2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-2-2009 

# Mich a el M cK

e nn a v . C ity of P hi l a delphi a
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4109

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Mich a e l M cKe nn a v

. C ity of P hi l a de lp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 343. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/343P 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. 08- 4109

_____________ M IC H A E L M C K E N N A ; B E T H M C K E N N A ; T IM O T H Y M C K E N N A ; P A T R IC IA S U L L IV A N , A p p e llan ts

v. C IT Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; A N D R E W JE R IC H O ; M A R K S T O O T S ; C A P T A IN D E B O R A H K E L L Y ; 2 J OHN DOE M ALE P OLI CE OF F I CER S O N E W H IT E A N D O N E B L A C K , S u e d in o f f icia l a n d in d iv id u a l c a p a c ity, S u e d in d iv id u a lly a n d jo in tly,

H e l d l i a b l e i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d j o i n t l y; JO N A T H A N JO S IE

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i v. N o. 07- 110) H onor abl e J

. W i l l i am D i t t er , J r . , D i s t r i ctJ udge

A r gued J une 2, 20092 B E F O R E : M C K E E , H A R D IM A N , a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober02, 2009)

B ria n M . P u ric e lli 691 W as hi ngt on C r os s i ng R oad N ew t ow n, PA 18940
B r i an K

. W i l ey( ar gued) 100 Sout h M ai n St r eet N or t h W al es , PA 19454
A tto rn e y s f

o r P lain tiff

s-A p p e llan ts Shel l eyR

. Sm i t h, C i t ySol i ci t or J ane L. I s t van ( ar gued) S e n io r A tto rn e y , A p p e a ls C i t yof Phi l adel phi a Law D epart m ent 1515 A r ch St r eet , 17t h Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102
A t t or ney s forD efe ndant s - A ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e D istric t C o u rt se t f o rth th e b a c k g ro u n d o f

th e c a se in its 1 po st -tri al op i nion den y i ng plai nti ffs’ m oti on for ju d g m ent as a m at t erof l aw orfora new t r i al

. M cK en n a v. C i t yof Phi l adel phia, C i v. N o. 07- 110, 2008 U

. S. D i s t

. L E X I S 76766 (E

. D

. P a. S ep t. 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 ).

3 G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I

. I NT RO DUC T I ON
T his m at t er com e s o n b efore t his C ou rton plai nti ffs’ a p p e a l f ro m o rd e rs e n te re d i n t h is a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983, deny i ng t hei rm ot i on fora j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw or fo r a n ew tr ial an d g ran ti n g d ef en d an ts pa rt ial su m m ary j udgm entand a pa r t i al j udgm entas a m at t er of l aw . I n addi t i on, p lain ti ffs app eal from an o rderaw ardi ng t hem at t orney s’ fees, c la im in g th a t th e a w a rd w a s in a d e q u a te

. T h is c a se a ro se f

ro m e nco un t ers betw een the P hil adelph ia pol i ce a nd r evel er s atan i m pr om ptu s t r eetcel ebr at i on fol l ow i ng t he Phi l adel phi a Eagl es ’ N at i onal Footbal l C onfer ence cham pionshi p w i n on J anu ary 23 , 20 05

. T he four plai nti ffs — 1 T i m ot hyM cK enna; hi s par ent s , M i chael and B eth M cK enna (h e re in a f ter “ M r. an d M rs. M c K e n n a ” ); a n d h is a u n t, P a tricia Sul l i van — w at ched t he game on t el evi s i on and then, br i ngi ng t w o vi deo ca m er as , l efthom e t o j oi n t hous ands of otherE agl es fans celeb rati ng i n t he s t r eet s of nor t heas tPhi l adel phi a i n t he vi ci ni t y o f C ot t m an and Fr ankfor d A venues . E ventual l y , t heT i mo t h y ’ s f a mi l y r e c o r d e d t h e e v e n t s o f t h e e v e n i n g o n t wo 2 vi deot apes . In ad d it i on t o t he t ape M r . and M r s . M cK enna r ecor ded, M s . Sul l i van r ecor ded a t ape thatpar t i al l ycaptur ed the even t s occurri ng atC ottm a n an d F rankfo rd A ven ues. M s. S u ll ivan ’s tap e w as p lay ed fo r th e jury at tri al. S o m eti m e b ef o re t r i al , ho w ev er , t he t ape M r . and M r s . M cK enna r ecor ded d is a p p e a re d f

ro m th e irp o s s e s s io n f

o r r e a s o n s u n k n o w n to u s .
4 gather i ng s t ar t ed t o getoutof contr ol , and plai nt i ffs cr os s ed paths w i t h p oli ce of

fi cers a ttem p ti ng t o d i spers e t he crow d so th a t in ju ri e s a n d p ro p e rt yd a m a g e c o u ld b e a v o id e d

. A t t he tri al , plai nti ffs and t he officer s off ered w h a t in s om e r es pect s w er e di ffe r i ng acc ount s of thei rencount er . T hey a ll ag re e d , h o w e v e r, th a t d u rin g th e e n c o u n ter th e p o lice , in part i cul arO ffi cerA nd rew Jerich o , arrested 1 7 -y ea r-old T im othy M c K e n n a . A f

ter th e ya rre ste d T im o th y , the p o lice b ro u g h t h im t o t he 15t h D i s t r i ct H eadqua r t er s ( t he “15th D i s t r i ct ”) for pr o c e s s i n g . Hi s p a r e n t s a r r i v e d a tt h e 1 5 t h Di s t r i c ts o me t i me l at er . W hi l e ar gui ng w i t h Ser geantM ark St oot s r egar di ng T im o th y ’s s tatu s, M r. M c K e n n a w a s u sin g h is vid e o c a m e ra to fi l m act i vi t i es i n t he 15th D i s t r i ct ’ s oper at i ons r oom , an ar ea that w as notopen t o t he publ i c forunr estr i ct ed ac ces s butw hi ch c o uld be view ed thr ou gh a w i nd ow byoccu pan t s of t he p ub lic a re a o f th e 1 5 th D istric t b u il d in g . A f ter S e rg e a n t S to o ts rep ea tedlyask ed M r. M cK en n a to s top v ideo tapin g , M r. M cK enna ga ve the ca m er a t o hi s w i fe t o t ake t o t he ca r , buts he re tu rn e d w ith th e c a m e ra h id d e n u n d e r h e r ja c k e t, stil l r ecor di ng. U l tim a tel y , t he p oli ce escort ed M r. and M rs .

2 M c K e n n a f

ro m th e b u ild in g a f

ter w h ich th e y w e re f

re e to g o toSer gean tJ os ey ’ s name i s m i s s pel l ed as “J os i e” i n t he 3 capt i on.

5 w her evert heyw i s hed. T he po li ce, how ever , t r ans por t ed T i m ot hyt o a hos pi t al foreval uat i on beca us e he c om pl ai ned of i njur i es. M oreove r, on t heirow n ini t i at i ve, M r. and M rs . M cK enna a nd M s . Sul l i van al s o w entt o t he hospit al s eeki ng e v a lu a tio n a n d tre a tm e n t. W h e n th e f a m ilyre tu rn e d to th e 1 5 th D i s t r i ct , t he pol i ce r el eas ed T i m ot hy t o hi s par ent s . T hough t he pol i ce f i l ed di s or der l yconduct char ges agai ns t T i m ot hy , a l ocal cou r t d i s mi s s e d t h e c o mpl a i n t f o r l a c k o f p r o s e c u t i o n a f t e rt he po l i ce did no tapp ear for s everal schedu l ed p roceedings.
O n J anuary10, 2007, t he four pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a compl ai nt in th e D ist r ic t C o u rt a lleg in g th a t th e C ityo f P h ilad e lp h ia ( her ei naft er , t he “Ci t y ”) and var i ous pol i ce of fi cer s di r ect l yhad comm i t t ed orw er e r es pons i bl e form ult ipl e vi ol at i ons under s ect i on 1 9 8 3 of thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s dur i ng t he cour s e of the f o reg o ing ev en ts. T h e C ity su cc essf u ll ym o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm enton pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s agai ns ti t , butt he ca s e then p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l a g a in s t d e f e n d a n ts C a p ta in D e b o ra h K e lly, O ffi cerJ er i cho, Ser geant St oot s , and Ser geantJ onathan J os ey 3 on cl ai m s of F ou rth A m end m ent m al i ci ou s prosecut i on , fal se arr es t , exce s s i ve for ce, and Fi r s tA m endm ent r et al i at i on. T he F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im a lleg e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts im p ro p e rly d elay ed T im o thy ’s release in retali ati o n fo r M r. M cK en n a’s act i on i n br i ngi ng a pr i orl aw s ui tagai ns tt he C i t y , and fort he M cK ennas ’ r efus al t o s t op vi deot api ng t he oper at i ons r oom at th e 1 5 th D is tr ic t w h e re th e p o lic e w e re h o ld in g T im o th y .6 A t th e tri al th e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted O ff icer Jerich o ’s m ot i on for j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw on t he m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m and gr ant ed j udgm enti n favorof Ser geant St oot s and Ser geantJ os eyon s upervi s or yl i abi l i t y cl ai m s . T he Cou r ta l s o g r a n t e d j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w i n f

a v o rof C apt ai n K el ly , fi ndi ng t hatt her e w as no evi dence t hats he w itn esse d eith er the arrest o r an im p ro p er d elayin T im o thy ’s r el eas e. O n Sept ember14, 2007, fol l ow i ng a fi ve- dayt r i al on t he re m a in in g c laim s, th e ju ryf o u n d in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts o n a ll charges exce pt Tim othyM cK enn a’s fal se arres tcl ai m against O f f ice r Je ric h o . T h e ju rya w a rd e d T im o th y $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s o n th a t c la im

. Subse quent l y , T i m ot hy ’ s at t or ney , B r i an Pur i cel l i , fi l ed a fe e pet i t i on pur s uantt o 42 U

. S. C

. § 1988, s eeki ng $181, 340 forr epr es ent at i on of Ti m ot hy

. M or eover , he sepa r at el yfi l ed a bi l l of cos t s w i t h t he C l erk of t he D i s t r i ctC our ts eeki ng t he tax a tio n o f c o sts , b u t o n ly a g a in st O f f ice r Je ric h o , th e so le defe ndan t w h o had bee n hel d l i abl e i n t he ca s e. I n a pos t

- t r i al m ot i on, p la i nt i ffs al s o r ai s ed mul t i pl e gr ounds fort he gr antof a ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law a n d , in th e a ltern a tiv e , a n e w trial. O n Sep t em ber 30 , 20 08 , t he D i stri ct C ou rt den i e d p lain t i ffs’ pos t

- t r i al m ot i ons and, i n a s epar at e opi ni on and or der , aw ar ded th e m $ 2 7 ,1 7 8 .7 5 in a tto rn e y s’ f e e s, e x p lain in g a t len g th its r eas ons for aw ar di ng s o m uch l es s t han the amounts oughti n t he fee appl i cat i on. See M cK enna v. C i t y of P hi l adel phi a, C i v. N o. 0 7 -11 0 , 2 0 0 8 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS 7 6 7 6 9 (E

. D

. P a. S ep t. 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). T he C ou rtdecli ned t o rul e on T i m othy ’s requestfor cost s, not i ng t hatt he C l erk of i t s C our thad noty ett axed c os t s andPl ai nti ffs’ n o t i ce of appea l r eci t es t hatt heyar e appe al i ng 4 from t he o rderden y in g t hem a new t ri al or a j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw and fr om t he or deraw arding at t or ney s ’ fee s as w el l as fr om “rul i ngs m ade pr etr i al

. . . and dur i ng t r i al

. ” A pp. at67. T hus , w e tr eatt hi s appea l as encompas s i ng al l of the i s s ues r ai s ed i n t hei r b ri ef, i ncl udi ng t hos e thatgo bey ond t he th re e m a tters th e n o tice o f a p p e a l s p e c if

ica lly c ited . S e e P a c itt i v. M acy ’ s , 193 F. 3d 766, 776–77 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. W e not e that even though al l pl ai nt i ffs j oi n i n al l as pect s of the not i ce of appea l , t he thr ee unsuc ces s ful pl ai nt i ffs do notcont end thatt hey w oul d be ent i t l ed t o at t or ney s ’ fee s i f w e aff i r m on the su b sta n tiv e d isp o sitio n o f th is c a se in th e D istric t C o u rt.

7 t hat , t her efor e, under t he proc edur e out l i ned i n E as t ern D i s t r i ct L o c a l R u le 5 4 .1 (b ), t h e re w a s n o th in g f o r i t to re v ie w . Subse quent l y , pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed an a ppeal chal l engi ng cert ai n aspec t s of bo t h o rder s. F or the reasons w e dis cuss below , w e w i l l affirm t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s aw ard of att orney s’ fees and i t s denial of p l ai nti ffs’ m otio n f o r a j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw orfora new t r i al and w il l d is m i s s t he appe al inso fa r as plainti ff

s are see k ing co sts fo r the D istri c t C o u rt proceed i ng s. 4

I I

. J UR I S DI CT I ON
T he D i s tr ictC o u rth ad juri sd ict ion o v er p l ai nt i ffs ’ s ect i on 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 , a n d weD efe ndant s conce de, ci t i ng B udi ni ch v. B ect on D i cki ns on & 5 C o . , 4 8 6 U .S

. 1 9 6 , 2 0 0

– 0 3 , 1 0 8 S

. C t. 1 7 1 7 , 1 7 2 1

– 2 2 (19 8 8 ), t hatt he c o sts issue i s an “a nci l l arym at t er ” l i ke a di s put e over sta tu to rya tto rn e y ’s f

e e s th a t “s h o u ld n o t u n d e rm in e th e f in a lity of the fe e aw ar d. ” A ppel l ees ’ br

. at2. W e agr ee a nd appl yt hat p rin c ip le to th e e n tire a p p e a l.
I n t hei rbr i ef, pl ai nt i ffs cont end that28 U

. S. C

. § 1920 “does 6 notr equi r e a r eques t for appr oval of a B i l l of C os t [s ] t o fi r s tgo to th e C ler k ; ra th e r it g ra n ts a c h o ic e to th e p re v a ili n g p a rtyto as k t he C l erk or a Judge of t he U ni t ed St at es C our t s t o aw ar d t he C os t s . ” A ppel l ant s ’ br

. at 16. W e can under s t and t he bas i s for t hat cont ent i on, i nas m uch as s ect i on 1920 pr ovi des t hat“a j udge o r c ler k

. . . m a ytax c o sts .” T h is la n g u a g e , h o w e v e r, m e re ly 8 have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 9 1 to revi ew t he or der s ch all enged on thi s appea l , exce ptw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on ov e rt h e Di s t r i c tCou r t ’ s a c t i o n i n d e f e r r i n g d i s p o s i t i o n of T i m ot hy ’ s r eques tfori tt o fi x cos t s . U ndert he pr ocedur es out l i ned i n Fed. R

. C i v. P. 54( d) ( 1) and Local R ul e 54. 1( b) , t he C lerk tax es c o sts, an d then , if there is a n o b jecti o n to the C lerk’s act i on, t he D i s t r i ct C our t r evi ew s t he C l erk’ s aw ar d. H er e, t he D i stri ctC ou rtdecli ned t o take anyact i on on T i m othy ’s request for cost s becau se the C l erk had no ty ett axed c o sts. T hu s, beca us e nei t hert he C l erk nort he D i s t r i ctC our thas m ade a ny det erm i nat i on of w hether T i m ot hy i s ent i t l ed t o cos t s , l etal one s et t l ed on the quantum of the cos t s , t her e i s not a fi nal or deron t he cos t s issue forus t o r evi ew . T her efor e, t o t he ext entt hat 5 T i m ot hys eeks a r evi ew of the di s pos i t i on on hi s appl i cat i on for cos t s , w e w i l l di s m i s s t he appe al w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o fur t her p ro c e e d in g s w ith re sp e c t to c o sts in th e D istric t C o u rt. 6i ndi cat es w hi ch off i cer s have t he author i t y t o t ax cos t s , and does notgr ant t he pre vai l i ng par t y a choi ce betw een t he tw o. W e do notbel i eve thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o pr ecl ude the a d o p t i on of F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 (d )(1 ) o r a c o m p a ra b le d istric t co u rt ru le r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e c l e r k ma k e t h e i n i t i a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f t he en ti t l ementt o and the quantum of cos t s . I n anyevent , i n the ab sen ce o f a clea r co n g ression al direc ti o n , w e w il l no t r eq u ir e a di s t r i ct cour t t o fol l ow a pr ocedur e t hatw oul d al l ow a l i t i gant to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a c le rk o r a ju d g e m u s t d e c id e th e is s u e . W e recogn i ze t hat a r eader m i gh tfi nd i tstrange t hat w e fi rs t 7 addr es s t he att or ney s ’ fee s i s s ue buti n doi ng s o w e fol l ow t he o rd e r o f th e is s u e s th a t p la in tif

f s a d v a n c e in th e irb ri e f

.
9 I I I

. DI S CU S S I ON
A

. A t t orney s’ F ees W e exer ci s e pl enary r evi ew i n cons i der i ng w heth er t he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the pr operl egal s t andar ds i n det erm i ni ng t he fe e aw ar d, and w e revi ew t he r eas onabl enes s of the fe e a w a rd f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . J a m a v . E s m o r C o r r . S e rv s .,

7 I n c . , 5 7 7 F. 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. W e wi l l c o n c l ude t hat t h e r e h a s b e e n a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i f

a r e a s o n a b l e per s on coul d nothave a dopt ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s v iew of the appr opr i at e amoun t o f an aw ar d. R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 892 F

. 2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2

– 8 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ). W e rev iew the C o u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs on an att or ney s ’ fee appl i cat i on, “i ncl udi ng [the C o u rt’s] d e ter m in a ti o n o f a n a tto rn e y ’s r e a so n a b le h o u rlyra te and the number o f hour s he ors he r eas onabl yw or ked on the10 c a se ,” f o r c lea r erro r. In ter f

a ith C m ty . O rg . v . H o n e yw e ll In t’l, In c ., 4 2 6 F .3 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 3 n .5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).
T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a w a rd e d f e e s p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1988, w hi ch pr ovi des t hatpr evai l i ng par t i es i n ci vi l r i ght s cas es m aybe gr ant ed “a r eas onabl e at t or ney ’ s fee

. ” T he s t ar t i ng poi nt fo r de term ining the a m o u n t of a re aso n ab le fe e is t h e lod estar, w h ich c o u rt s d eterm ine b yca lculatin g the “ n u m b er o f h o u rs re a so n a b lye x p e n d e d o n th e lit ig a tio n m u lti p lied b ya re a so n a b le h o u rlyra te.” H e n sle y v . E c k e rh a rt, 4 6 1 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 3 , 1 0 3 S .C t. 1933, 1939 ( 1983)

. H ens l eyi ns t ruct s t hatcour t s ar e t o excl ude f ro m th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e lo d e sta r a n yh o u rs n o t re a so n a b ly expende d. H our s s ubj ectt o ex cl us i on underH ens l eyi ncl ude th o s e d e e m e d “e x ce ssive , red u n d a n t, o r o th e rw is e u n n e c e s s a ry.” I d. at434, 103 S. C t

. at1939–40.
A cour t ’ s cal cul at i on of t he l odes t ar , how ever , does not end i t s i nq uiryon a fee appli cat i on . A dis t ri ct cou rtcan ad j ust a f e e a w a rd u p w a rd o r d o w n w a rd b a se d u p o n th e re su lts obt ai ned i n a cas e. I d. at 434, 103 S. C t

. at 1940. I n addi t i on, an a t t o r n e y ’ s wo r k o n u n s u c c e s s f u l c l a i ms n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e c l a i ms on w hi c h the a t t orne ys uc c e e de d i s no tc ompe ns a bl e , be c a us e su c h w o rk “ c a n n o t b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n e x p e n d e d in p u rsu it of the ul t i m at e re s ul t achi eved. ” See i d. at 434–35, 103 S. C t

. at 1940 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. M or eover , as w e have hel d, “the D i s t r i ctC our thas a pos i t i ve and af fi r m at i ve func t i on in th e f e e f ix in g p ro c e ss , n o t m e re ly a p a ss iv e ro le” a n d “ sh o u ld r educe t he hour s cl ai m ed by t he num ber of hours s pentl i t i gat i ng cl ai m s on w hi ch the part ydi d nots ucce ed, t hat w er e di s t i nct fr om t he cl ai m s on w hi ch t he par t y di d s ucce ed, and forw hi ch th e f e e p e titio n in a d e q u a te ly d o c u m e n ts th e h o u rs c la im e d .”It w el l m aybe thatt he C i t yw i l l sat i sfyanyj ud gm ent agai nst 8 O f f ice r Je ric h o a n d s o , e f

f e c tiv e ly , file d th e o b

jec tio n s o n its ow n behal f. A s a mat t erof conven ienc e w e w i l l r efe rt o t he obj ect i ons t o t he fe e appli cat i on as i f the C i t yfi l ed them on behal f of a l l defe ndant s as , i ndeed, t he obj ect i ons r eci t e.

11 L o u g h n er v . U n iv. of

P itts b u rg h , 2 6 0 F

. 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ).
H e re , T im o th y ’s tria l atto rn e y , B ria n M . P u ric e lli , r eques t ed a t otal fee aw ar d of $181, 340, compri s i ng $171, 040 fo r 42 7

. 6 h o u rs o f h is ow n w o rk a n d $ 1 0 , 3 0 0 fo r 41

. 2 h o u rs l o g g e d b y h i s c o - c o u n s e l , T h e o d o r e M

. K r a v i t z . T h e C i t y, t hough ent i r el y s ucce s s ful as an ent i t y , fi l ed det ai l ed obj ect i ons t o t h e f e e p e t i t i o n , i n t h e o r yo n Off i c e rJ e r i c h o ’ s b e h a l f

, a nd s ugges t ed thatan appr opr i at e aw ar d w oul d be $19, 506. 08. 8 A ft erm aki ng s ever al s et s of deduc t i ons and adj us t m ent s t o t he fee r eques t , t he C our t aw ar ded T i m othy a t ot al at t or ney s ’ fee of $27, 178. 75, r epr es en t i ng $25, 602. 50 forPur i cel l i ’ s w or k and $1, 576. 25 forK r avi t z’ s w or k. B ear i ng i n m i nd t hatourr evi ew o f th e C o u rt’s a w a rd is q u ite d e f e re n tial, w e n o w e x a m in e its a d ju s tm e n ts

. 1. D educt i ons forH our s N otR eas onabl yE xpended
T he D i s t r i ctC our tbegan byappl y i ng H ens l eyt o excl ude fr om t he l odes t art hos e hour s t hat w er e notr eas onabl yexpende d i n t he pur s ui tof Ti m ot hy ’ s s ucc essf ul cl ai m , a pr oces s t hat en tai led rev iew ing the ti m e ch arg ed , d ec iding w h ethe r th e h o u rs s etoutw er e r eas onabl ydevot ed to ea ch of the part i cul arI n t hi s r egar d pl ai nt i ffs ’ at t or neyor i gi nal l ys ubm i t t ed t o t he 9 D i s t r i ctC our tan uncorr ect ed and mi s t ake- fi l l ed dr aftof hi s fee a p p lica tio n . T h a t C o u rt u n d e rsta n d a b lyw a s d is tu rb e d b yth is su b m is s io n an d b yw h at i t perc eive d as c o u n sel’s sl o p p yw o rk t hr oughoutt he cas e. W e ar e sat i s fi ed thata courtcan c ons i der t he q uali t yof a n a t t orney ’s fi l i ng s w hen fi xing fees. N evert hel es s , w e s houl d notbe under s t ood as r ea ch ing our c o n c lu s io n o n a p u n itiv e b a s is

. P lain tiff s p o in t o u t th a t P u ric e lli is 5 4 y e a rs o ld “ b u t d e sp ite 10 h i s a g e i tr e m a i n s t h a t h e , l i k e m a n y f i f t y, s i x t y, a n d s e v e n t yy ear - ol ds , ( even thos e on the benc h) is abl e t o w or k har d and l ong hour s . ” A ppel l ant s ’ br

. at34 ( emphasi s added)

. W e i n no w a ysu g g e st th a t w e b e liev e th a t P u ric e lli ’s a g e re q u ire d h im to s pend extr a t i m e on thi s cas e, t h o u g h w e acknow l edge thatat le a st s o m e ju d g e s in th e ir se v e n ties o r o ld e r h a v e d if f icu lty wo r k i n g t h e s a me n u mb e r of ho ur s o ra tl e a s twi t h t h e s a me ef ficien cythat theyw o rke d w h en y o u n g er. 12 p u rpo ses d e scribe d , an d then ex clud ing the h o u rs th at w ere “exc es s i ve, r edundant , orot herw i s e unnec es s ary . ” See 46 1 U. S. at434, 103 S. C t

. at1939–40. See al s o L oughner , 260 F. 3d at 178. I n m aki ng t hi s det erm i nat ion , t he C our texcl uded a s ubs t ant i al por t i on of t he hours t he at t or ney s bi l l ed forpr epar i ng t he compl ai n t, t he pr opos ed j uryi ns t ruct i ons , and the fe e pet i t i on aft er concl udi ng t hat t he fee re ques ti ncl uded exc es s i ve t i m e fort hes e under t aki ngs i n l i ght of t he natur e and qual i t yof t he w or k pr oduced. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he docum ent s i n ques t i on 9 a n d th e C o u rt’s d isc u ss io n o f th e m , w e c a n n o t q u a rre l w ith its fi ndi ng t hats om e of the t i m e cl ai m ed w as exce s s i ve and w as not r eas onabl yexpende d. 10T hes e ar e the pr eci s e r at es t hat Pur i cel l i r eques t ed thatt he 11 D istric t C o u rt a p p ly . In m a k in g h is req u e st, h o w e v e r, P u ric e lli di d not appl yt he $300 r at e t o anyof hi s hour s , i ns t ead a chi evi ng t he $171, 040 fi gur e bym u lt iply ing a l l 427. 6 hour s byhi s t op rat e of $ 40 0. T hu s, P uri celli’s i nit i al fee requestw as, u n d en iably , ex ce ssive , an d h is co m p lai n ts a b o u t th e stark d iffe ren ce b etw ee n h is r eq u est an d the D istr ic t C o u rt ’s aw ard r i ng s om ew hathol l ow . I n any event , an at t or ney m aki ng a fe e a p p lica tio n in a sta tu to ry f e e -sh if tin g c a se sh o u ld n o t b e a b le to u se a n o u tlan d ish a p p lica tio n a s an in iti a l b a rg a in in g p o sitio n in the s am e w aythat an att o rne y fo r a p lai n ti ff in a p erso n al i n

jury c a se m ig h t m a k e a g ro ss lyin f late d o p e n in g d e m a n d in n e g o tiatio n s f

o r a se ttl e m e n t.

13 2. A dj us t m ent s t o H our l yR at es A ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our t r educe d t he hour s al l ow ed fort he pr ep a r a t i o n o f

t h e c o mpl a i n ta n d e l i mi n a t e d t h e h o u r s s pent p re p a rin g th e p ro p o se d ju r yin stru c tio n s a n d f e e p e tit io n , it arrived at a lod estar o f 3 5 2

. 1 h o u rs fo r P u ri ce ll i and 2 8

. 7 h o u rs forK r avi t z. N ext , t he C our t det erm i ned a pr oper hour l y r at e for e a c h a tto rn e yf

o r his d if f e re n t typ e s o f w o rk

. B a se d o n th e ra te Pur i cel l i r eques t ed, al ong w i t h hi s exper i ence and w hathe had been pa i d forw or k on ot hercas es i n t he s ame l egal m arket , t he C our tconcl uded that Pur i cel l i s houl d r ece i ve $400 perhourfor w or k i n cour tand $300 perhourfort r i al

- pr epar at i on w or k. 11 T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t $ 2 5 0 p e r h o u r w a s a n a p p ro p ria te r a te fo r K rav itz . In th e c ase o f b o th attorn ey s, h o w ev er, th e C o u rt d e c id e d to a w a rd f

e e s a t a re d u c e d ra te o f $ 1 5 0 p e r h o u r f o r 1 5 .814 hour s t hatt heys pentper for m i ng cl er i cal t as k s su ch as faxi ng, emai l i ng, fi l i ng, s canni ng, as s embl i ng, and conform i ng. A l s o, beca us e the fe e appl i cat i on fai le d t o br eak dow n t r i al t i m e by cat egoryt o r efl ect t i m e spent i n and outof court , t he C our tus ed i t s ow n r ecor ds t o es t i m at e the pr opers epar at i on of t i m e for th o s e p e ri o d s a n d a w a rd e d f e e s a c c o rd in g ly.
In th e c irc u m sta n c e s c o n f ro n tin g th e D istric t C o u rt, i t w a s e n t i r e l ya p p r o p r i a t e f o rt h e Cou r tt o s e p a r a t e t i me f o ri ncour tw or k, t r i al pr epar a t i o n , a n d cl er i cal t as ks forcompensa t i on atdi ffe r entr at es . See L oughner , 260 F. 3d at180 ( “A cl ai m by a law y e r f

o r m a x im u m ra tes f

o r te lep h o n e c a lls w ith a c lien t, l egal r es ear ch, a l et t erconce r ni ng a di s coveryr eques t , t he dr aft i ng of a br i ef, and tr i al t i m e i n cour ti s nei t herfai rnor r eas onabl e. ”)

. “A D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat ion of m arket b illin g ra tes ‘is a f

a c tu a l q u e stio n w h ich is s u b jec t to a c lea rly err oneous s t andar d of r evi ew . ’ ” J ama, 577 F. 3d at 180 ( quot i ng S m ith v . P h il ad elph ia H o u s. A u th., 1 0 7 F

. 3 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 5 (3d C ir

. 1997) )

. T h e C our tr eac hed a r eas onabl e r at e foreac h of the se p a ra te typ e s o f

tas k s p e rf

o rm e d , a m p lysu p p o rte d b yits f in d in g s a n d w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n , a n d w e se e n o e rro r in its re d u c tio n s . 3

. Re d u c t i o n f

o rUn s u c c e s s f

u l Tr i a l Cl a i ms T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o m ade a dow nw ar d adj us t m entof t h e r e q u e s t e d f

e e t o r e f l e c tTi mo t h y ’ s l a c k o f

s u c c e s s o n c l a i ms di s t i nct fr om hi s s ucce s s ful fal s e ar r es t cl ai m . T he pr opr i etyof t hi s act i on depends upon w hethert he uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s w er e, i n fac t , di s t i nct

. H ens l eycaut i ons t hatcour t s s houl d notr educe f e e s s i mp l yb e c a u s e s o me o f a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ’ s r e l a t e d c l a i ms15 are u n su cc es s ful

. See 461 U

. S. at434–35, 103 S. C t

. at1940. F o r e x am p le, w h ere a p lai n ti ff ’s claim s inv o lve “ a c o m m o n co re of fa ct s ” orar e bas ed on “r el at ed l egal t heor i es , . . . [m ]uc h of cou nsel ’s t i m e w i l l be d evo t ed g eneral l yt o the l i t ig a tio n as a w hol e, m aki ng i tdi ffi cul tt o di vi de the hour s expende d on a claim -by -claim b asis. ” Id. a t 4 3 5 , 1 0 3 S

. C t. at 19 4 0

. H o w ev er, w h e re a p a rtyb rin g s c laim s th a t d o n o t d e p e n d o n th e sa m e se ts of fa ct s and l egal t heor i es as t he cl ai m s on w hi ch the part yhas succeed e d , f

e es should no tbe aw arded fo r w ork on t ho se unr el a t e d c l a i ms b e c a u s e t h e wor k “ c a n n o tb e d e e me d t o have been e xpended i n pur s ui t of t he ul t i m at e r es ul tachi eved. ” See id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).
I n a mul t i

- par t ycas e, t he pr operal locat i on i s of cr i t i cal im p o rta n c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt m u s t e n su re th a t a p a rtially s ucce s s f u l d e f e n d anti s notr equi r ed t o pr ovi de compens at i on for an att or ney ’ s unr el at ed ef for t s on behal f of a n unsu cc essful p lain tiff , o r in p u rsu it o f

th e u n su c c e ss f

u l cla im s o f

a n o n ly p a rtiallyv icto rio u s p lain tiff , as se c tio n 1 9 8 8 p ro v id e s tha t o n ly a “pr evai l i ng par t y ” m ay be gr ant ed a r eas onabl e at t or ney ’ s fee

. H er e, of cour s e, i nas m u ch as onl yone cl ai m byone pl ai nt i ff succeed ed i n the D i stri ctC ou rt , t he C ou rtfaced a diffi cultt ask in so rtin g o u t th e w o rk th a t w a s f a irly c o m p e n sa b le, w h ich c o u ld in c lu d e o n ly th e w o rk th a t re a so n a b lyw a s e x p e n d e d in p u rsu it of the s ol e s ucce s s ful cl ai m . See H ens l ey , 461 U

. S. at435, 103 S

. C t

. at19 40

. M oreove r, a plai nti ff h as the b urden to est abli sh

“ t h a tt h e t i me s p e n tp u r s u i n g t h e u n s u c c e s s f u l c l a i ms contr i but ed i n anyw ay to [hi s ] s ucce s s on hi s r emai ni ng c la im s .” Id

. T he D i s t r i ct C our tdet erm i ned thatT i m ot hy ’ s s ucce s s ful16 f a lse a rre st c laim d id n o t sh a re a c o m m o n c o re o f f a c ts w ith h is ow n u nsucce ssful cl ai m s or w i t h the ot her three pl ai nti ffs’ uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s . T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t rul ed t hatt he t i m e s penti n pur s ui tof thes e uns ucce s s ful clai m s w as not compensa bl e under H ens l ey . See i d. at435, 103 S. C t

. at1940.
I n r evi ew i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on, w e not e t hat t he uns ucce s s ful m al i ci ous pr os ecut ion a nd Fi r s tA m endment r et al i at i on cl ai m s conce r ned s epar at e i nci dent s t h atoccurr ed aft erT imot hy ’ s arr es t , and pl ai nt i ffs br oughtt hem under s epar at e l egal t heor i es . O n t he ot her hand, t he exc es s i ve for ce c laim s c o n c e rn e d e v e n ts th a t w e re te m p o r a llyp ro x im a te to T i m ot hy ’ s w r o ngful arr es t

. N onethel es s , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC ourt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat t hese c l ai m s di d nots har e a c om m on cor e of f act s w i t h t he s ucce s s ful fal s e arr es tcl ai m . E stabl i s hi ng r el at ednes s on a c laim -b y -c laim b a sis in th e a tto rn e y s’ f e e s c o n tex t is a f

a c ti nt ens i ve det erm i nat i on t hatr i ght ful l y b el ongs w i t hi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on, gi ven t he tr i al cour t ’ s “s uper i or under s tandi ng of the l i t i gat i on and the des i r abi l i t yof avoi di ng fr equent appel l at e r evi ew of w hat es s ent i al l y are factual m att ers.” Id. at 43 7 , 1 0 3 S

. C t. at 19 4 1

. H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t T im o th yf a iled to c a rry h is b u rd e n to e s t a b l i s h t h a tt h e t i me s p e n tp u r s u i n g t h e u n s u c c e s s fu l c l a i ms c o n t r i bu t e d i n a n ywa yt o h i s s u c c e s s o n t h e f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m, and thatt her efor e no fe es s houl d be aw ar ded fort i m e s penton th o s e u n s u c c e s s f

u l c la im s . A ft err eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen h a d to d e ter m in e w h a t p o rtio n o f th e tim e b ill e d w a s a ttribu tab le t o t he un s u c c e s s f

u l c l a i ms . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f p r o p e rr e c o r dsM or eover , as defe ndant s poi ntout , us i ng a s t r i ct 12 m a th e m a tica l ra tio o f

su c c e ss f u l to u n su c c e ss f

u l c la im s w o u ld h av e d ict ated an ad

ju stm en t belo w o n e-q u arter of the lo d estar, gi ven t hat t he one s ucce s s ful pl ai nt i ff out of fourw as s ucce s s ful o n o n ly o n e o f

h is th re e c la im s .

17 s ep ara ti ng t i m e s penton pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s i ndi vi dual l y , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt concl uded thatone- quar t erof the l odes t ar a p p ro p ria telyre f

lec ted th e h o u rs th e a tto rn e y s re a so n a b ly e x p e n d e d r e p r e s e n t i n g Ti mo t h y o n h i s l o n e s u c c e s s f u l c l a i m — a r educt i on w hi ch Pur i cel l i cont ends w as arbit raryand m athemat i cal

. A s t he C our tacknow l edged, “[o] f cour s e, a fe e aw ar d s houl d notbe ca lc ul at ed us i ng a s i m pl e mat hemat i cal appr oach ba s ed on t he ra t i o betw een apl ai nt i ff’ s s ucce s s ful and u n su cc e ssf

u l cl aim s. ” M cK en n a, 20 0 8 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS

12 7 6 7 6 9 , at * 4 1 . It i s in c u m b e n t o n th e f e e a p p lica n t, ho w e v e r, to “m aintain bi l l i ng t i m e r ecor ds i n a mannert hatw i l l enabl e a r e vi e w i ng c ou r tt o i de nt i fydi s t i nc t c l a i ms. ” H e ns l e y , 46 1 U. S. a t 4 3 7 , 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 9 4 1

. Pur i ce ll i di d notat t empt t o om i tfr om hi s fee pet i t i on t i m e s penton uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s and fai l ed t o m ai nt ai n r ecor ds w ith su f f icie n t sp e c if

icityto a llo w th e C o u rt to p e rf o rm th is c a lcu latio n w ith p re c isio n . N o n e th e les s, ra th e r th a n m e re ly cons i der i ng t he r at io o f s ucce s s ful t o uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s , t he C our tcompar ed the t i m e s pent on T i m ot hy ’ s depos i t i on and on his cl ai m s att ri al w i t h ti m e spent on the non -pr evail i ng part i es’ depos i t i ons and cl ai m s , and i t al s o t ook i nt o acc ountt he amount of the r ecove r y on T i m ot hy ’ s s ucce s s ful cl ai m . I n t he abs ence o f sp e c if ic tim e e n tries to in d ica te h o w th e a tto rn e y s s p e n t th e irN evert hel es s i t s houl d notbe over l ooked thatt he aw ar di ng 13 of an a t t or ney ’ s fee is a judi ci al act i on and, r egar dl es s of the p a rties ’ in d if

f e re n c e to it, a c o u rt n e e d n o t le n d its im p rim a tu r to a n in a p p ro p ria te o rd e r m e re lyb e c a u se th e re w a s n o o b jec tio n to i t s entr y . See T hom ps on v. C i t y of A t l ant i c C i t y , 921 A

. 2d 427, 430, 441 ( N

. J

. 2007) ( fi ndi ng t hatnot w i t hs t andi ng pr i nci pl es of comi t y , s t at e court had aut hor i t yt o vaca t e s et t l ementagr eement sanct i on ed b yfede ral cou rtw here set t l em ent agreem ent w as “so i nfec t ed w i t h confl i ct s of i n t er es tt hati t[w as ] voi d as a mat t er o f s ta te la w .” ).

18 t i m e on t h e di s t i nctcl ai m s , t he C our tr eas onabl yus ed the i nfor m at i on avai l abl e t o i t t o es t i m at e a pr operdi vi s i on of t i m e. In th i s r egard, w e cann ot s ayt hat i t s fi nd i ng s w ere cl earl y e rr o n e o u s . I n s um , w e fi nd t hat al l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deduct i ons and adj us t m ent s w er e w el l r eas oned and a m pl ys uppor t ed byt he re c o rd

. 4

. D ef en d an ts’ O b

jecti o n s to the F ee A w ard
In a st atutory fee case, on ce t he fe e peti t i on er “s ub m i t [s] evi dence s uppor t i ng t he hours w or ked and r at es cl ai m ed, ” i d. at 433, 103 S. C t

. at1939, t he part yoppos i ng t he fe e appl i cat i on has t he bur den t o chal l enge t he r eas onabl enes s of t he r eques t ed fee

. See R ode, 892 F

. 2 d at 1 183. A di s t r i ctcour ts houl d not “dec r eas e a f

ee aw ard bas ed on fa ct or s notr ai s ed atal l byt he adver s e part y . ” B el l v. U ni t ed Pr i ncet on Pr ops . , I nc. , 884 F. 2d 13 713, 720 ( 3d C i r . 1989)

. T i m ot hycl ai m s t hatdefe ndant s voi cedI n f a c t , d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e d f

o ra gr eat er red u cti o n in h o u rs 14 an d a gre ater red u cti o n in t o tal fe es th an the D istr ic t C o u rt m ade, as defe ndant s as ked the D i str ict C our tt o m ake a t ot al a war d o f

$ 1 9 , 5 0 6

. 0 8 a s o p p o s e d t o t h e Cou r t ’ s a war d of $ 2 7 ,1 7 8 .7 5

.
19 “fe w obj ect i ons ” t o hi s r eques t ed fe es , and cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n adopt i ng a met hod of reac h ing a r eas onabl e fe e aw ar d di ffe r entfr om t he met ho d su g g es t ed by d e f e n d a n ts . A p p e lla n ts ’ b r. a t 1 8

. W e fi nd, ho w ev er, t hatdefe ndant s ’ det ai l ed obj ect i ons su f f icie n tlyra ise d th e iss u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt su b se q u e n tly addr es s ed. I n addi t i on t o s eeki ng r educt i on of the l odes t arbas ed on uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s , defe ndant s expl i ci t l yobj ec t ed t o t he ex ce ssive n es s of the hour s s penti n l i ghtof the qual i t yof the w or k pr oduced, not i ng that “M r . Pur i cel l i ’ s w r i t t en w or k, i ncl udi ng the compl ai nt , m ot i ons , j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , and the i ns t ant pet i t i on for at t or ney s ’ fee s , i s car el es s, vague, ambi guo u s , u n i n t e l l i g i b l e, verbos e, and r epet i t i ve, ” and poi nt i ng to se v e ra l sp e c if

ic in sta n c e s w h e re th e se f ili n g s w e re in a c c u ra te and confus i ng. See A pp. at98. C l ear l y , defe ndant s ’ obj ect i ons w er e s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c t o pr ovi de Pur i cel l i w i t h not i ce thathe s houl d be pr epar ed t o defe nd t he hours bi l l ed forpr epar at i on of t he compl ai nt , t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , and the fe e pet i t i on, w hi ch w ere the thr ee fi l i ng s for w hich the C ou rtded ucted ho urs. 14
D ef en d an ts m ad e tw o fu rth er req u ests, ask ing fo r a r educt i on of hour s bas ed on the ques t i o nabl e ac cur acyof the at t orney s’ t i m e records, and for t he D i stri ctC ou rtt o ad dress20 ot hers peci fi c obj ect i ons t o t he t ot al compensa t i on r eques t ed by r educi ng t he t ot al hour l yr at e uni for m l yt o a bl ended r at e of $ 2 5 5

. A s w e h e l d i n B e l l , t h e t yp e o f r e d u c t i o n m a d e b y a di s t r i ctcour tneed notbe exact l y t he same as t hatr eques t ed by t he a d v e r s e p a r t y , “ a s l o n g a s t h e f e e a p p l i c a n t i s gi ven su f f icie n t n o tice to p re se n t h is or h e r c o n ten tio n s w ith re sp e c t to t he r educt i on t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t ul t i m at el y m akes

. ” 884 F. 2d at722. T he C our t ’ s deci s i on t o addr es s defe ndant s ’ obj ect i ons byscruti nizi ng t he ti m e records, el i m i nati ng excessi ve h ou rs , a nd app l y i ng t ask-appropri at e ho url y rat es w as w el l w i t hin it s d is c re tio n . B

. R evi ew of D eni al of M ot i on fora N ew T r i al , I ncl udi ng S u b su m e d A rg u m e n ts
A lth o u g h th e ir a rg u m e n ts b e f o re th is C o u rt p rim a rily have be en di r ect ed t ow ar ds t he i s s ue of a t t or ney s ’ fee s , pl ai n t i f fs al s o a p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f t h e i rmot i o n f

o ra n e w t r i a l , a s s e r t i ng s ever al gr ounds for err or by t he D i s t r i ct C our t

. T he st andar d of r evi ew on a m ot i on for a new t r i al i s abus e of di s cr et i on, exce pt w her e a di s t r i ctcour tbas es i t s deni al of the mot i on on an a p p lica tio n o f law , in w h ich c a se a n a p p e llate c o u rt’s r e v iew is p lena ry . C u rl ey v . K lem , 4 9 9 F

. 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 5

– 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). T o the e x tent that th is a p p ea l i n v o lves rev iew o f a su m m ary j udgm entort he gr ant i ng o r d en y i ng of a j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw , w e exer ci s e pl enary r evi ew , s ee L i ght ni ng L ube, I nc. v. W i t co C orp. , 4 F. 3d 1153, 1166 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , and t o t he ext ent t hati ti nvol ves r evi ew of evi dent i ary rul i ngs w e us e an a bus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, s ee A cumed L L C v. A dvance d Sur gi cal S e r v s . , 5 6 1 F

. 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 1 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. As we d i s c u s s b e l o w,W e n o te th atpl ai nt i ffs r ai s e ce r t ai n i s s ues forour 15 cons i der at i on onl yi f w e “r emand fora new t r i al

. . . t o avoi d a w ai verof the i s s ues . ” A ppel l ant s ’ br

. at 41. W e ar e puzz l ed by t hi s s t at ementas s om e of pl ai nt i ffs ’ cont ent i ons i f ac cept ed w oul d be gr ounds fora new t r i al

. A ccor di ngl y , w e have cons i der ed t hes e i s s ues , nevert hel es s r ecogni zi ng t hatour revi ew m aybe m ore ext ensi ve than p l ai nti ffs as appe l l ants ask u s to m a k e it.
A ll p lain tiff

s b ro u g h t ex c e s s iv e f

o rc e c laim s b u t o n ly 16 T i m ot hy M cK enna coul d r el at e t he cl ai m t o hi s arr es t , as defe nd ants did not arres tt he o t her pl ai nti ffs.

21 p lain tiff s’ a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit. 15
1

. Ex c e s s i v e F o r c e Cl a i ms T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yre je c te d T im o th yM cK en n a’s ar gum ent t hati ts houl d have i ns t ruct ed the j ur y , w hi ch r ej ect ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m s , t hat any amountof for ce us ed t o eff ectan arr es tw i t houtpr obabl e ca us e i s per s e exc es s i ve. 16 T i m ot hy ’ s s t at ementof the l aw i s uns uppor t ed byci t at i on, and, m o reo v er, i s w ron g . A s the C o u rtco rrectl yco n clud ed , the ju ry w as re q u ir ed to rev iew a n y ex ce ssive fo rce claim s u n d er a t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s t es t , as enunci at ed i n G r aham v. C o n n o r, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 5 , 1 0 9 S .C t. 1 8 6 5 , 1 8 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ), to det erm i ne w hether t he for ce us ed w as r eas onabl e. See Papi neau v . P a rm le y , 4 6 5 F .3 d 4 6 , 6 2 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).
T he D i stri ctC o urtal so corr ect l yrej ect ed p l ai nti ffs’22 a rg u m e n t th a t th e ya re e n ti tl e d to a n e w trial o n a ll o f th e ir exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m s beca us e t hey pr es ent ed evi dence t o s how t hat f o r c e was u s e d a g a i n s tt h e m, whe r e a s d e f e n d a n t s d i d n ot

“ p re s e n t [ ] a n yla w f

u l b a s is to u s e s u c h f

o rc e a g a in s t th e m .” A ppel l ant s ’ br

. at 46. A l t hough t her e w as i n fac tevi dence t hat t h e p o l i c e d i d n o t u s e e x c e s s i v e f o r c e , t h e C o u r tn o t e d , c o r r e c t l y, t hatt he j ur yw as notr equi r ed t o acc ept pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence w h e th e r o r n o t c o n tr a ry e v id e n c e w a s p re s e n te d

. 2 . S u p e rv iso ryL iab ili ty Pl ai nti ffs cont end thatbeca us e theypr es ent ed evi dence t hats upervi s or s w it n ess ed r el evantm i s conduct , t he D i s t r i ct C ou rterr ed in grant i ng defe nd ants ’ m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m a tter o f law o n th e ir su p e rv iso ryliab ili tyc laim s. T o b e liab le i n t hi s s i tuat i on, a s upervi s orm us thave be en i nvol ved per s onal l y , m eani ng t hr ough per s onal di r ect i on oractual know l edge a nd acqui es cenc e, i n t he w r ongs al l eged. See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207 ( 3d C i r . 1988)

. H er e, t he o n lyre c o rd c itatio n th a t p lain tiff s o f f e r in su p p o rt o f

th e ir arg u m en t th at su p erv isors w itn e s s e d m isco n d u ct i s M r. M cK enna’ s t es t i m onyt hat Ser geant J os ey w as i n t he vi ci ni t yof t he arr es t at s om e poi nt aft er T i m ot hyw as handcuf fed ( i

. e. , aft er T im o thy ’s arrest). T h is i s n o t a l eg all ysu ff ici en t evid en ti ary bas i s fora r eas onabl e j ur yt o fi nd i n favorof the pl ai nt i ffs and does notpr ovi de us w i t h a r eas on t o r ever s e the C our t ’ s gr antof ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w o n th is is s u e . 3. E xcl us i on of Pol i ce D i r ect i ves on U s e of For ce P lain tiff s a lleg e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it23 excl uded evi dence of Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entdi r ect i ves on t he appr opr i at e us e of for ce. T he C our trul ed thateven i f the di r ect i ves w er e r el evant , t hey w ere s ubj ectt o excl us i on under R ul e 403 of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence , w hi ch perm i t s t he e x c lu sio n o f

re lev a n t ev id e n c e “ if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i sle adi ng t he j ur y , orby con si derat i on s of un du e delay , w ast e o f t i m e, or need l ess pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence

. ” A t r i al cour ti s aff or ded su b sta n tial d isc re tio n w h e n strik in g a R u le 4 0 3 b a lan c e w ith r es pectt o pr offe r ed evi dence , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. E ufr as i o, 935 F .2 d 5 5 3 , 5 7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ), an d “ a trial ju d g e ’s d e c isio n to admi tor excl ude evi dence underFed. R

. E vi d. 403 m aynotbe r ever sed u n l es s i ti s arbi t r aryand i r r at i onal , ” B hay a v. W est ing h o us e El ec. C orp. , 922 F. 2d 184, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1990) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H er e, t he C our tconcl uded th a t th e d ire c tiv e s h a d th e p o ten tial to lea d th e ju ryto e q u a te l ocal poli cyvi ol at i ons w i t h cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons , and that t hi s r i s k of conf

us i ng t he i s s ues su b stan t i al l yout w ei ghed the d ire c tiv e s’ p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . W e d o n o t f in d th a t in m a k in g th is d eterm ination the C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n . M o reo v er, pl ai nt i ffs coul d have of fer ed evi dence of pol i ce pr act i ce sta ndar ds i n ot herw ay s ; forexampl e, pl ai nt i ffs had the oppor tuni t yt o — and di d — cr os s - exami ne pol i ce w i t nes s es a b o u t p ro p e r p o lice c o n d u c t.
4 . M a licio u s P ro se c u tio n C laim
T i m othyar gues thatthe D istri ct C o u rtim p rop erl ygr ant ed j udg me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w i n f a v o ro f d e f e n d a n t s o n Offi cer J e r i c h o ’ s Fo u r t h Am e n d me n t ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m. To24 p re v a il o n a m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im u n d e r s e c tio n 1 9 8 3 , a pl ai nt i ff musts how t hat : ( 1) t he def endant s i ni t i at ed a c r i m i nal p roc ee d ing ; ( 2 ) th e c ri m inal p roc ee d ing en d ed in th e p lai n ti ff ’s favor ; ( 3) t he pr ocee di ng w as i ni t i at ed w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e; ( 4) t he def

endant s act ed mal i ci ous l yorfora purpos e othert han br i ngi ng t he pl ai nt i ff to j us t i ce; and ( 5) t he pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed depr i vati o n o f l i ber t ycons i s t entw i t h t he conc eptof s ei zur e as a cons equenc e of a l egal pr ocee di ng. E s t at e of Sm i th v. M a ra s c o , 3 1 8 F .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 2 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).
T im o th y co n ten d s th a t th e C o u rt m a d e tw o e rro rs in its di s pos i t i on of th e m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , butnei t her cont ent i on has m er i t

. Fi r s t , T i m ot hyar gues t hatt he C our terr ed i n bas ing i t s di s m i s s al of the cl ai m on i ns uffi ci entevi dence of m ali ce , w h ere d ef

en d an ts’ arg u m en ts w ere b ase d o n T im o thy ’s fai l ur e to es t abl i s h a depr i vat i on of l i ber t y . H ow ever , not hi ng i n Fed. R

. C i v. P. 50( a) (2) p rec l udes a courtfr om gr ant i ng or deny i ng j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w on a b a s i s mod i f

i e d f r om t hat w hi ch a movanthas advanc ed. Second, al t hough T i m ot hy cont ends t hatt he C our terr ed i n fi ndi ng that the r e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence of m al i ce t o s upport a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , he s uppor t s t hi s cont ent i on onl yw i t h t he v a g u e a s s e rtio n s, w ith o u t cita tio n , tha t “th e re c o rd w a s re p lete w ith su ff ici en t ev iden ce fo r m ali ce to b e f o u n d , ” a p p ell an ts’ b r. at43, and thatbeca us e the C our tchar ged the j ur yon pun i t i ve d a m a g e s, “ th e re m u st h a v e b e e n su f f icie n t e v id e n c e o f m a lice in t he r ecor d, ” i d. at 44. U nfor tunat el y for hi m , he does notdi r ect ourat t ent i on t o t h e p lace i n t he tr i al t r ans cr i ptof al m os t1, 000 p a g e s wh e r e t h e e v i d e n c e t o wh i c h h e r e f e r s i s l o c a t e d , a n d we a re n o t aw a re o f

a n ysu c h e v id e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , fa c e d w ith w hol l yuns uppor t ed al l egat i ons of err or , w e w i l l aff i r m t heT hough our out come does not depend on t hi s poi nt , w e thi nk 17 t hatSer geant St oot s ’ s r eas ons fornotal l ow i ng t he vi deot api ng w er e compl et el yr eas onabl e. 25 C o u rt ’s d e c is io n o n th is is s u e . 5

. F i r s tAme n d me n tCl a i ms Fi nal l y , pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge c er t ai n evi dent i aryrul i ngs and j ur yi ns t ruct i ons r e g a r d i n g th e i rFi r s tAm e n dm entr et al i at i on cl ai m s. F i rs t , t he D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yden ied plai nti ffs’ r eques tt o admi t , as r ebut t al evi dence , t es t i m onyfr om a form er s er geantfr om anotherpol i ce di s t r i ct w i t hi n Phi l adel phi a thathe wo u l d h a v e p e r mi t t e d v i d e o t a p i n g o f h i s o p e r a t i o n s r o o m. Pl ai nt iffs off

er ed thi s t es t i m onyt o r ebutt he t es t i m onyof Ser geantStoo ts. T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thatt he pr opos ed r ebut t al t es t i m onyw as notappr opr i at e fort hatpurpos e, how ever , beca us e Ser geantS too ts di d nott es t i fyt hatPol i ce D e p a rtm e n t p o licyp ro h ib ited h im f ro m a llo w in g v id e o tap in g in th e o p e ra tio n s ro o m . S e rg e a n t S to o ts te stif ied o n lyth a t, i n h is 19 y ear s as an o ff

i cer , he n e v e r h a d p e rm itt e d a n y o n e to vi deot ape i n t he oper at i ons r oom , and he gave hi s ow n r eas ons forthatpos i t i on (i

. e. , t hatt he ar eas bei ng vi deot aped byt he M c K e n n a s, w h ich w e re n o t in th e p u b lic a r e a o f th e 1 5 th D i s t r i ct , cont ai ned oth er juveni l es w ho w er e bei ng hel d, un dercov er offi cers , a n d p aperw ork con t ai ning of fi cers ’ names)

. T he C our tr eas onabl yconcl ud ed t hatt he pr offe r ed

17 t est i m on yw ou l d n ot have rebutt ed thi s point , and did not abuse its d is c re tio n in d e c lin in g to p e rm it th e ju ry to h e a r i t. S econ d, th e D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yrej ect ed p l ai nti ffs’26 cl ai m that the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons and ver di cts heet , byus i ng t he t erm “i m pr operdel ay ” w i t houtdefi n i ng “i m pr oper , ” conf us ed t he j ur yon the i s s ue of r et al iat i on. W hen the j ur yas ked the C our tt o defi ne “i m pr operdel ay , ” i t di d s o byexpl ai ni ng t hat “i m pr oper ” meant“w hetherornoti tw as r et al i at i on. ” A pp. at 1034. T he C our tt hen expl ai ned thatt he r eas ons fort he re talia tio n c o u ld b e th e v id e o tap in g a n d th e p rio r la w su it. O ver al l , t he C our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons on retali at i on and on the m eani ng of “i m pr oper del ay ” w er e per fec t l y cl ear , and i tdi d not abus e i t s di s cre t i on bydeny i ng pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tt o s t r i ke the w o rd “ im p ro p e r.”

I V. CO NC L US I ON
W e have cons i der ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s but r ej ectt hem as be ing w i t houtm er i t

. I n acc or dance w i t h t he for egoi ng, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s o r der s of Sept emb er 30, 2008, aw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s and deny i ng pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on for j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw or fora new trial, a n d w ill a f

f irm a ll o th e r or d e rs c h a llen g e d o n th is a p p e a l. H ow ever , i nas m uch as t he C our t ’ s act i on i n defe r r i ng t he i s s ue o f c o sts is n o t r ip e f

o r o u r re v iew , w e w ill d ism iss th e a p p e a l to th e e x te n t th a t it r a is e s th e c o s ts is s u e .