v

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

LUKE T. CHRISMAN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

No . 6:22-CY -049-H

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official

capaciry as United States Secretary of

Defense, et al.,

Defendants

ORDER

Before the Court is the defendants' opposed motion to extend their deadline to

respond to the plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Dkt. No. 158. Having

considered the motion, the plaintiffs response (Dkt. No. 160), and the applicable law, the

defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. The defendants are granted a

2l-day extension of their deadline to respond. Any response filed on or before March 4,

2024, shall be considered timely. However, the Court finds that discovery in connection

with the motion for attorneys' fees is not appropriate. The plaintiffand his counsel need not

respond to any discovery request or subpoena that has been served by the defendants related

to the fee request.

The defendants have requested a 45-day extension of their deadline to respond to the

plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees. Dkt. No. 158. They argue that this time is necessary

to discover "information regarding counsels' historical billings practices, as well as counsels'

retainer agreements for Plaintiffs in this case." Id. at 5. In particular, they seek (1) "the case

citation of any litigation matter on which the Attorney spent time since January 1,2019,

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 161 Filed 02/06/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3205
and sought recompense, the billing rate charged by the Attorney for that litigation, the total

amount charged by the Attorney for that litigation, and the total amount collected by the

Attorney for that litigation" for all non-pro bono litigation matters handled by any attorney

seeking attorneys' fees in this case; (2) "all documents identified in response to Defendants'

interrogatories"; (3) "all retainer agreements executed" for the aforementioned cases; and

(4) "all retainer agreements executed with Plaintiffs regarding representation in [this] case."

Dkt. Nos. 158-1 at 4;158-2 at4. In opposition, the plaintiffargues, among other things,

that the requested discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case and is unduly

burdensome. See Dkt. No. 160 at4,6.

The Court finds that the defendants' requested discovery is not "proportional to the

needs of the case." SeeFed, R. Civ. P. 26OXl). Plaintiffs counsels' billing rates and

records for every matter in the past five years are not necessary to determine a reasonable

rate and number of hours for the attorneys' fees in this case. And such a request is unduly

burdensome on plaintiffs counsel. See Dkt. No. 160-1. In addition, discovery is "rarely

permitted" in connection with a motion for attorneys' fees, since "a 'request for attomey's

fees should not result in a second major litigation."' fn re Genetically Modified Rice Litig.,764

F.3d 864, 872 (8th Ctr.2014) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,437 (1983)); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment (noting that discovery

may be useful in a fee dispute "[o]n rare occasion"). Thus, the Court concludes that

discovery is not necessary for determination of the issues before it. The defendants' request

for additional time to conduct discovery is denied, and the plaintiffneed not respond to the

defendants' discovery requests related to the motion for attorneys' fees.

-2-

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 161 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3206
However, the plaintiffhas indicated that he is not opposed to the alternate 2l-day

extension requested by the defendants. SeeDkt. Nos. 158 at 1; 160 at 1 n.1. Thus, the

Court grants the defendants' request for a 2l-day extension of their deadline to respond to

the plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees. Any response filed by March 4, 2024, shall be

deemed timely.

So ordered on Februa ry (" ,2024.

Y RIX

D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 161 Filed 02/06/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3207