s he s t o c ha l l e nge the fe e awar d, the oppos i ng par ty m us t the n obje c t

“ wi th s uffi c i e nt sp ecif icity” t o t h e r e qu est. Id . Once the op po si ng party has obje c t e d, the party

req ue s t i ng fe e s m

us t de m ons tr at e t o the sati sfac ti on of

the c ou rt

that it s f ee request

is re as on able . I n re viewing a fee applic at ion, a dis tr ic t c ou rt m u st co n d uct “ a th o ro u g h an dsearch in g an aly sis. ” Eva n s v. P o rt A u th

. o f N .Y . & N.J. , 2 7 3 F .3 d3 4 6 , 3 6 2 (3 dC i r . 2 0 0 1 )

. S u ch an an aly sis is essen tial, f

o r w ith o u t it w e can n o t en g ag e in m ean in g f u l ap p ellate r e vi e w. On appeal , we review a dist ri ct court’ s g rant of a fee award f o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n . Se e Rode , 892 F. 2d at 1182. I n doi ng s o, w e w ill n o t u p s et a d istrict co u rt’s f actu al d eterm in atio n s, in clu d in g its d eterm in atio n o f an atto rn ey ’s reaso n ab le h o urly rate and the nu m

ber of ho urs he or she r ea sonably wo rked on the c as e, u n less w e f

in dth em to b e clearly

erro n eo u s. Ev ans , 2 7 3 F.3dat 358. Howe ve r , we s ubje c t the l e ga l s t and ard emp l oy e d by the d istrict co u rt in calcu latin g th ese v alu es to p len ary rev iew

. Id

.
10 f ro m th is j u risp ru d en ce is th e qu estio n cen tral to th is ap p eal, wh i c h i s wh e the r

c ourt s s ho ul d awar d f

e e s t o o ut

- of

- t ow n c ouns e l ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng hour l y r at e s i n the for

um of the li ti gati on or those i n the vici nage in wh ic h the fee appli cant’s att or ne y s pr a c t i c e l aw. The Di s tr i c t

Court c onc l ude d tha t

I CO’ s att orne y s , who did n ot char ge the organizati on fo r their se rvic es , wer e e ntit le d t o c om pe ns at i on ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng r at e s i n W a s hi ngt on, DC,I r oni cal l y , t he at t or neyfee appl i cant i n S PI RG w as al s o t he 6 Te r r i s f i r m. 11 whe r e the y

pr a c t i c e d, r athe r

than i n northe rn Ne w J e r s e y , the li ti gati on fo rum . Hon ey

well contends that

this conclusi on was erro n eo u s. B . T h e R elev an t M ark et; T h e F o ru m R ate Ru le ICO w as re pres ente d at tri al by Terr is , Pravlik & Mil li an (“th e T erris f

irm ” o r “T erris”), a Wash in g to n , D C p ub lic-in terest fi rm that s pe c i a l i z e s i n c om

pl e x e nvi r onm e nt a l c a s e s . W e have h eldth at p ub lic-in terest law f irm s th at ty

p ically ch arg e clien ts b elo w -m ark et f

ees, o r n o f

ees at all, are n o n eth eless en titledto c om pe ns at i on ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng m arke t r at e s i n the r e l e vant co mm u n ity

. Stu d

e n t P u b

. I n te r es t R es e a rc h G r o u

p v . A T & T B ell L a b s. , 842 F.2d14 36 , 144 8 (3dCir. 19 88 ) ( “ SP I RG ”)

. In

6 SP I RG , we c on cl ud ed that

this rule (the “Comm

un it y Market Rat e ” r ul e ) r e pr e s e nt e d “ the be s t c om pr om i s e am ong the co n f lictin g p o licies b eh in dth e f ee sh if tin g statu tes” an dth at it was “ the s im

ples t, m ost workable r

ule [avai la

ble].” I d. Wh at SP I RGdi d n ot

r e s ol ve , ho we ve r , wa s ho w w e c hoos e the “ r e l e vant

c omm uni ty” for pur pos e s of de t e rm i ni ng th e ap p ro p riate b illin g rate f o r a p ub lic in terest law f

irm . In th is c a s e , the r e ar e two obvi ous c hoi c e s : W a s hi ngt on, DC, whe r e the Te rr i s fi rm

i s l oc at e d, or

northe rn Ne w J e r s e y , whe r e the unde r l yi ng s ui t

wa s l i t i gat e d. Two de c a de s a go, we c omm i s s i one d aTa s k For c e on c ourt

- awar de d att orne y

fe e s tha t a ddr e s s e d thi s and num e r ous othe r que s t i ons . The Ta s k For c e r e c omm e nde d that we a dopt th e “f o ru m rate” ru le, w h ereb y

an “o u t-o f

-to w n law y er w o u ld re ce ive not the hou rl y

rate pres cr ibed by

his dis tr ic t but rather th e h o u rly

rate p rev ailin g in th e f

o ru m in w h ich th e litig atio n is lodg ed.” R ep o rt o

f th e T h ird C ircu it T a sk F o rce o n Co u rt Aw arded A ttorney Fees , 1 0 8 F .R .D . 2 3 7 , 2 6 1 (1 9 8 5 ). T h e T ask Fo rc e r ec omm ended that deviati on from this rule be perm itte d

“ o n l y w h e n th e n e e df

o r ‘ th e s p e c i a l e x p e rt i s e o f

c o u n s e l f r o m a d istan t d istrict’ is sh o w n o r w h en lo cal co u n sel are u n w illin g to hand le the c as e. ” Id . ( fo otno te om itte d).12 I n r e c om m e ndi ng tha t

we a dopt the for um r at e r ul e , the Task Fo rc e obser

ved that i t was “c on tr ar

y to curr ent Third Circ uit pra ct ic es ,” id

. , c i t i ng our de c i s i ons i n Cu nn ingh am v. C ity o f M cK eesp o rt , 753 F. 2d 262, 267 ( 3d Ci r . 1985) and In re Fi ne Pape r

Ant i tr us t Li t i gat i on , 751 F.2d56 2, 59 0-91 (3d C ir

. 1984)

. I n Fine Pa

per , we r evie wed a decis ion b y the Dis tr ic t Co urt for the Eas te rn Distri ct of Penn sylvania

to awar d att orney fe e s ba s e d on athr e e - t i e r e d hour l y r at e s tr uc t ur e whi c h di d not tak e in to acco u n t th e m ark et in w h ich th e atto rn ey actu ally p racticed

. See 98 F. R. D. at 83. W e r e ve r s e d, fi ndi ng that “ the a ppr oa c h t ake n by

the tr i a l c ourt

i n thi s c a s e , of a

ppl yi ng hy pothe t i c a l nat i ona l r at e s t o a l l att orne y s , r e gar dl e s s of the m ar ket r at e they

wo uld comm and in the comm un it y in wh ic h they prac ti ce , was le gal e rr or.” 75 1 F .2d at 591 . W e further obs e rve d: Our pr e m i s e ha s be e n tha t

the r e a s onabl e va l ue of an atto rn ey ’s tim e is th e p rice th at tim e n o rm ally co mm an d s in th e m ark etp lace f o r leg al serv ices in whi c h thos e s e rvi c e s ar e offe r e d. Id . at 5 9 0

. Th e l ocution “the m ar

ketpla ce fo r l egal se rvic es in wh ic h thos e s e rvi c e s ar e offe r e d” i s s om e wha t opa que , and, i n the wake of Fine Pa

per , p an els o f

th is C o u rt h av e, co n sisten t w ith th e T askF o rce’s reco mm en d atio n s, ap p liedth e f o ru m rate ru le. I n P u b lic In terest R esea rch G ro u p v. Win d a ll (“PI RG ” ) , we co n clu d edth at Fine Pa

per and othe r

r e l e vant c a s e s di d not “estab lish [ ] a p er se r

ul e i n favor

of the m arke t

r at e for the c omm uni ty i n whi c h the l aw fi rm

i s l oc at e d. I nde e d, we thi nk th ese cases esch ew an y

rig idru le.” 51 F. 3d 1179, 1186 n. 9 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); s e e SP

I RG , 842 F. 2d at

1442 n. 4 ( “ Thi s opi ni on shou ld no t be c on strued, how ever , a s e nd orsi ng a fee bas ed upon an out s i de m arke t

r at e at var i anc e wi th the m arke t r at e of the s i t e of the l i t i gat i on, for we do not

r e a c h that

i s s ue . ” )

. I n no ca se si nce the Task Fo rc e Report was is sued have we set as ide a deci si on em

ploying the fo rum

rate rule on the groun d that e ar li er de c i s i ons r e qui r e c ourt s t o awar d fe e s on the ba s i s of pr e va i l i ng rates in th e co mm

u n ity in w h ich th e atto rn ey

p ractices. IC O n o n eth eless arg u es th at Fine Pa per he l d that the13 relev an t co mm

u n ity f o r d eterm in in g an atto rn ey ’s b illin g rate is whe r e the att orne y

pr a c t i c e s , not

the l oc us of the l i t i gat i on. Thus , t o the e xt e nt

that the s e l at e r

c a s e s c onfl i c t

wi th our hol di ng i n Fine Pa

per , IC O claim s th at th ey im p erm issib ly attem p tedto o v erru le th at earlier d ecisio n . It is w ell settledin thi s Ci r c ui t

that athr e e - judge pane l m ay

not ove rr ul e ade c i s i on b y an earlier p an el. See Thi r d Ci r c ui t I nt e rna l Ope r at i ng P ro cedu re 9 .1 ; O

. H

om m el C o. v. F er r o C or

p. , 659 F. 2d 340, 3 5 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ). T h u s, if IC O is co rrect th at Fine Pa per h eld th at w e lo o kto an atto rn ey ’s p lace o f b u sin ess to d eterm in e h is or he r hour l y r at e , the n we m

us t fol l ow that

de c i s i on. W e do not th in kth at it so h o ld s. A s n o tedab o v e, Fine Pa

per held that it was e rr or fo r a d istrict co u rt to ap p ly

“h y p o th etical n atio n al rates” in d eterm in in g th e size o f

a f ee aw ard . T h u s, Fine Pa

per doe s not answer the quest ion w e a dd re ss today , which is wh ether a court s h o u l dl o o kt o p r e v a i l i n g r at e s i n th e att o rn e y ’ s h o me c omm uni ty or the l oc us of the l i t i gat i on i n de t e rm i ni ng the approp ri at e c om

pensat ion f

or an ou t- of

-t ow n att orney . W e ag ree w ith th e T askF o rce th at, in m o st cases, th e relev an t rate is the pre vail ing rat e i n the fo rum of the l it igat ion. We ther efore ho ld that dist ri ct courts in the Third Circ uit s ho uld award att orne y fe e s ba s e d on the “ for

um r at e ” r ul e a s s e t forth i n the T askF o rce R ep o rt. As not e d above , the for

um r at e r ul e r e c omm e nde d by

the Ta s k For c e c ont a i ns two e xc e pt i ons : fi r s t , “ whe n the ne e d for ‘th e sp ecial ex p ertise o f

co u n sel f ro m a d istan t d istrict’ is sh o w n ”; an d , seco n d , “w h en lo cal co u n sel are u n w illin g to handl e the c a s e . ” 108 F. R. D. at 261 ( footnot e om i tt e d)

. Both of thes e e xcepti on s are se nsible . Thu s, wh en a part y ca n sho w that it qu al ifie s for ei ther

exce ption, the Cou rt

m ay awar d att orney fe e s ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng r at e s i n the c omm uni ty i n whi c h the part i e s ’ att orne y s pr a c t i c e . The Di s tr i c t Court he l d that I CO s at i s fi e d both e xc e pt i ons , and i t the r e for e awar de d fe e s ba s e d on prevai li ng rate s i n Was hing ton, DC . W e now turn to this is sue.

C . E x cep tio n s to th e F o ru m R ate Ru le T h e D istrict C o u rt f

o u n dth at IC O h adsh o w n th at it r e qui r e d the e xpe rt i s e of the Te rr i s fi rm and that , m or e ove r , no14 f irm in n o rth ern N ew Jersey

w o u ldh av e b een w illin g to r e p r e s e n t I C O i n i t s a c t i o n a g a i n s t H o n e yw e l l

. A d e c i s i o n b y a di s tr i c t c ourt that aparty qua l i fi e s for

one or both of the exce ptions to the forum

rate rule is a fact

ual finding that

we m ay no t up s e t un l e s s we fi ndi t

t o b e c l e ar l y

e rr on e ou s ; ho we ve r , we will no t a ff

ir m if the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

fail ed to m ake the neces sary f actu al f in d in g s. 1 . Wh eth er IC O d em o n strateda n eedf o r “th e sp ecial ex p ertise o f co u n sel f ro m a d istan t d istrict” T h e D istrict C o u rt’s d iscu ssio n o f th e f irst ex cep tio n is extr em el y brie f. It no te d that Ter

ri s had exte nsive e xp er ie nce li ti gati ng si m il ar

environm enta l s uits , andthat al l other part ie s i nvol ve d r e t a i ne d W a s hi ngt on, DC c ouns e l

. Ye t i n s o doi ng, the Di s tr i c t Cour t fa i l e d t o a ddr e s s the pr e c i s e i s s ue , nam e l y the exte nt to wh ic h o ther

coun se l pra ct ic ing in n orther n N ew Je rs ey di d or di d not pos s e s s “ s pe c i a l e xpe rt i s e ” i n or de r t o r e pr e s e nt ICO. Th e fact

that Terr is was s uite d to such repres entati on do es n o t im p ly th at f irm s f ro m n o rth ern N ew Jersey

w ere n o t. Si m i l ar l y , the fa c t

that a l l part i e s r e t a i ne d c ouns e l fr om Wa shington , DC is not dire ct ly re le vant to the quest ion w hether Ne w J e r s e y

c ouns e l ha d the ne c e s s ary e xpe rt i s e t o r e pr e s e nt I CO; i nde e d, a s Hone y

we l l not e s , i t s tr i a l c ouns e l wa s fr om N ew Jersey

. Th e r ec ord is devoid o f any evidence that

ICO con du ct ed a sig n if ican t search f

o r co u n sel w ith th e ab ility to h an d le th is ca se . Acc ording to an affidavit fil ed by Jose ph Mo rr is , I CO ’s L e a dO r g an i z e r , I C O c o n t a c t e dav e ry s m a l l n u m b e r o f att o rn e ys as p art o f its ef f o rts to retain co u n sel in a co g n ate case, ICO v. Shi nn . Morri s’ s a ff

idavit re coun te d that he a

pp roac hed andwas t urne d down by

Chr i s t ophe r

Pl a c i t e l l aof W i l e nt z , Gol dm an & S p itzer; F ath er E u g en e S qu eo o f S ch iller S qu eo an dH artn ett; Edwar d Ll oyd of the Rut ge r s Envi r onm e nt a l Law Cl i ni c , who s e rve d a s I CO’ s l oc a l c ouns e l i n thi s c a s e ; Char l e s W arr e n of Be r l e Ka s s and Ca s e i n Ne w York Ci ty ; and Bar bar aOl s hans ky o f th e E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e f

e n s e F u n di n N e w Y o rkC i ty. Given that there ar e hun dreds of f ir m s i n n orther

n N ew J e r s e y that i de nt i fy the m s e l ve s a s pr a c t i c i ng e nv i r on m e nt a l l aw, we do no t thi nk that s uc h a s e ar c h i s a de qu at e t o j us t i fyH oney w el l ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t appl i ed an 7 in c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd in “ h o ld in g th a t a f e e a p p lica n t ca n m e e t it s bur den of pr ov i ng t he unava i l abi l i t y of for um couns el w her e t he fee appl i cant has m ade no a t t empt t o r et ai n for um couns el i n t he cas e at i s s ue” a nd t hat w e t her efor e may exer ci s e de novo r e v i e w. W e d isag ree . T h e D ist ri ct C o u rt ap p li ed the pro p er leg al st an d ard i n t hat i t focus ed i t s anal y s i s on w het her ICO h ad show n that “ loca l c ou n se l ar e unwi l l i ng t o handl e the c a s e . ” I n c ha l l e ngi ng the D istrict C o urt’s relian ce o n th e M o rris A f f id av it, H o n ey

w ell is, in es se nce, chal le ng ing t

he Distri ct

Co urt’ s wei gh ing o f the evidence i n m aki ng afa c t

ua l de t e rm i nat i on.

15 c onc l udi ng that

I CO ne e de d t o t

urn t o Te rr i s be c aus e no att orne y i n the r e gi on ha d the ne c e s s ary e xpe rt i s e t o r e pr e s e nt IC O in th is actio n . In d eed , w e w o u ldh av e g reat d if f icu lty in a c c e pt i ng that

no att orne y

i n northe rn Ne w J e r s e y

pos s e s s e d the abil it y —as opp osed to the wil li ng ness —to h andle a ca se such as th is. We th eref

o re ag ree w ith H o n ey

w ell th at IC O f

ailedto m ak e th e n ecessary

sh o w in g , an dth at th e D istrict C o u rt f ailedto m ake the ne c e s s ary

fi ndi ng, that

no l oc a l c ouns e l ha d the e xpe rt i s e ne c e s s ary

t o r e pr e s e nt

I CO. W e thus c annot

a ffi rm the D istrict C o u rt’s co n clu sio n th at IC O qu alif iedf o r th e f irst e xc e pt i on. 2 . Wh eth er IC O d em o n stratedth at lo cal co u n sel were “unw il li ng to hand le the c as e” In contra st , the Distri ct

Co urt did m ake the prop er f in d in g w ith reg ardto th e seco n dex cep tio n , an dw e w ill ther efore re view this dete rm inat ion f or cl ea r e rr or. In

7 concluding that

ICO h ad show n that l ocal coun se l wer e “unw il li ng to hand le the c as e, ” the Distri ct Co urt r el ie d pr i m ar i l y on the Morr i s a ffi davi t , whi c h r e c ount e d the or gani z at i on’ s e ffort s t o fi nd c ouns e l i n Shi nn , a lawsuit fil ed a ga i ns t var i ous s t at e offi c i a l s i n an e ffort t o c om pe l gove rnm e nt ac ti on to cl ean up chrom ium po ll ution in H ud son C ou nty , New J e r s e y . As di s c us s e d su

p ra , Morri s s tate d that I CO contac te d at l e a s t fi ve att orne y s i n northe rn Ne w J e r s e y and Ne w York, a l l of wh om decl ined to take on the c as e.I CO ar gue s that i t s e ffort s t o r e c r ui t c ouns e l i n Shi nn were 8 p ar t o f a larg er ef

f o rt to o b tain co u n sel to rep resen t it insu its s e e ki ng t o c l e an up c hr om i um pol l ut i on i n Huds on Coun ty , and that the s e e ffort s we r e not

l i m i t e d t o Shi nn . Whil e i t c on ce des that Terr is partner Bruce Ter

ri s a dm itte d at ora l argu men t th at ICO’s e ffort s we r e l i m i t e d t o Shi nn , i t c l a i m s that

he “ m i s-s poke

. ” The Di s tr i c t Court found that I CO’ s e ar l i e r e ffort s we r e l i m i t e d t o the Shi nn c a s e and not

part of a br oa de r e ffort

. Be c aus e we c onc l ude that the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s c onc l us i on tha t I CO s at i s fi e d the s e c ond ex ce pt i on wa s not

c l e ar l y e rr one ous , we ne e d not a ddr e s s th is que s t i on. 16 M o rris’s af

f id av it statedth at h e d idn o t recall th e sp ecif ic jus t i fi c at i ons gi ve n by

the att orne y s for

de c l i ni ng t o r e pr e s e nt th e o rg an izatio n , b u t it d idlist h is “g en eral im p ressio n s” o f

th eir r e a s ons : “ the c a s e s i nvol ve d t oo m uc h pol i t i c a l r i s k ( Gove rnor Fl or i o woul d be anam e d de fe ndant ) , or t oo m uc h i nt e ns i ve f actu al w o rk , o r to o u n f

am iliar leg al terrain . S in ce IC O co u ld n o t af f o rdto p ay

atto rn ey ’s f

ees o r co sts, th e f

irm s also ex p ressedco n cern o v er ab so rb in g th e co sts asso ciatedw ith l i t i gat i ng ac a s e whi c h the y fe ar e d m i ght

be c om e ve ry

l ar ge and ex p en siv e.” As ar e s ul t

of i t s i nabi l i ty

t o fi nd r e pr e s e nt at i on, I CO fi l e d Shi nn p ro se. Aft e r

i t be c am e c l e ar

tha t i t c oul d not p r o c e e do n th at

b a s i s , th e o r g an i z at i o n c o n t a c t e dth e T e rr i s f i rm, w h ich ag reedto tak e o n th e case. S o o n af ter it ag reedto r e pr e s e nt I CO i n Shi nn , T erris ag reedto rep resen t IC O in th is a c t i on. 8 T h e D istrict C o u rt reliedp rim arily o n M o rris’s af

f id av it in concluding that

ICO h ad show n that l ocal coun se l wer e u n w illin g to rep resen t it inth is actio n . In ad d itio n , T erris p o in ts t o an a ffi davi t

fr om Edwar d Ll oyd, who pr e vi ous l y s e rve d a s the di r e c t or of the Envi r onm e nt a l Law Cl i ni c at Rut ge r s Sc hool of Law and a c t e d a s l oc a l c ouns e l for Te rr i s . Ll oyd s t at e d: 11. At the t i m e thi s s ui t

wa s i ni t i at e d, I wa s not aw are o f an y atto rn ey s o r law f

irm s w h o w o u ld have be e n wi l l i ng t o a s s um e the r i s ks of l i t i ga t i ng c a s e s of thi s ty

pe , part i c ul ar l y

wi thoutIC O a rg u e s th a t th is c a se in v o lv e d p o lit ica l risk a s w e ll, 9 i nas m uch as i t i s “an i ndi ct m ent of t he s t at e’ s m i s handl i ng” of t he eff or t s t o cl ean up t he s i t e. T hi s s eems dubi ous . A t al l event s , t he 17 c ont e m por ane ous pay

m e nt for the i r s e rvi c e s and expenses . Nor was I awar e of any New Jer se y firm s with any

experi ence li ti gati ng environm enta l is sues on behalf of

plai ntiffs. I was aware of a few sole prac ti ti on er s who li ti gate d env ir on m enta l i s s ue s on be ha l f of pl a i nt i ffs

. Howe ve r , none of th em w as in a p o sitio n to h an d le litig atio n o f th is m a gni t ude , part i c ul ar l y

wi thout c om pe ns at i on for ev en th eir o u t-o f

-p o ck et ex p en ses. 12. I n fa c t , my

e xpe r i e nc e thr ough 29 y e ar s of the p ractice o f

en v iro n m en tal law in N ew Jersey is that the Ter ri s l aw firm

and the Ru tger s E n v i r o n me n t a l L aw C l i n i c ar e th e o n l y tw o f i rms that have brou gh t c it iz en suit ca se s i n f

eder al court on be ha l f of c i t i z e ns wi thout c ont e m por ane ous pay m e nt of fe e s and e xpe ns e s . The onl y e xc e pt i on of whi c h I am

awar e i s as i ngl e c i t i z e n s ui t dur i ng this peri odof

ti m e broug ht by

a s m al l Newar

k firm on behalf of

a l abor un ion. Th e fir

m has s i nc e br oke n up. I do not know i f the l abor

uni on pa i d the att orne y s for

thi s s ui t

. The s ui t

di d not i nvol ve any

whe r e ne ar

the s i z e , c om

pl e xi ty and c os t of thi s l i t i gat i on. W hi l e the Ll oyd Affi davi t pr ovi de s s i gni fi c ant

s upport for I CO’ s c ont e nt i on that

l oc a l c ouns e l we r e unwi l l i ng t o r e pr e s e nt it in th is actio n , th e D istrict C o u rt d idn o t m en tio n it in c onc l udi ng that

I CO s at i s fi e d the s e c ond e xc e pt i on. Hone y we l l ar gue s that

the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d i n fi ndi ng that I CO ha d s at i s fi e d the s e c ond e xc e pt i on abs e nt as howi ng that ICO sou gh t c ou nsel in this part ic ular ca se . I n p arti cular, Hone y we l l c l a i m s that

i t wa s unr e a s onabl e t o r e l y on the unwi l l i ngne s s of l oc a l c ouns e l t o r e pr e s e nt I CO i n Shi nn , a s that ca se invo lved a fact or—p olit ic al ri sk—n ot pres ent her e. We a gr e e . Howe ve r , I CO s ubm i t s tha t pol i t i c a l r i s k wa s jus t

one of 9pol i t i cal r i s k i nvol ved i n Shi nn w as cert ai nly great er t han t he ri sk i nvol ved i n t hi s cas e. 18 th e reaso n s g iv en b y

th e v ario u s atto rn ey s co n tactedb y M o rris for de c l i ni ng t o part i c i pat e i n that a c t i on. W e do not

be l i e ve tha t

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s c onc l us i on th at IC O satisf

iedth e seco n dex cep tio n to th e f o ru m rate ru le is clearly erro n eo u s. Wh at p ersu ad es u s is th e L lo ydaf f id av it, in so f ar as it states th at n o atto rn ey in n o rth ern N ew Jersey

w o u ld h av e b een w illin g to h an d le th is case w ith o u t an imm ed iate ad v an ce o f

o u t o f p o ck et co sts w h ich , in th is case, f o reseeab ly am o u n tedto o v er o n e m illio n d o llars. In th is resp ect, th e T erris f irm is a “rare b ird .” Beca use we c on cl ud e that the Distri ct Co urt’ s de t e rm i nat i on that

I CO s at i s fi e d the s e c ond e xc e pt i on t o the f o ru m rate ru le w as n o t clearly

erro n eo u s, w e w ill af

f irm its de c i s i on t o awar d fe e s ba s e d on pr e va i l i ng r at e s i n W a s hi ngt on, DC. D. Dete rm inat ion o f the Ap prop ri at e Hou rl y Rate fo r the Distri ct o f C o lu m b ia; th e L af

f ey M atrix We have se tt le d that t o d et er m ine “ the pre vail ing m ar ket r at e s i n the r e l e vant

c omm uni ty , ” ac ourt

m us t “ a s s e s s the e xpe r i e nc e and s ki l l of the pr e va i l i ng party ’ s att orne y s and c om par e the i r r at e s t o the r at e s pr e va i l i ng i n the c omm uni ty for sim ilar serv ices b y

law y ers o f

reaso n ab ly

co m p arab le sk ill, experi ence , andre pu tati on .” Se e Loughne r v . Uni v . of Pi t t s bur gh , 260 F. 3d 173, 180 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) ( c i t at i ons and i nt e rna l quot at i ons om i tt e d)

. The party s e e ki ng fe e s “ be ar s the b u rd en o f estab lish in g b y

w ay o f satisf acto ry ev id en ce, in additi on to [the] att orney ’s ow n aff idavit s . . . that

the r equest ed ho urly rate s m ee t t

his s tand ar d.” Id

. (c it at ions and inter nal qu otat ions om itte d) (a lt er at ions in original ). In it s fee applic at ion, ICO request ed com pensat ion b as ed on an up date d ve r s i on of the s o- c a l l e d “ La ffe y Matr i x, ” and the br i e fi ng and ar gum e nt s on the hour l y

r at e i s s ue have be e n t ot a l l y wi thi n the La ffe y Matr i x fr am e work. Ac c or di ngl y , for be tt e r or wor s e , our d iscu ssio n o f

th at issu e w ill b e w ith in th e f ram ew o rkas w ell.T he or i gi nal L affeyM at r i x r ei m bur s ed at t or ney s at t he 10 foll ow i ng rat es: - $ 1 7 5 an h o u r fo r ve ry ex p erien ce d fe d era l cou rt litig a to rs , i

. e. , law y e rs in the ir 2 0 th y ea r or m o re a f ter g ra d u a tio n f

ro m law sc h o o l; - $ 1 5 0 an h o u r fo r ex p erien ce d fe d era l cou rt l i t i gat or s i n t hei r 11t h t hr ough 1 9 th y ear s aft er l aw s chool gr aduat i on; - $ 1 2 5 an h o u r fo r ex p erien ce d fe d era l cou rt l i t i gat or s i n t hei r 8t h t hr ough 10t h y ear s aft er g ra d u a tio n f

ro m law sc h o o l; - $ 1 0 0 a n h o u r f

o r s e n io r a s s o c ia te s , i

. e. , 4 to 7 y ea rs aft er gr aduat i on fr om l aw s chool ; and - $ 7 5 a n h o u r f

o r ju n io r a s s o c ia te s , i

. e. , 1 to 3 y ea rs aft er l aw s chool gr aduat i on. 572 F. Supp. at 371. 19 T h e L af f ey M atrix , w h ich tak es its n am e f ro m th e case in w h ich it w as f

irst em p lo y ed , La

ff eyv. No rt hw es t Air li nes , 572 F. S up p . 3 5 4 (D .D .C . 1 9 8 3 ), aff’d , 746 F.2d4 (D.C. Cir. 19 84 ), ov e rr ule d i n par t

on ot he r gr ounds bySav e Our

Cumbe r land Mo un tains v . Hodel , 857 F.2d15 16 , 152 5 (D.C. Cir. 19 88 ) ( en banc ) ( “ SOCM

” ) , pr ovi de s bi l l i ng r at e s for att orne y s i n the Wash in g to n , D C m ark et w ith v ario u s d eg rees o f ex p erien ce. The i ni t i a l La ffe y

Matr i x, s e t

forth i n the m ar gi n, wa s ba s e d on 10 pr e va i l i ng m arke t

r at e s fr om

1981- 1982. The part i e s do not di s put e that

the La ffe y

Matr i x wa s ava l i d i nde x of pr e va i l i ng rate s i n Was hing ton, DC at that ti m e. The La ffe y

Matr i x wa s s ubs e que nt l y updat e d thr ough 1989 pur s uant

t o as e tt l e m e nt

by the part i e s i n SOCM

. See T ro u t v. B a ll , 705 F. Supp. 705, 709 n. 10 ( D. D. C. 1989)

. The use of the SOCM

-upd at ed Laff

ey Matr ix has s ub se qu entl y been a ppr ove d by

judge s on the Di s tr i c t

Court for the Di s tr i c t

of C o lu m b ia. Se e, e . g. , i d. (“ Althou gh the upd at ed m atri x w as never expres sl y

approv ed by

the c ou rt beca use the part ie s s ettl ed the i ss ue of

fees , i t does provide an acc urat e andup date d sch edu le o f

atto rn ey f ees in th is D istrict.”); Se

x c i us v . Di

s tr i c t ofY e a rs o f A tto rn e y E x p e rie n c e H o u rly R a te 11 20+ $549 11- 19 $456 8- 10 $404 4- 7 $280 1- 3 $228 par al egal s $124 T he U

. S. A t t or ney ’ s M at r i x y i el ds t he fol l ow i ng r at es for 12 2003- 2004: Y e a rs o f A tto rn e y E x p e rie n c e H o u rly R a te 20+ $380 11- 19 $335 8- 10 $270 4- 7 $220 1- 3 $180

20 Co lu m b ia , 839 F. Supp . 919 , 924 (D.D.C. 199 3). I n its fee a ppl i c at i on, I CO r e que s t e d pay m e nt ba s e d on the r at e s i n the SOCM -up d atedL af

f ey M atrix , f u rth er up d atedto 2 0 0 3 -2 0 0 4

. I n updat i ng the m atr i x t o a c c ount for i nfl at i on fr om

1989- 2003, I CO r e l i e d on the l e ga l s e rvi c e s c om pone nt of the nat i onwi de Co nsum er

Pric e I nd ex (“ the Legal Servic es Index”), a m ea sure of i nfl at i on i n the c os t

of l e ga l s e rvi c e s m a i nt a i ne d by the Bu re au of

Labo r Stati st ic s. We re sc ri be in the m ar gin the rate s p r o du c e db y I C O ’ s m e th o d o l o g y. 11 Ho ney well ar gu ed in the Dis tr ic t Cou rt and b efore us that the pr ope r

m e a s ur e of hour l y

r at e s i n W a s hi ngt on, DC c an be found i n as e par at e m atr i x m a i nt a i ne d by the Offi c e of the Un it ed Stat es Attorney

fo r the Distri ct

of Co lum bia. Th at m atr i x i s ba s e d on the or i gi na l La ffe y Matr i x fr om

1981- 1982, a l s o a djus t e d for

i nfl at i on. Howe ve r , i n updat i ng thi s m atr i x, the U.S. Att orney ’s Of

fice uses the Con sum er

Pric e I nd ex (“C P I”) f o r th e D istrict o f

C o lu m b ia. B u t th e re is n o a v a ilab le dat a on t he leg al serv ices co m p o n en t o f th e D istrict o f

C o lu m b ia CP I. Since the Dist

ri ct of Co lum bia CPI is ty

pica ll y lower than the Legal Servic es Index, the r at es in the U.S. Att orney ’s M atrix , also rescrib edin th e m arg in , are lo w er th an th o se in ICO’s propo se d m atri x. Th e use of the U.S. Att orney ’s Laff ey 12par al egal $105 O bv i ou s l y w e a r e no t bo un d b y t he de c i s i on s of t he se 13 ju d g e s, b u t w e c e rta in ly a c c o r d th e m su b sta n tial w e ig h t o n th is pecul i ar l y l ocal ques t i on. 21 Matr ix as a m ea sure of

bill ing rat es in Wa shington , DC h as been a ppr ove d on num e r ous oc c a s i ons by c ourt s i n the Di s tr i c t

of C o lu m b ia C ircu it. E. g. , Co vin g to n v. D istrict o f Co lu m b ia , 57 F .3 d1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 9 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); Piper v . Unite d S tates Dep’t of Just ic e , 339 F. Supp . 2d 1 3, 24 (D.D.C. 200 4). Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

re viewed bo th indice s anddeci ded th at IC O ’s rep resen teda b etter m easu re o f p rev ailin g rates in W a s hi ngt on, DC. I n s o doi ng, i t r e l i e d on ade c i s i on by

the D istrict C o u rt f

o r th e D istrict o f

C o lu m b ia, Salaz ar

v . Di s tr i c t of Co lu m b ia , 123 F. Supp . 2d 8 (D.D.C. 200 0), which com pare d the U.S. Att orney ’s Laff

ey Matr ix with a m atri x sim il ar to that pu t forward by

ICO in this c as e andconcluded that the latt er m eth o dw as sup erio r. Salaz ar i s one of the fe w de c i s i ons a pp r ov i ng the us e of

thi s a pp r oa c h, andi t

i s , a c c or di ng t o I CO , th e o n ly d ecisio n (p rio r to th e D istrict C o u rt d ecisio n in th is case) co m p arin g th e tw o ap p ro ach es. T h e d eterm in atio n o f

th e ap p ro p riate b illin g rate is a f actu al f in d in g w h ich w e rev iew f o r clear erro r. Se e SP

I RG , 8 4 2 F .2 dat 1 4 5 5 -5 6 ; Black Gri ev an ceCo mm it te e v . Phi lade l phi a Ele c tr i c Co. , 802 F.2d64 8, 65 2 (3dCir. 19 86 ), v ac ate d on ot

he r gr ounds by4 8 3 U .S . 1 0 1 5 (1 9 8 7 ). B o th p arties ag ree th at th e o rig in al L af f ey M atrix is an ap p ro p riate startin g p o in t f

ro m w h ich to d eterm in e p rev ailin g b illin g rates in Wash in g to n , D C . A s statedab o v e, th e up d atedL af f ey M atrix r e l i e d on i n SOCM

ha s be e n m e t

wi th a ppr ova l by

judge s i n the Distri ct of Co lum bia Cir cuit

. Bu t t

he qu es ti on re m ai ns wh ether 13 ICO’s m etho d o f upd at ing the Laff ey Matr ix is ac ce ptable

. Hone y we l l c ont e nds that

“ the ove rwhe l m i ng us e of the U.S. Attorney

Laff ey m atri x . . . by

federal courts in the Dis tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia” requ ires th at w e em

p lo y th e U .S . A tto rn ey

M atrix a s we l l

. The Di s tr i c t

Court r e je c t e d thi s ar gum e nt , obs e rvi ng: “ Mor e ove r , that

the num be r of c a s e s a

ppr ovi ng the U. S. Attorney ’s m atri x is l ar ge is of no m om ent, beca

use tho se fee a ppl i c ant s di d not

c ha l l e nge the a

ppr opr i at e ne s s of the U. S.22 Att orne y ’ s m atr i x. ” 336 F. Supp. 2d at 388 n. 4. W e do not beli eve that the nu m

ber of case s a

pp roving the U.S. Att orney ’s m atr i x i s “ of no m om e nt , ” but we do a gr e e wi th I CO tha t the sim p le f act th at n u m ero u s co u rts in th e D istrict o f C o lu m b ia have up held the U.S. Att orney ’s Matr ix as a r ea sonable m ea sure of bill ing rat es is no t a

suff ic ie nt grou ndfo r us t o con cl ud e that relian ce b y

th e D istrict C o u rt o n IC O ’s up d atedL af f ey M atrix w as clearly

erro n eo u s. I n thi s r e gar d, i t

i s r e l e vant

tha t i n none of thos e de c i s i ons c i t e d by Hone y we l l di d the c ourt

e nga ge i n ac om

par i s on b etw een th e co m

p etin g m eth o d o lo g ies ad v an cedin th is case. In d eed , th e D istrict C o u rt f o r th e D istrict o f

C o lu m b ia recen tly obs e rve d that

the U. S. Att orne y ’ s La ffe y Matr i x “ i s ac onc e s s i on by that offi c e of wha t

i t wi l l de e m

r e a s onabl e whe n a fe e - s hi ft i ng s t at

ut e a ppl i e s and i t s oppone nt

pr e va i l s and s e e ks att orne y fe e s . Tha t

c onc e s s i on r e l i e ve s that

offi c e fr om

havi ng to li ti gate the m ar

ket r at e i n the hu nd re ds of fee-s hifting cas es that it defend s. ” Se e Adol

ph Coor s Co. v . Tr uc k

I ns . Ex c h. , Ci v. No. 04- 2150, 2005 U. S. Di s t

. LEXI S 17538, at *11- *12 (D .D .C . A u g . 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). Stil l, we re cogn iz e that the bu rden is on ICO to sho w that th e rates it p ro p o ses are co m p arab le to th e “‘rates p rev ailin g in th e co mm u n ity f o r sim ilar serv ices b y

law y ers o f

reaso n ab ly com para ble s kill , e xp er ie nce, and reputat ion.’” Lo ug hn er , 260 F. 3d at 180 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng R o d e v. D ella rcip rete , 892 F.2d11 77 , 118 3 (3dCir. 19 90 )) . As with the qu es ti on wh ether ICO sat is fied the e xcepti on s t o the fo rum rate rule , we are u n d erw h elm edb y

th e ev id en ce reliedo n b y th e D istrict C o u rt in co n clu d in g th at th e rates IC O p ro p o sedsatisf iedth is stan d ard

. Th at sa id, andwh il e we r ec og nize that the s tati st ic s I CO re li es on ar e i n n o w ay

spec ific to attorney s who prac ti ce environm enta l l aw, we ar e s at is fied that the m etho do logy

re li ed o n b y IC O in up d atin g th e L af f ey M atrix w as reaso n ab le. I n a dd i t i on , we no t e that

I CO s ub m i tt e d the r e s ul t s of a 20 02 survey

from the N a tio n a l L a w Jo u rn a l s howi ng hi gh and lo w b illin g rates f

o r n u m ero u s f

irm s (in clu d in g sev eral in Wash in g to n , D C ) th at are larg ely co n sisten t w ith th e rates it prop oses in it s m atri x. Whil e the arti cl e, st anding al on e, prov ides li tt le supp ort for ICO’s propo se d m atri x, it do es fu rther bo ls te r our conclusi on , which is that the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’sD es pi t e s o decl ar i ng, w e add t he obs er vati o n t hat any 14 i ndex that i s updat ed bas ed on a s t at i s t i cal m eas ur e of i nfl at i on— r at her t han r egul ar r eca l i br at i on in li g ht of pr evai l i ng r at es

— w i l l t end t o di m i ni s h i n acc ur acy over t i m e. For t hi s r eas on, di s t r i ct cour t s i n t hi s C i r cui t s houl d be as s i duous i n eval uat i ng fee r eques t s i n l i ght of a llt he evi dence

. 23 fi ndi ngs we r e not

c l e ar l y e rr one ous . Ac c or di ngl y , on r e m and,

14 th e D istrict C o u rt m ay

u se IC O ’s p ro f

f eredL af f ey M atrix to calcu late th e T erris f

irm ’s h o u rly

rates. I V

. T r avel T i m e and Cost s of Local C ouns el H o n e y w e ll ch a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to aw ar d I C O fee s for i t s cos t s of t r avel and t r avel t i m e, as w el l as fee s for i t s l ocal couns el , E dw ar d L l oy d. W e agr ee t hat , under nor m al ci r cumst ance s , a par t y t hat hi r es couns el fr om out s i de t he for um of t he l i t i gat i on m aynot be compens at ed for t r avel t i m e, tr av el co sts, o r t h e c o sts of loca l cou n sel. H o w ev er, w h ere f o ru m c o u n se l ar e u n w ill in g to re p re se n t th e p lain tiff , su c h c o sts ar e compens abl e. T her efor e, beca us e w e have aff i r m ed t he D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t f o ru m c o u n se l w e re u n w ill in g to rep rese n t I C O in this ac ti o n , w e a ff ir m the D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on t o aw ar d compensa t i on for t r avel t i m e, t r avel cos t s , and t he cos t s of l ocal couns el

. O f cour s e, l ocal couns el s houl d be compensa t ed bas ed on pr evai l i ng r at es i n t he for um of t he l i t i gat i on. H o n ey w ell also d ispu tes t h e D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t IC O ’s a tto rn e y s w e re e n tit led to c o m p e n s a tio n f

o r t h e ir tr a v e l tim e a t th e ir f u ll b illin g ra te

. A ccor di ng t o H oney w el l , t he D i s t r i ct C our t s houl d have c o m p e n sa ted th e tra v e l ti m e o f IC O ’s a tto rn e y s a t 5 0 % o f th e ir re g u lar ra te. In su p p o rt, H o n e y w e ll n o tes th a t so m e c o u rts in ot her j ur i s di ct i ons have he l d t hat t r avel t i m e s houl d not be c o m p e n sa ted a t th e sa m e ra te a s tim e sp e n t en g a g e d in m e a n in g f

u l w o rk

. E

. g. , C l ar k v. P hi l l i ps , 965 F. Supp. 331, 336 (N .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 7 ). In re sp o n se , IC O a rg u e s th a t th e o p p o rtu n ity cos t of t r avel t i m e i s t he s ame as t hat of t i m e s pent w or ki ng on t he ca s e, and t hat hour s s pent t r avel i ng s houl d be compens at ed atT o th e e x ten t th a t IC O ’s a tto rn e y s d id a c tu a l w o rk o n th is 15 cas e w hi le trav el i ng, t hat t i m e s houl d be i ncor por at ed i nt o ot her por t i ons of t he fe e aw ar d. 24 an at t or ney ’ s ful l r at e. W e a d d re ss e d th is iss u e in P l anned Parent hood of C ent r alN

ew Jer s ey v . A t t or ney G ener alof St at e of N ew Jer s ey , 2 9 7 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 6 7 -6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In th a t ca se , w e h e ld th a t, i n or der t o det er m i ne t he r at e at w hi ch at t or ney s m aybe compensa t ed for t hei r t r avel t i m e, “a c our t m us t l ook t o t he pr act i ce i n t he l ocal comm uni t y . ” Id

. at 267. I n t hi s cas e, s i nce w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e T e rris f irm is e n tit led to compensa t i on bas ed on pr evai l i ng r at es i n W as hi ngt on, D C , t he D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e d e ter m in e d w h e th e r a tto rn e y s in W as hi ngt on ar e t y pi cal l y compensa t ed for t hei r t r avel t i m e at t hei r ful l bi l l i ng r at e. T he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not m ake a ny s uch fi ndi ng, s o w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand t hi s por t i on of t he aw ar d. 15 V. ICO’s Cla im ed Ho urs A p rev ailin g p arty

is n o t au to m atically

en titledto c om pe ns at i on for

a l l the t i m e i t s att orne y s s pe nt worki ng on the c a s e ; r athe r , ac ourt

awar di ng fe e s m

us t “ de c i de whe the r

the hour s s e t out we r e r e a s onabl y

e xpe nde d for

e a c h of the part ic ular pu rposes desc ri bed andthen excl ud e tho se that ar e ‘e xces si ve, r edun dant, or other wise un nece ss ar

y .’ ” PI RG , 51 F.3dat 11 88 (c it at ion o m itte d). Thu s, in re viewing the ho urs claim edin a f

ee ap p licatio n , a d istrict co u rt m u st co n du ct a “th o ro u g h an dsearch in g an aly sis” to id en tif y su ch ch arg es. Ev ans , 273 F. 3d at

362. The c ourt

m ay not r e duc e an awar d s ua sp o n te ; rath er, it can o n ly d o so in resp o n se to sp ecif ic o b j ectio n s m ad e b y

th e o p p o sin g p arty

. Be l l v . Uni te d Pr i nc e ton Prop er ti es , I

nc. , 884 F. 2d 713, 719 ( 3d Ci r . 1989)

. But onc e the oppos i ng party

ha s m a de as pe c i fi c obje c t i on, the bur de n i s on th e p rev ailin g p arty

to j u stif y th e size o f

its requ est. H o n ey w ell arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredin r e fus i ng t o s l a s h the s i z e of Te rr i s ’ s fe e awar d t o a c c ount for b illin g th at w as “ex cessiv e, dup licativ e, o r o th erw iseT he D i s t r i ct C our t deduct ed 91. 21 hour s from t he 16 par al egal t i m e for “es s ent i al l y cl er i cal t as ks

. ” See 336 F. Supp. 2d at 393. 25 r e dundant

. ” I n Hone y

we l l ’ s s ubm i s s i on, the fol l owi ng charges cl ai m ed by

ICO are grossl y

exce ss ive:

• 1,05 8 h ou rs spent pre pari ng prop osed pr e tr i a l fi ndi ngs of fa c t

and c onc l us i ons of law

• 47 1 h ou rs spent pre pari ng po st -tri al find ings of

fact and con cl usions of

law

• Mo re than 89 0 h ou rs “dedic at ed to m atte rs re late d to the pretri al order”

• Mor e than 730 hour s of a tt orne y t i m e s pe nt rev iew in g d o cu m en ts.

• Mor e than 360 hour s pr e par i ng am ot i on for s umm ary judgm e nt

• M o r e th an 2 , 7 9 0 h o u r s o f p ar a l e g a l t i me 16 Ho ney well ob ject ed to thes e c harges befo re the Dis tr ic t Co urt. In supp ort of its ob ject ions, Hon ey

well subm itte d an affidavit prepar ed by

Michae l Caffrey , an att orney with the New Je rs ey law f ir m of Lo wenste in Sand le r, Ho ney well ’s tr ia l coun se l, deta il ing the re sult s of a re view he cond ucte d o f ICO ’s s ubm i s s i on. Ca ffr e y ’ s a ffi davi t c om par e d the t i m e c l a i m e d by I CO for the above t a s ks wi th wha t he c onc l ude d woul d have b een a reaso n ab le am o u n t o f tim e f o r th e sam e w o rk

. W he r e Ca ffr e y

c onc l ude d tha t

I CO’ s att orne y s ha d s pe nt m ore t im e than required on a given task, he “ re du ce d” the hou rs to wh at he consider ed to be an approp ri at e l evel . He off er ed jus t i fi c at i ons for

hi s pr opos e d r e duc t i ons , a l though i n m any ca se s the explanat ion h e off er ed consis te d o f the wo rd “Exces si ve.” On appeal , Hon ey well ar gu es that

the Dis tr ic tFol l ow i ng ar gum ent i n t h i s cas e, t he par t i es ent er ed i nt o an 17 agr eement pur s uant t o w hi ch H oney w el l agr eed t o m ake a par t i al pay m ent of $1, 380, 148. 79 pr i or t o r es ol ut i on of t h e appeal , t hat bei ng t he amount t hat H oney w el l sugges t ed w as t he maxi m um r eas onabl e and ne ces s ary fe e aw ar d. U nder t he t er m s of t he s t i pul at i on, w h ich has been a ppr oved, t he j udgm ent ent er ed p u rsua n t t h ere to is w it h o u t prejud ice to d ef en d an t- a p p ell an t’ s obj ect i ons and ar gum ent s w i t h r egar d t o anyfee aw ar d ( i ncl udi ng t he fe e aw ar d t hat i s t he s ubj ect of t hi s appea l ) or r eques t for fee s a n d c o s ts b y p la in tif

f s -a p p e lle e s o r a n y o th e r p a rt y o r th ir d p a r t y. M o re o v e r, if

, w h e n th e p ro p e r a m o u n t o f a tto rn e y f

e e s a n d c o sts is ul t i m at el y resol ved, t he ul t i m at e aw ar d of fe es and cos t s exce eds $1, 380, 148. 79, t he $1, 380, 148. 79 bei ng pai d p u rsuant t o t he s t i pul at i on i s t o be s ubt r act ed fr om t he aw ar d. 26 Co urt e rr ed in re fu si ng to re du ce ICO’s award in acc ordance w ith th e reco mm en d atio n s in C af f rey ’s af f id av it. In ad d itio n , it ar gue s that

the fi ndi ngs m a de by

the Di s tr i c t

Court i n gr ant i ng ICO’s fee r equest

were inadequate

. 17 In sup p o rt o f

its ex cessiv en ess arg u m en t, H o n ey w ell concentr at es on a num

ber of area s, st arti ng with the 1,529 ho urs spent on p re pari ng find ings of fact and con cl usions of

law. Th at am ount s t o a

ppr oxi m at e l y

thi rty - e i ght

forty - hour

we e ks , as um th at seem s to u s to b e stag g erin g , an dw ell b ey o n dth e p ale. T h is am ount r e pr e s e nt s , unde r

Hone y we l l ’ s c a l c ul at i ons , ove r

four ho urs for drafti ng ea ch page, as well as 47 1 h ou rs to up date , pos t

- tr i a l , the pr opos a l s whi c h we r e pr e par e d pr e tr i a l i n 1058 ho urs. Th is al so is exce ss ive, es peci al ly in li gh t of the fact

that the pr e - tr i a l and pos t

- tr i a l fi ndi ngs of fa c t and c onc l us i ons of law w ere so sim ilar. A s H o n ey w ell p o in ts o u t: [M ]o re than 13 0 o ut of

16 5 o f P la inti ff’s prop osed p o st-trial co n clu sio n s o f

law w ere id en tical to its pr e tr i a l c onc l us i ons of l aw. And, m or e than 330 ou t of 4 94 of

Plai ntiff’s propo se d p ost- tr ia l f in d in g s o f

f act w ere id en tical o r sub stan tiv ely i de nt i c a l ( wi th the e xc e pt i on of the s ubs t i t ut i on of a tri al re cord ci tati on ) t o P la inti ff’s pretri al p ro p o sedf

in d in g s o f

f act.For i ns t ance , i n r egar d t o t he ti m e spent on t he pr et r i al 18 pr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ct , t he C our t obs er ved: H oney w ell ass er t s t hat t he t i m e s pent i n pr epar i ng Pl ai nt i ff' s pr et r i al fi ndi ngs of fact and concl us i ons of l aw s houl d be excl uded becaus e t hi s document w as n o t u lti m a tely re q u ire d b y th e C o u rt. H o w e v e r, u n til O ct ober 16, 2002, w hen t hi s C our t deci ded t o m ake s uch pr et r i al fi ndi ngs opt i onal , t he dea dl i ne for t he 27 Furthe rm or e , Hone y

we l l not e s tha t

the ove r a l l t i m e s pe nt prepari ng the finding s of f ac t i ncludes 228 ho urs of p artner ti m e, w h ich , u n d er th e m atrix ad o p tedb y th e D istrict C o u rt, is c om pe ns abl e at

ar at e of $456 pe r

hour

. Tha t

fa c t or s e e m s t o us t o w arr an t

c l o s e s c r u t i n y. Whil e the tr ia l was indeed protra ct ed, a ndthe r ec ord h u g e, th ere m

u st b e so m e lim it. We n eedn o t d ecid e th ese p o in ts be c aus e we a gr e e wi th Hone y we l l ’ s s e c ond ar gum e nt : tha t the D i s tr i c t C o u rt ’ s r e v i e w o f

th e h o u r s c l a i m e db y I C O ’ s att o rn e ys wa s s i m pl y i na de quat e . Howe ve r , we do e xpr e s s our r e a c t i on f o r th e b en ef

it o f th e D istrict C o u rt w h ich w ill h av e to ad dress the s e i s s ue s on r e m and. I n m os t r e s pe c t s , the Di s tr i c t

Court a ppr ove d the c ha l l e nge d a s pe c t s of the fe e awar d wi th l i tt l e m or e than a s e nt e nc e . For

e xam pl e , i n a ppr ovi ng the 471 hour s s pe nt pr e par i ng pos t

- tr i a l fi ndi ngs of fa c t and c onc l us i ons of l aw, the Di s tr i c t Court obs e rve d: Hone y we l l a s s e rt s tha t

the t i m e e xpe nde d on the pr e par at i on of pos t

- tr i a l fi ndi ngs wa s e xc e s s i ve and sho uld b e r educed to 20 0 h ou rs . How ever , Ho ney well prov ides no ju st ific at ion f or this figu re . Accordingly , this Cou rt

concludes that the ho urs expend ed by

Plai ntiffs ar e r ea sonable. 336 F. Supp. 2d at

391. The Di s tr i c t

Court a ppe ar s t o have m i s a ppr e he nde d i t s r ol e , i m

pr ope r l y pl a c i ng abur de n of pr oof o n H o n ey w ell th at sim

p ly d o es n o t ex ist. Wh ile it is tru e th at, 18s ubm i s s i on of eac h par t y ' s pr et r i al fi ndi ngs w as O ct ober 24, 2002. C l ear ly , i t i s r eas onabl e for Pl ai nt i ff t o have s ubs t ant i al l y pr epar ed t hei r pr et r i al fi ndi ngs by O ct ober 16, 2002. Fur t her m or e, s i nce t he pr epar at i on of t he pr et r i al document advanc ed P lain tiff ' s p re p a ra tio n o f th e ir p o st tria l f in d in g s, it is s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i r s u c c e s s f u l RCRA su b stan ti al en d an g erm en t cl aim an d is th e re fo re r ecove r abl e. 336 F. Supp. 2d at 391. T he C our t l at er found: L i kew i s e, H oney w el l m akes t he as ser t i on t hat t he num ber of hour s s pent pr epar i ng t he Pr etri al O r der s houl d be r educe d t o 300 hour s but pr ovi des no ju stif ica tio n f o r th is f ig u re . N o r d o e s H o n e y w e ll pr ovi de anyj us t i fi cat i on for t hei r as s er t i on t hat t he d o cum ent r evi ew t i m e s houl d be r educe d t o 350 hour s or that t he t i m e s pent pr epar i ng t he s econd m o tio n f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t sh o u ld b e re d u c e d to 100 hour s . A ccor di ngl y , this C our t w i l l al l ow r e i mbur s e me n t [ t o ] P l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e a c t u a l t i me exp end ed o n these act i vit i es. I d at 391- 92. 28 as we have no te d, the “ dist ri ct court c anno t dec re as e a

fee awar d b asedo n f

acto rs n o t raisedat all b y th e ad v erse p arty ,” Lo ug hn er , 260 F. 3d at

178 ( c i t at i ons and i nt e rna l quot at i ons o m itted ), n o n eth eless, th e b u rd en rem ain s o n th e p arty re qu es ti ng the fee to prov e i ts re as on able ness , andthe c ou rt has

“ apos i t i ve and a ffi rm at i ve func t i on i n the fe e fi xi ng pr oc e s s , not m er el y a pas si ve role ,” i d. Here , the Distri ct Co urt’ s c on cl usory reaso n in g co n stitu tedan ab d icatio n o f th at f u n ctio n . Wh ere an o p p o sin g p arty lo d g es a su f

f icien tly sp ecif ic o b j ectio n to an asp ect o f

a f ee aw ard , th e b u rd en is o n th e p arty re qu es ti ng the fee s t o j usti fy the s iz e of its awar d. In de t e rm i ni ng wh e the r

the m ov i ng party

ha s m e t i t s bur de n, we have s tr e s s e d that

“ i t i s ne c e s s ary

that the [Di s tr i c t ] Court

‘ go29 l i ne , by l i ne , by l i ne ’ thr ough the bi l l i ng r e c or ds s upport i ng the fee re qu es t. ” Ev ans , 273 F. 3d a t 362. W he r e the opi ni on of the Di s tr i c t Court “ i s s o t e r s e , va gue , or

c onc l us ory

tha t we have no ba s i s t o r e vi e w i t , we m

us t va c at e the fe e - awar d or de r and rem an df o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s.” Gunte r v . Ri dge wood Ene r

gy Cor p. , 2 2 3 F .3 d1 9 0 , 1 9 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). S u ch is th e case h ere. F o r th is reaso n , w e w ill v acate th e aw ardin th is case w ith resp ect to th e six item s H o n ey w ell ch allen g es in its ap p eal. Thi s i s avol um i nous and pr otr a c t e d c a s e , and we ar e not u n m in d f u l o f th e d if f icu lt j o b th e D istrict C o u rt f aces in r e vi e wi ng the fe e a

ppl i c at i on. I n pe r form i ng thi s t a s k, the Di s tr i c t Court i s e nt i t l e d t o he l p fr om

the fe e obje c t or . I nde e d, we have obs e rve d: [ T ] h e ad v erse p arty ’s sub m issio n s can n o t m erely al le ge in general te rm s that the ti m e s pent was e xc e s s i ve . I n or de r

t o be s uffi c i e nt , the br i e fs or answer s c hall enging the fee re qu es t m ust be c le ar i n two r e s pe c t s . Fi r s t , the y m us t ge ne r a l l y i de nt i fy the ty pe of work be i ng c ha l l e nge d, and s e c ond, they m ust s peci fica ll y

st at e the adverse party ’s g ro u n d s f o r co n ten d in g th at th e h o u rs claim edin that ar e aar e unr e a s onabl e . The br i e fs m us t be sp ecif ic an dclear en o u g hth at th e f ee ap p lican ts h av e a f air ch an ce to resp o n dan dd ef en dth eir requ est. B ell , 8 8 4 F .2 dat 7 2 0 (f

o o tn o te o m itted ). H o n ey w ell o b j ectedto num e r ous a s pe c t s of I CO’ s fe e r e que s t on the gr ound tha t

the t i m e s pe nt

by s pe c i fi c a tt orne y s wa s e xc e s s i ve . I t c oul d ( and sh o u ld ) h av e b een m o re sp ecif ic. S till, as H o n ey

w ell p o in ts o u t, B ell andl at e r c a s e s have a c c e pt e d a s s uf fi c i e nt ob je c t i on s of

a m o re g en eral n atu re th an th e o n es at issu e h ere. E. g. , B ell , 884 F. 2d

. at 7 2 1 ; Planne d Par e nt hood , 297 F. 3d a t

269. T h u s, sin ce H o n ey

w ell carriedits b u rd en in o b j ectin g to c e rt a i n a s pe c t s of the pr opos e d fe e awar d, I CO ha d an obl i ga t i on to ju st ify those porti on s of the award, andthe Dis tr ic t Cou rt had an ob li gati on to conduct a se ar ching revie w o f ICO ’s re qu es t. It d idn o t, h en ce w e v acate an drem an df o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s. V I. Wo rkR elatedto O th er D ef en d an ts30 The Di s tr i c t

Court found tha t

I CO c oul d onl y

be c o m p e n s at e db y H o n e yw e l l f o r t i m e s p e n t

b y I C O ’ s att o rn e ys “in f u rth eran ce o f

IC O ’s su ccessf

u l R C RA claim

ag ain st Ho ney well .” 33 6 F . Sup p. 2dat 39 0. Ho ney

well contends that the c ou rt fail ed to excl ud e s ix char ges I CO ’s attorney s c la im ed fo r work rel at ed to other defendants in the a ct ion. ICO con ce des th at H o n ey

w ell is co rrect w ith resp ect to f iv e o f th e ch arg es. Ou r jud gm ent wil l r efle ct that conces si on and h ence we need de a l onl y wi th the s i xth, whi c h i nvol ve s two in limine m ot i ons fi l e d by W

. R. Gr a c e & Co. , one of the de fe ndant s i n the a c t i on, see su p ra n o te 2 . IC O arg u es th at b o th o f th ese m o tio n s, if g ran ted , w o u ldh av e w eak en edIC O ’s case ag ain st H o n ey w ell, and that i t wa s the r e for e jus t i fi e d i n s e e ki ng r e i m bur s e m e nt

fr om H o n ey w ell. Fo r i nstance, Grac e m ov ed to li m it the e vidence that c oul d be us e d at

tr i a l r e l at i ng t o s oi l c l e an up s t andar ds ; I CO alleg es th at su ch a lim itatio n w o u ldh av e w eak en edits case ag ain st H o n ey

w ell. If tru e, IC O ’s co n ten tio n w o u ldb e j u stif ied

. Bu t i t does not appear

from the r ec ord that the Distri ct Co urt consider ed wh ether the ti m e s pent contes ti ng ei ther m otion w as tru ly “inf u rth eran ce o f

IC O ’s su ccessf

u l R C RA claim

ag ain st Hone y we l l

. ” For

thi s r e a s on, we wi l l va c at e and r e m and the awar d w it h res pect to thes e m otions so that

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt m ay m ake s uc h ade t e rm i na t i on.

VII. ICO’s Exp ert W it

ness es A . T estif yin g E x p erts H o n ey w ell ch allen g es th e D istrict C o u rt’s d ecisio n to awar d m ore than $ 78 0,00 0 f or the t im e andcost s of three expert w itn esses an dth eir resp ectiv e b u sin ess en tities, i. e. the awar d of (1) $38 9,80 7.59 fo r the wo rk of Dr. Bruce Bell and C ar

penter En vironm enta l Ass ociate s; (2) $19 4,49 1.54 fo r the wo rk of Dr. Be n Ros s and Di s pos a l Sa fe ty I nc or por at e d ( DSI ) ; and ( 3) $184, 492. 31 for

the work of Dr

. Che ryl Mont gom e ry and C am b rid g e E n v iro n m en tal. A s w ith th e tim e c laim e d b y c o u n se l, t h e p re v a ili n g p a rty b ea rs t h e b u rde n o f ju sti fy ing the tim e c lai m ed b y it s ex p ert w itn e ss e s. S im ilarly , the d istric t co u rt h a s th e o b lig a tio n to31 conduct a t hor ough and s ear chi ng r evi ew of t he t i m e cl ai m ed by a pr evai l i ng par t y ’ s exper t s . I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t fai l ed t o do s o. W hi l e t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d addr es s one s ubs t ant i ve a rg u m e n t ra ise d b y H o n e y w e ll (tha t IC O a n d E C A R G sh o u ld have r et ai ned t he s ame exper t s ) , i t s anal y s i s of t he hour s cl ai m ed by I C O ’ s t hr ee e xper t s w as l i m i t ed t o t he fol l ow i ng: T he w or k per for m ed byt he expe r t s r et ai ned by Pl ai nt i ff i n t hi s m at t er w as vi t al t o t hei r s ucce s s at trial. T h e w o rk o f

th e e x p e rts g re a tlya ss iste d th is C our t i n eval uat i ng s om e of t he more t echni cal a sp e c ts o f

th e lit ig a tio n , an d w a s a lso n e c e ss a ry to r ebut t he t echni cal i nfor m at i on pr es ent ed by H oney w el l

. A ccor di ngl y , t hi s C our t fi nds t hat t he w or k done byeac h of I C O ’ s exper t s w as r eas onabl e bas ed on t he l engt h and compl exi t y of t hi s l i t i gat i on. 336 F. Supp. 2d at 398. T h e f ac t t h at t h e w o rk o f th e e x p erts assist ed the C o u rt does not , by i t s el f, i m pl y t hat t he amount of t i m e cl ai m ed byt he t hr ee e xper t s w as r eas onabl e. R at her , as w as t he ca s e w i t h t he t i m e I C O ’ s at t or ney s cl ai m ed, t he D i s t r i ct C our t has an obl i gat i on t o “‘ go l i ne, by l i ne, by l i ne’ t hr ough t he bi l l i ng r ecor ds s uppor t i ng t he fe e r eques t

. ” E vans , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 6 2

. Si m i l ar l y , t he C our t m us t gi ve us a s uffi ci ent l y det ai l ed expl anat i on of i t s r eas oni ng s o t hat w e ca n engage i n m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew . Si nce i t fai l ed t o do s o, w e w i l l vaca t e t he aw ard of fee s for t he thr ee exp ert s ( and t heir res pecti ve b usi ness en ti ti es). We also n o te th at dup licativ e b illin g m ay h av e o ccu rred

. Fo r e xam ple, Dr. Mon tgom er

y cl ai m ed that

it tookher 246 ho urs to prepar e an exp ert r eport bec ause she nee ded to revie w doc um e nt s , but

Dr

. Mont gom e ry

s e par at e l y

bi l l e d anothe r

570 ho ur s fo r do c um e nt

r e vi e w. B . N o n -te stif

y in g E x p e rts I C O r eques t ed r ei m bur s ement for cos t s i ncur r ed byt hr ee addi t i onal exper t s w ho as s i s t ed w i t h t r i al pr epar at i on but di d not32 t es t i fy

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t cor r ect l y obs er ved t hat t he l aw i s not ent i r el y cl ear as t o w het her a pr evai l i ng par t y m aybe c o m p e n sa ted f

o r th e tim e o f

n o n -te stif

y in g e x p e rts, b u t it reso lved the u n ce rt ainty in f av o r of g ran ti n g IC O ’s req u est. It r eas oned t hat , due t o t he compl ex and t echni cal nat ur e of t he cas e, i t w as nece s s ar y for I C O ’ s at t or ney s t o cons ul t w i t h out s i de e x p e r t s , e v e n i f

t h o s e e x p e r t s d i d n o t u l t i m a t e l y t e s t i f y. R C R A pr ovi des t hat t he cour t “may aw ar d cos t s of l i t i gati on (i ncludi ng reas on able at t orney and exp ert w i t ness fees) t o t he pr evai l i ng or s ubs t ant i al l y pr evai l i ng par t y , w heneve r t he c o u r t d e t e r mi n e s s u c h a n a wa r d i s a p p r o p r i a t e . ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 6972( e) . H o n ey

w ell sub m its th at, sin ce n o n -testif yin g ex p erts ar e nei ther

attorney s nor expert

witnes se s, a pre vail ing p arty m ay no t be r ei m

bu rs ed fo r the cost s of their ti m e. We have held that

the fee s of n on -t es ti fying exp erts ar e co m p en sab le in co n tem

p t p ro ceed in g s, s e e Halde rman by Halde rman v . Pe nnhur

s t State Sc h. & Hos

p. , 49 F. 3d 939, 942- 43 (3d C ir . 199 5), but we have no t yet dete rm ined wh ether a pr e va i l i ng party

i s e nt i t l e d t o c om

pe ns at i on for

the c os t s of nontestif yin g ex p erts u n d er a f

ee-sh if tin g statu te. T h e circu it c a s e l aw i s , for

the m os t part , not on poi nt , and i s am i xe d ba g. T h e C o u rt o f

A p p eals f

o r th e D istrict o f

C o lu m b ia C ircu it addres se d this quest ion in a ca se invo lving a fee awar d u nd er a p ro v isio n o f

th e C lean A ir A ct, 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 6 0 7 (d ), w h ich is v irtu ally id en tical to th e statu te at issu e h ere. See Sie rra C lub v. E. P. A. , 769 F. 2d 796, 812 ( D. C. Ci r . 1985)

. I n Si e rra Club , the Court c onc l ude d that

aparty c oul d not

be r e i m bur s e d for

the c os t of hi r i ng anon- t e s t i fyi ng e xpe rt

. I t obs e rve d: M r. L azaro [ th e n o n -testif yin g ex p ert] is o b v io u sly n o t an atto rn ey . H e is also n o t an “ex p ert w itn ess,” sin ce rev iew o f

th e reg u latio n s w as u n d ertak en in thi s c a s e on the a dm i ni s tr at i ve r e c or d wi thout any n ew h earin g s b ef

o re th is o r an y

o th er co u rt. C

f. As arc o, I nc . v . EP A , 6 1 6 F .2 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 7 -6 1 (9 th Cir. 19 80 ) ( al lowing li m it ed use of exp ert te st im on y befo re Distri ct

Co urt i n revie wing order by EPA)

. Thi s l e ave s onl y

the ge ne r a l r

ubr i c of

“ c os t s ” unde r

whi c h t o c om

pe ns at e pe t i t i one r s for m ak in g u se o f

M r. L azaro 's services. T h o se33 s e rvi c e s do not

fa l l unde r

the tr a di t i ona l c onc e pt

of co sts . . . . I d. ; s e eal s o N atural Res ou rc es De

f e ns e Co un c i l

, I nc . v . E. P. A. , 1998 U. S. App. Le xi s 26041 (D.C. Cir . Sept. 3, 19 98 ) ( per c ur i am ) (u np ub lish edo p in io n ). Si e rra Club is o n ly p artially relev an t to o u r an aly sis, h o w ev er, b ecau se th e o p p o sin g p arty in that c a s e wa s the fe de r a l gove rnm e nt

. Thus , the fe e - s hi ft i ng st at ute a ct ed as a wai ver of sov er ei gn im m un it y , andthe Cou rt wa s obl i gat e d t o i nt e r

pr e t the l angua ge of the s t at

ut e i n l i ght

of the pr i nc i pl e that

“ wa i ve r s of s ove r e i gn i mm uni ty ar e t o be constr ued n ar rowly .” Se e Si e rra Club , 769 F. 2d a t 812 ( c i t i ng Ruc k e l s haus v . Si e rra Club , 463 U.S. 68 0, 68 5 (19 83 ))

. T h e C o u rt o f

A p p eals f

o r th e E lev en th C ircu it, in contra st , has held that

the fee s of n on -t es ti fying exp erts ar e reco v erab le. Se e Si e rra Club v

. Hank i ns on, 3 5 1 F .3 d1 3 5 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). Hank

i ns on inte rpre te d 3 3 U .S.C. § 13 65 (d), a feesh if tin g statu te w h ich is v irtu ally id en tical to 4 2 U .S .C . § 6 9 7 2 (e). Y et Hank

i ns on i s not

di r e c t l y on poi nt e i the r , a s the fe e s i n that

c a s e we r e i nc ur

r e d dur i ng the m on i t or i ng of a consent dec re e. Th us, s ince ther e was no on go ing j ud ic ia l pr oc e e di ng, a l l e xpe rt s i nvol ve d we r e “ non- t e s t i fyi ng. ” I nde e d, the Hank i ns on Court

r e l i e d on thi s fa c t

t o di s t i ngui s h Sierra Club v

. E. P. A. Se e Hank i ns on , 351 F. 3d a t

1363. T h e S up rem e C o u rt h as h eldth at th e p h rase “reaso n ab le atto rn ey ’s f

ee” can en co m

p ass w o rkp erf

o rm edb y in d iv idu als w h o are n o t atto rn ey s. See Mis souri v . J enki ns exre l. Ag

ye i , 491 U. S. 274, 285 ( 1989)

. I n J e nk i ns , th e C o u rt

o b s e rv e d , “ C l e ar l y, a ‘reaso n ab le atto rn ey ’s f ee’ can n o t h av e b een m ean t to c om pe ns at e onl y

work pe r form e d pe r s ona l l y by m e m be r s of the bar. Rather , the te rm

m ust r efer to a r ea sonable fee for the work product of an att orney .” I d. I n l i gh t

of J e nk i ns , IC O h as a s tr ong c l a i m

that i t i s e nt i t l e d t o c om

pe ns at i on for

the work of th e n o n -testif

yin g ex p erts, as th ey

assistedth e atto rn ey s in prepari ng thei r ult im at e work p rodu ct . This vie w f inds supp ort in a d ecisio n o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p eals f

o r th e S ev en th C ircu it hol di ng that , whi l e the fe e s of t e s t i fyi ng wi tne s s e s we r e not r e c ove r abl e a s att orne y

fe e s unde r

as t at ut e tha t di d not s e par at e l y r e fe r e nc e e xpe rt

wi tne s s e s , the fe e s of non- t e s t i fyi ng wi tne s s e s we r e . Tha t

Court obs e rve d:Friedrich , a dec ision int erpr eting42 U. S

. C. § 1988, was 19 vaca ted and re manded f

or re consideration, see49 9 U .S. 93 3 ( 19 91 ), in light of W est Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey , 499 U.S. 83 (1991), which held that § 1988 did not per mit non-testifying e x pert fe es to be shifted to the g overnme nt. Casey has bee n superc eded by sta tu t e. See Lan dg ra f v . U SI Fi lm Prod

s. , 511 U.S. 244, 251 (1994) (obser ving that “§ 113 [of the Civil R ights Ac t of 1991] re s p o n ds to [ Casey ] by providingthat an aw ard of attorney ’s fe es may

include expert fe es”)

. 34 Ex pert s are no t only

hire d to tes ti fy ; s om et im es they ar e hir ed, a ls o o r i nste ad, t o edu cate coun se l i n at e c h n i c a l matt e r

g e rman e t o th e s u i t

. T h e t i me so spent by

the e xp ert i s a

substi tute fo r l awy er t i m e , jus t a s par a l e ga l t i m e i s , for

i f pr ohi bi t e d ( or de t e rr e d by

the c os t ) fr om

hi r i ng an e xpe rt

the l awy e r woul d att e m

pt t o e duc at e hi m s e l f a

bout the e xpe rt ' s ar e aof e xpe rt i s e . To for bi d the s hi ft i ng of the e xpe rt ’ s fe e woul d e nc our a ge un ders peci al iz at ion andineffici ent tri al pr e par at i on, jus t

a s t o for bi d s hi ft i ng the c os t

of par a l e ga l s woul d e nc our a ge l awy e r s t o do par a l e ga l s ’ work. Fr i e dr i c h v

. Chi c ago , 888 F.2d51 1, 51 4 (7th C ir . 198 9). 19 We agre e with this l og ic . The pu rposes of RC RA ’s fees hi ft i ng pr ovi s i on woul d not be we l l

- s e rve d by

pr ohi bi t i ng reim b u rsem en t f

o r th e f ees o f n o n -testif

yin g ex p erts, at least to the e xt e nt that the s e e xpe rt s s e rve t o “ e duc at e c ouns e l i n a tech n ical m atter g erm an e to th e su it.” It is n o t u n reaso n ab le to ex p ect th at atto rn ey s w ill rely o n ex p erts to edu cate th em as to s c i e nt i fi c and t e c hni c a l i s s ue s i nvol ve d i n agi ve n c a s e . I nde e d, a s the Se ve nth Ci r c ui t

obs e rve d, pr ohi bi t i ng r e i m bur s e m e nt

for the fe e s of non- t e s t i fyi ng e xpe rt s woul d s i m pl y e nc our a ge atto rn ey s to edu cate th em selv es, u n d o ub ted ly at a h ig h er co st. T h u s, w e w ill af

f irm th e D istrict C o u rt o n th is p o in t. V III. C o p yin g C o sts The Di s tr i c t

Court awar de d Te rr i s $148, 715 i n c opyi ng c os t s . Thi s awar d pos i t e d ac os t of 20 c e nt s pe r

pa ge c l a i m e d forOn two oc c a s i on s , di s tr i c t judge s i n thi s Ci r c ui t

have 20 fo un d that

25 ce nts per

copy was a re as on able am ou nt to char ge. See J ames v . Nor ton , 176 F. Supp . 2d 3 8 5 , 4 0 0 (E.D. Pa. 200 1); C h u rch ill v. Sta r En ters. , 1998 U. S. Di s t

. LEXI S 6068 at 29- 30 (E.D. Pa. Ap r. 17 , 199 8) (unp ub li shed op inion). W e affi r m t he aw ar d for ext er nal copy i ng, w hi ch w as 21 b ill e d a t co st. I C O conce des t hat i t s copy i ng aw ar d s houl d be r educe d by 22 $53. 40 for copy i ng r el at i ng t o t h e o the r defe ndant s . T he D i s t r i ct 35 i nt e rna l c opyi ng; e xt e rna l c opyi ng wa s bi l l e d at c os t

. W hi l e the Distri ct Co urt a ckno wledged that this 20 cents per page rate was h ig h er th an th e “1 0 to 1 5 cen ts d eem edreaso n ab le b y m o st fe de r a l c ourt s , ” 336 F. Supp. 2d at 400 n. 7, i t

c onc l ude d that

20 ce nts was ac ce ptable

. T h is C o u rt tax es co p yin g co sts at 1 0 cen ts p er p ag e. See Thi r d Ci r c ui t

L. A. R. 39. 3( c )

. As the Di s tr i c t Court found, m o st co urts to co n sid er th e issu e h av e f o u n dth at a rate o f

1 0 to 15 c e nt s pe r

c opy i s a ppr opr i at e . W e have s e r i ous c onc e rns

20 about the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de c i s i on t o gr ant I CO r e i m

bur s e m e nt at the r at e of 2 0 cents per page. W e jud ic ia ll y no ti ce that

Fed E x / K i n k o ’ s c h ar g e s l e s s th an 7 c e n t s p e r p a g e f o r l ar g e v o l u me co p yin g . T he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not e t hat di ffe r ent t y pes of co p ies h av e d iffe ren t cos ts; o b v iou slyco lor co p ies are m o re expens i ve t han bl ack a nd w hi t e ones . H ow ever , i t i s not cl ear fro m the re co rd w h ethe r IC O ’s att o rne y s p erf o rm ed their m o re expens i ve copy i ng i n hous e. T he D i s t r i ct C our t s eems not t o have gi ven t hi s as pect of t he ca s e s uffi ci ent at t ent i on. Si nce w e ar e r emandi ng s o m any a sp e c ts o f

th e a w a rd , w e w ill a lso v a c a te a n d re m a n d o n th is i s s ue for ful l er cons i der at i on. In th e sam e v ein w e w ill also 21 va c at e and r e m and for

am or e a de quat e r e vi e w of the num be r of copies m ade by

plai ntiffs. I CO ’s attorney s s ub m itte d doc um e nt at i on for

the i r i nt e rna l and e xt e rna l c opyi ng, and the Di s tr i c t Court c onc l ude d that

the t ot a l num

be r of c opi e s wa s not e xc e s s i ve . But

I CO r e que s t e d r e i m

bur s e m e nt

for 387, 619 in tern al co p ies, an dan u n kn o w n n u m b er o f ex tern al co p ies. Th us, m ore than a conclusory ruli ng is ca ll ed fo r. 22C our t al s o aw ar ded I C O $17 for copy i ng expens es relat ed t o t he t w o i n l i m i ne m o tio n s f ile d b y G ra c e d is c u s s e d a b o v e . See sup ra Par t V I

. I f t he D ist ri ct C our t det er m i nes t hat t he t i m e s pent by IC O ’s at t orney s contes t i ng t hese m oti on s m ay no t be ch arged to H o n ey w ell , then it sh o u ld red u ce the p h o toco p y ing aw ard acc or dingl y . W e r eal i ze t hat t hes e s um s ar e t i ny i n t he gr and s c h e me o f t h i n g s , b u t we me n t i o n t h e m i n t h e i n t er es t of c o m p le te n e s s . 36 IX. Costs of

Ov erti m e andTem

po rary Em ploy ee s Finall y , Hon ey

well chal le ng es the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s de c i s i on t o c om

pe ns at e I CO for

ove rt i m e c os t s , the c os t s of tem p o rary em p lo y ees, an dth e co st o f

m eals asso ciatedw ith ov erti m e. Th e Cou rt

corr ec tl y no te d that overt im e andre late d c os t s ar e onl y

r e i m bur s abl e “ whe r e the r e i s ane e d for the additi on al em

ploy ee or ov erti m e, such as with an em er gency .” See 33 6 F . Sup p. 2dat

40 1. Ho ney

well ar gu es that

the Dis tr ic t C o u rt m isap p liedth is p rin cip le, as it f ailedto id en tif

y “a sin g le in stan ce in w h ich th e in cu rren ce o f tem p o rary em p lo y ee co sts, st aff o vert im e, or ov erti m e m ea l c osts corr es po nd ed to an un avoidable e m er gency .” Hone y we l l i s c orr e c t

that ove rt i m e c os t s m ay

onl y be re im bu rs ed wh en re as on ably

nece ss ar y . How ever , the Distri ct Court c onc l ude d that

the am ount

of ove rt i m e at

i s s ue —97. 75 hour s ove r

a ppr oxi m at e l y

ni ne y e ar s —wa s r e a s onabl e i n l i ght of

“ the c om pl e xi ty of the l i t i ga t i on and the tr e m e ndous num be r of do cum ents that

were produced and d ea dlines se t by this Co urt. ” Id

. at 402. W e a gr e e wi th the Di s tr i c t Court tha t , i n ac om

pl e x, m u lti-y ear actio n su ch as th is, a certain am o u n t o f o v ertim e is inevit able . The am ou nt at is sue i n this c as e (

ju st ov er te n h ou rs pe r y e ar ) doe s not

s tr i ke us a s at

a l l e xc e s s i ve . Mor e ove r , the D istrict C o u rt h as a f

ar g reater u n d erstan d in g o f th e d ead lin es it im p o sedan dth e co m

p lex ity o f th e u n d erlyin g actio n . F o r th is r e a s on, we fi nd that

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s c onc l us i on that

the am ou nt of

ov erti m e andre late d costs cl ai m ed by ICO w as jus t i fi e d by

the c om pl e xi ty of the unde r l yi ng a c t i on and the deadli nes s et

by the Cou rt

was not an abuse of d is cr et ion. We wi l l the r e for e a ffi rm

thi s port i on of the fe e awar d.37 X. Su mm ar

y T o su mm arize, w e af

f irm th e aw ardin all resp ects w ith the ex cep tio n o f

th e f o llo w in g ch arg es:

• W e w ill v a c a te th a t p o rtio n o f th e a w a rd a ss o c iate d w ith t he s i x s peci fi c cha r ges r efe r ence d above ( t he t i m e s pent pr epar i ng pr et r i al and pos t

- t r i al fi ndi ngs of fa ct and concl us i ons of l aw ; t he t i m e “de di cat ed t o m at t er s r el at ed t o the pret ri al order”; t he ti m e spent r eview i ng do cum ents ; th e tim e sp e n t p re p a rin g a m o tio n f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t; and t he t ot al aw ar d of par al egal t i m e) , and r emand so t hat th e D istric t C o u rt m a y c o n d u c t a m o re se a rc h in g a n a ly sis o f th e tim e claim edb y

IC O ’s atto rn ey s.

• W e wi l l va c at e the $768, 791. 44 awar de d for the work of D r . B r u c e B e l l , D r . B e n R o s s , an dD r . C h e ryl Mo ntgo m er

y and their re spec ti ve bu si ness enti ti es , s o that th e D istrict C o u rt m ay

co n du ct a m o re th o ro u g h an aly sis o f th e tim e claim edb y

th ese ex p erts.

• W e wi l l va c at e the $148, 715 for phot ocopy i ng cos t s , and rem an d so that the D ist ri ct C o u rt m ay co n d u ct a m o re s e a r c h i n g r e v i e w o f

t h e n u mb e r o f

c o p i e s c l a i me d b y I CO as w el l as t he ap propri at e bil l i ng rat e for i n-hou se copies.

• W e wi l l v a c a t e t h e $ 4 6 , 9 7 0

. 4 8 a wa r d e d f o r t r a v e l t i me an d tr av el co sts, an d rem an d so that the D ist ri ct C o u rt m aym ake a det er m i nat i on as t o t he r egul ar pr act i ce i n t he r el evant m ar ket for bi l l i ng s uch t i m e.

• W e w i l l vaca t e t he por t i on of t he aw ar d, i ncl udi ng t he $70. 40 i n phot ocopy i ng cos t s , r el at i ng t o t he t i m e s pent on m ot i ons w hi ch H oney w el l al l eges i nvol ve ot her defe ndant s . O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ct C our t s hal l cons i der w het her t he 41. 78 hour s I C O cl ai m s r el at i ng t o t he t w o in l i m i ne m o tio n s f

iled b y G ra c e w e re re late d to its su it a g a in st H o n e y w e ll.

• F in a lly , w e w ill v a c a te th e a w a rd o f $ 5 4 1 .0 8 re latin g to38 “l ocal t r avel expens es ” w hi ch t he D i s t r i ct C our t negl ect ed to d e d u c t f

ro m its f in a l aw a rd . IC O d o e s n o t co n tes t th is re d u c tio n . See s upr a not e 3.