U.S. 103, 114 (1992), The standard is whether the fees are rcasonable in relation to the
difficulty, stakes, and outcome of the case, Bankston v, State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1256
(7th Cir. 1995)
A. Hourly Rate

The first step in calculating the lodestar is to determine a reasonable hourly rate.
Reasonable hourly rates are determined by the prevailing market rates in the relevant
community. Blum v. Stevenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984), “Thc markct rate is the rate that
lawyers of similar ability and experience in the community normally charge their paying
clients for the type of work in question.” Bankston v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1256
(7th Cir. 1995). The Court has reviewed the affidavits of Roll-Kraft’s counsel and finds that
the hourly rates for the partners ranging from $265 - $290 per hour, the associates ranging
from $135 - $220 per hour, and paralegal and docket clerk rates are reasonable. Chicago
Roll does not object to the hourly rates charged.
B. Reasonableness of the Hours Worked

Roll-Kraft seeks $234,442.50 for its work on the merits of the case, $43,996.00 for
services in connection with its fee petitions, $2,934.50 for fees incurred relating to settlement
discussions and $6,986.43 for computerized research for a total of $288,359.43. Roll-Kraft
has excluded from its request $39,898.50 in time which was expended on claims other than
the Illinois Trade Secrets Act claims, $3,120.00 in fee write-off that were not billed to Roll-

Kraft, and $3,143.50 on time spent in connection with the Grimes bankruptcy proceeding.


SO ORDERED THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2002.

Copies mailed to:

Michael J. Ranallo
Mark L, Shapiro
Holland & Knight, LLC
55 West Monroe St.
Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60603

Counsel for Plaintiff RKT, Inc.

Wetin Senbeus

MORTON DENLOW
United States Magistrate Judge

Daniel M. Purdom

Nancy G., Lischer

Timothy G. Shelton

Hinshaw & Culbertson

4343 Commerce Court

Suite 415

Lisle, IL 60532-1099

Counsel for Chicago Roll Co., Inc.

Steven H. Jesmer
790 Frontage Road
Suite 110
Northfield, TL 60093

Counsel for Steven Grimes



Roll-Kraft’s trade secrets. 765 TLCS 1065/5. Roll-Kraft now sceks to recover a total of
$288,359.43 for attorney’s fees ($281,373.00)! and computerized research ($6,986.43)
against Chicago Roil?
1, REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES

Roll-Kraft bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of its altorney’s fees,
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The process of determining a proper fee
award begins with a calculation of the “lodestar” - - the number obtained by multiplying the
number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Edd/eman v. Switchcraft,
Ine, 965 F.2d 422, 424 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may then reduce or augment the lodestar
based on a varicty of factors: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty
of the question; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion
of employment by the attorncy duc to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary Lec; (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) any time limitations imposed by the circumstances;
(8) the amount involved and the results obtained; and (9) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the attorneys. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 441. Finally, the degree of a party’s overall
success is critical in determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Farrar v. Hobby, 506

Mncluded in the petition for fees is $5,904 for attorney’s fees rendered by the
Cleveland, Ohio firm of Duvin, Cahn & Hutton to compel George Tracy to testify hy

deposition. The Court finds these fees to be reasonable in light of the importance of
Tracy’s deposition.

“Defendant Grimes filed a proceeding under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy
Code on February 5, 2002. In re Grimes, No. 02 B 4544 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) Which is
still pending and creates an automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362.


Chicago Roll contends that the time records are inadequate because they do not
adequately detail the amount of time spent on each activity on each day and contain vague
and unclear descriptions, Quite the contrary. The time records are comprehensive and
reasonably inform the Court of the activities performed. The Court finds the time records
adequately document the services performed. While the time spent on different tasks is not
separated, the descriptions are comprehensive and are sufficient to enable the Court to
determine their reasonableness and to enable Chicago Roll to object to specific types of work
they belicve to be unreasonable,

This Court recognizes that Roll-Kraft is only entitled to compensation for the time
spent in furtherance of the specific action for which fees are allowed. Where, as here, Roll-
Kraft is successful on one or more claims all based on a common core of facts counsel can
collect fees for the litigation directed against defendant Chicago Roll. Rosario v. Livaditis,
963 F.2d 1013, 1019 (7th Cir. 1992); Becovie v. City of Chicago, 694 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (IL.
App. Ist Dist. 1998) (applying Illinois law). Roll-Kraft has excluded the time devoted to
claims other than the trade secret claim, The Court finds the exclusion to be proper. The
Court rejects Chicago Roll’s argument that the fees should be divided by five because there
were five counts involved.

Chicago Roll further objects that there was duplication of effort. Roll-Kraft staffed
this case with two experienced partners because it proceeded on an expedited basis. This
Court finds the staffing was appropriate given the extensive amount of work required in the

short time allowed. There may have been some slight duplication and in the exercise of


Fe

Mine Onder Porm (U6/97)

a

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois 0 R | 6] N A |

cd
Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge if Oth
pe Maytrate Judge Morton Denlow chan Attigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8542 DATE 11/27/2002
CASE RKI, Inc vs. Grimes, et al.
TITLE
{in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

qa) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Q oO Brief in support of motion due

@) a Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due ’

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for :

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for :

i) oa Trial[set for/re-set for] on. at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

QFRcP4m) CO) Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP4i(a\(1) OM FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) Mf [Other docket entry) | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court grants Roll-Kraft’s
petition for attorney’s fees[68-1] and supplemental petition for attorney’s fees [103-1] in the amount of
$286,500.00, The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff RK], Inc, d/b/a Roll-Kraft and against
Defendant Chicago Roll Co., Inc. in the amount of $274,956.72 for attorney fees and court costs.

(il) @ [For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.}

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required.

wo} Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
ourtroom: .

o« ‘mys O1:S iid L2 AoW 20
initials Be nol
“peceiy
Bhateesumd’ J



discretion the Court reduces the fees on the merits from $234,442.50 to $225,000. In
addition, the Court exercises its diseretion to reduce the amount of fees on the fee pctition
and settlement from $46,931 to $40,000. The Court also reduces the computerized legal
research charges from $6,986.43 to $3,500 because of confusion surrounding the charges.
In the Matter of Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 962 F.2d 556, 570 (7th Cir. 1992)
(computerized research costs are recoverable).
C. — The Results Obtained

Roll-Kraft won on all counts. Chicago Roll lost on the two counts directed at it. Roll-
Kraft obtained substantial relief in this hard fought litigation. A fee award of $268,500 is
reasonable, Tuf Racing Products, Inc. v. American Suzuki Motorcorp, 223 F.3d 585 (7th Cir.
2000) (affirms $391,000 fee award where jury awards $137,000 in damages). By separate
minute order the Court awards court costs in the amount of $6,456.75.

fl. CONCLUSION

Roll-Kraft’s counsel did an excellent job in prosecuting this case. They conducted
themselves in a professional manner, demonstrated great skill and achieved an exccllent
result for their client in a difficult casc, Accordingly, the Court grants Roll-Kraft’s
petition for attorney’s fees and supplemental petition for attorney’s fees in the amount
of $268,500. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff RKI, Inc. d/b/a Roll-
Kraft and against Defendant Chicago Roll Co., Inc. in the amount of $274,956.75 for

attorney’s fees and court costs.


(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER

Plaintiff RKI, Inc. has filed an Amended Bill of Costs seeking costs in the amount,
of $10,010.10. Defendant Chicago Roll has filed objections thereto. Plaintiff seeks fees
of the Clerk in the amount of $180.00. The Court agrees with the Defendant that this
amount should be reduced to $150.00. RKI seeks $663.50 for fees for service of
summons and subpoena. The Court deducts $180.00 related to the service of a temporary,
restraining order and approves $483.50. RK! seeks $6,616.35 for court reporter and
transcript fees. These fees are limited to $3.00 per page. By reason of the charges ina
greater amount and other lack of supporting detail, the Court approves only $4,500.00 in
this category. RKI seeks $96.25 for witness fees for George Tracy. The Court approves
this request. RKI seeks $2,454.00 in copying fees. The Court reduces this by 50% due
to insufficient supporting documentation to an amount of $1,227.00. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
are awarded court costs in the total amount of $6,456.75.

Weiter kh bo!

MORTON DENLOW
United States Magistrate Judge



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
RKI, INC., d/b/a ROLL-KRAFT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 01 C 8542
v.

Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
STEVEN GRIMES and CHICAGO
ROLL CO., INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RKI, Inc., d/b/a Roll-Kraft (“Roll-Kraft”) sued Steven Grimes (“Grimes”) and
Chicago Roll Co., Inc., (“Chicago Roll”) (collectively “Defendants”) asserting five causes
of action: (1) violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq.; 2)
conversion; 3) breach of the duty of loyalty owed by an cmployee; 4) breach of the non-
disclosure and non-solicitation covenants; and 5) tortious interference with contract. Count
1 was directed against Grimes and Chicago Roll; Counts 2, 3 and 4 were directed against
Grimes and Count 5 was directed against Chicago Roll.

Following a bench trial, this Court entered judgment in favor of Roll-Kraft and against
Defendants on all five counts. RKJ, Inc. v. Grimes, 177 F.Supp.2d 859 (N.D. Ll. 2001). This
Court held Roll-Kraft was entitled to recover attorney’s fees, /d. at 880. Thereafter,
Defendants filed a motion for new trial or to alter or amend judgment which was also denied.
RKI, Inc. y. Grimes, 200 F.Supp.2d 916 (N.D. II. 2002). To the extent there is any question,

the Court finds that the Defendants engaged in a willful and malicious misappropriation of

\\{