No. 03 € 2655 Page 4

Finally, defendants contend that only one attorney should be compensated for his
attendance at court proceedings. Defendants cite a bankruptcy case for the proposition that
only one attorney should bill for a court appearance, unless a proper justification is given.

In re Adventist Living Centers, Inc., 137 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991)(“When more

than one attorney appears in court on a motion or argument or for a conference, no fee should

be sought for non-participating counsel.”). However, in Tuf Racing Products, Inc, v.

American Suzuki Motor Corp., 1999 WL 669226 at *2 (N.D.IIL. 1999), Judge Reinhard found

it reasonable for three attorneys to attend a deposition and for an attorney, not appearing
before the court, to read a transcript into evidence. He awarded fees in both instances. Jd.
It is reasonable for both an associate, who has performed most of the work on a matter, and
the lead counsel, who is ultimately responsible for the action, to attend court hearings. As
Dorkin and Varick explain in their reply, the hearings could have required that they examine
witnesses, argue the facts giving rise to their motions or speak to the work they had prepared.
Thus, their presence was justified.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ petition for attorneys’ fees is granted, but we will

formes B. Maras

JAMES B. MORAN
Senor Judge, U. S. District Court

not increase it for plaintiffs’ Reply.

Qee 24, 2003.


No. 03 C 2655 Page3

unreasonable, nor do they strike us as excessive in the current Chicago legal market. Plaintiffs
also provide an itemized account of time spent in preparation of the following motions: 17.4
hours by Dorkin, and 9.8 hours by Varick. As with the attorneys’ fees, the hours billed do not
raise concern.

Nonetheless, defendants raise specific objections to the attorneys’ itemized fees. They
argue that plaintiffs’ attorneys billed too much time for certain tasks; billed for tasks that
would have been performed regardless of the motion to compel or the motion to show cause;
billed for two attorneys, when only one was necessary; and billed multiple tasks together,
making it difficult to determine whether a fee is valid. As stated above, the total number of
hours that plaintiffs’ attorneys spent seeking defendants’ discovery compliance was not
excessive, nor was the time spent on any particular task excessive. Despite defendants’
assertions, we do not find 2.2 hours an unreasonable amount of time spent on research,
writing, and review of a motion to compel, nor do we find 2.3 hours excessive for the
preparation of a motion for rule to show cause and a teleconference with defendants regarding
the motion. Since the allotted times spent on the various tasks appear reasonable, we do not
share defendants’ concern that plaintiffs’ attorneys did not properly list every activity as a
separate item.

Nor do we find the attorneys improperly billed for tasks that they would have
performed regardless of defendants’ failure to comply with the court order. Though the
attorneys may have reviewed the same documents had defendants fully complied with the
discovery request, it would have been for a different purpose, with a different objective in
mind. Had defendants properly responded to discovery requests, the attorneys would not have
needed to bill for their attempts to get defendants to comply — attempts which were a

prerequisite to a motion to compel.



Krinute Order Forti (06°97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

fees is granted, but we will not increase it for plaintiffs’ reply.

ai)

{For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

vomeotactent uae | James B. Moran Sng Sede ter |
CASE NUMBER 03 C 2655 DATE 12/29/2003
CASE SIGMA PROJECT SERVICES, INC., et al vs. MASCON INFORMATION
TITLE TECHNOLOGY LTD.
[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 psesented.]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use {isting in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion duc
Bg a Answer brief to motion duc___. Reply to answer brief due____
(4) Qa Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on setfor___—_at
(6) Q Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at.
(7) o Trial{set for/re-set for]on__— at.
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) 0 This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs(by/agreement/pursuant to}
CAFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.) COFRCP41(a)\(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
qo (Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Plaintiffs’ petition for attorneys’

No notices required, advised in open court

te ire
required,
No notices reqi umber of notices

Document
Number

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Dl,

Notified counsel by telephone ated

vo | Docketing to mail notices.

ook

Mail AO 450 form.

docking deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge, .
Gah HP ug ooo es
Sate mie nie
courtroom none
LG deputy’s UT G: dad

initials
Date/time received in

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy witials

“a



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

EASTERN DIVISION
SIGMA PROJECT SERVICES, INC., a California )
corporation, SRIKANTH RAMACHANDRAN, and )
GURUNATH NATRAJAN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. 03 C 2655
)
MASCON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY )
LIMITED a/k/a/ MASCON INFORMATION )
TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, a Delaware corporation, ) £
MASCON GLOBAL, LTD., a foreign corporation, ) Zz j a)
KRISHNAMURTHY CHANDRA, NANDU ) ve.
THONDAVADI, and JAYAKAR KRISHNAMURTHY,) ee 004
) L
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, Sigma Project Services, Inc. and two of its shareholders, brought this action
against defendants Mascon Information Technology Limited, Mascon Global, Ltd., and three
of its officers, for breach of contract, breach of a settlement agreement, and various other
claims. Presently, plaintiffs petition the court for an award of attorneys’ fees for costs
incurred due to defendants’ failure to comply with plaintiffs’ discovery requests. While
defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs incurred costs as a result of their non-production,
they maintain that the amount requested, $7,465, is excessive. We disagree and, therefore,
grant plaintiffs’ petition.

In their petition for attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs state the following: that they served
defendants with their First Request for Production of Documents on June 13, 2003, and that
after defendants failed to respond on time, plaintiffs agreed to a two-week extension, which
defendants also failed to meet. At the end of July, defendants informed plaintiffs that they a

would start producing documents during the first week of August. However, plaintiffs still a S


No. 03 C 2655 Page 2

had not received any documents by August 12, 2003, when defendants’ counsel informed them
that they were not prepared to produce documents, nor did they know when production might
begin. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, which we granted, ordering defendants to produce
all outstanding discovery by September 4, 2003. After defendants failed to comply with this
order, plaintiffs filed a motion for rule to show cause. On September 16, 2003, defendants
finally provided plaintiffs with some documents. They also submitted written responses to
plaintiffs’ production requests, which responses did not object to any of the requests. On
September 17, 2003, the court heard plaintiff’s motion for rule to show cause. That motion
was granted and defendants were ordered to appear on October 1, 2003, to explain why they
should not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with our order to respond to
discovery requests by September 4, 2003. No further documents were provided to plaintiffs
before October 1, 2003. At that hearing, defendants indicated a willingness to provide more
responsive documents, but — allegedly for the first time ~ indicated that some of plaintiffs’
requests required clarification.

Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ failure to produce documents responsive to its
discovery request has been unreasonable and unjustified, causing plaintiffs to file motions to
compel and to show cause, resulting in unnecessary costs. While defendants do not contest
plaintiffs’ right to attorneys’ fees, they do contest the amount to which they are entitled. To

determine appropriate attorneys’ fees, courts generally assess what an attorney would have

received for services in the marketplace. Fogle v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc., 275 F.3d 613,
615 (7" Cir. 2001). The most common way courts calculate this is by estimating the hours an
attorney would have worked on the matter and the rate charged. Jd. Plaintiffs have provided
us with the hourly rate of their attorneys: $215 per hour for the associate, Eric Dorkin, and

$380 per hour for lead counsel, Steven Varick. Defendants have not challenged these rates as