for.taking Plaintiff's first two depositions and for the Motion for Sanctions.

Defendant also seeks costs related to the taking of Plaintiff's first two depositions and the
Motion for Sanctions. This includes $258.60 in copy costs. However, Defzndant has failed to
indicate what was copied, how many copies were made, and the rate per page for copying.
Accordingly, the reasonableness of these costs cannot be determined and are denied. See American
Automotive Accessories v. Fishman, 991 F. Supp. 995, 997 (N.D.IIL 1998) (copying charges that are
not discernable from the supporting documentation are not allowed).

Defendant also seeks $1,444.39 in court reporter fees. These fees include 146 pages
transcribed at the rate of $3.25 per page and an expedited surcharge of $2.78 per page for the first
day of Plaintiff's deposition transcript and 131 pages transcribed at the rate of $3.25 per page and
an expedited surcharge of $1.34 per page for the second day of Plaintiff's deposi-ion transcript. The
Judicial Conference has established $3.30 as the rate per page for an original transcript, $4.00 per
page for each expedited copy, $0.75 per page for the first copy of a transcript, and $0.55 per page
for each additional copy to the same party. Defendant does not indicate why expedited copies of
the transcripts were required. Accordingly, Defendant is awarded the transcription costs of $900.25
(277 pages X $3.25 per page). The deposition transcript fees also include ar. appearance fee of
$87.50 for 3.5 hours. Such appearance fee is reasonable and is awarded. Lastly, as to the deposition
transcripts, Defendant seeks costs related to shipping and handling and an “administrative fee”. Such
Costs are not recoverable and will not be awarded. Based on the above, Defendant is awarded a total
of $975.75 in deposition costs.

Lastly, Defendant seeks costs in the amount of $71.08 for online research. Such costs are

not recoverable and are not awarded. See Haroco v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust of Chicago, 38



reasonable in light of the lack of complexity of both filings. Based on the complexity, or lack
thereof, of the filings, a reasonable amount of time spent on drafting the motion is found to be five
hours (based on the need to read and analyze the two deposition transcripts) and two hours for the
reply brief. The remaining times sought by Barancik are reasonable. Accordingly, Barancik is
awarded fees for a total of 26.5 hours of work. Furthermore, Piskorski’s fees of 2.5 hours of work
are reasonable and are awarded.

Barancik supports her request of the hourly rate of $195.00 per hour through an affidavit in
which she avers that the $195.00 per hour rate is the rate customarily charged by her firm for similar
work performed by attorneys with similar skills and experience. She also provides the affidavit of
the finance manager of her employer who avers that Barancik’s regular hourly rate is $195.00 per
hour and that this rate is comparable to the hourly rate charged by lawyers within the firm of similar
years of experience and labor and employment law expertise.

Piskorski supports his request of the hourly rate of $415.00 per hour through an affidavit in
which he avers that the $415.00 per hour rate is his billable hourly rate. He also provides the finance
manager’s affidavit in which the finance manager avers that Piskorski is a partner at Seyfarth Shaw
whose regularly rate is $415.00 per hour and that this rate is comparable to the hourly rate charged
by attorneys at the firm of similar years of experience and expertise in labor and employment law.

Defendant argues that the requested rates are above the prevailing market rates but provides
nothing to support his argument and to contradict the materials provided by Defendant’s counsel that
establishes their respective market rates of $195.00 and $415.00 per hour. Accordingly, the hourly
rate of $195.00 and $415.00 are found to be reasonable.

Based on the above, Plaintiffis awarded $6,205.00 ($5,167.50+ $1,037.50) in attommeys’ fees


F.3d 1429, 1440-41 (7th Cir. 1994).
Based on the above, Defendant is awarded a total of $7,180.75 ($6,205.90 + $975.75) related

to Plaintiff’s first two depositions and the Motion for Sanctions.

Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Related to Plaintiff's Failure to Appear For Two Subsequent Depositions

Defendant seeks a total of $1,388.75 in costs and fees relating to Plaint.ff’s failure to appear
for his 9:00 a.m. or 1:00 p.m. deposition, as ordered by this Court, on December 3, 2003. This
amount includes a total of 6.25 hours of work at the rate of $195.00 per hour and $170.00 in court
reporter fees.

A review of the hours of work performed by Barancik related to Plaintiff's failure to appear
at his December 3, 2003 depositions demonstrate that the 6.25 hours is reasonable. Furthermore,
as discussed above, Barancik’s hourly rate of $195.00 is reasonable. The $85.00 no-show charge
by the court reporter for each of the Plaintiff's ordered depositions is reasonable. Accordingly,
Defendant is awarded $1,388.75 in costs and fees related to Plaintiff's failure to appear for his
depositions on December 3, 2003.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Petitions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees are granted

in part and denied in part. Defendant is granted a total of $8,569.50 in costs and fees.

Dated: tua tl, 2004 & ‘Waset-

\vouyw. DARRAH
el States District Judge



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge If Oth
vor Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Aagned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 641 DATE 2/11/2004
CASE Franzen vs. Ellis
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(e5) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(@) oO Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due. :

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

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

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for} on set for at .

(7) a Trial{set for/re-set for] on at

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

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

OFRCP4{m) (Local Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)(1) Ol FRCP41{a)(2).

(10) M1 [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 3/16/04 at 9:00 a.m. Pretrial conference
set for 2/18/04 and jury trial set for 2/23/04 is vacated, For the reasons stated in te attached memorandum
opinion and orders, defendant’s petition for costs and attomeys’ fees is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant is granted a total of $8,569.50 in costs and fees. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

ov | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form, Sid S fn
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. j
courtroom por (Cra iw
MF deputy's meus
initials = =T
O° Daterimereceived in
© *_central Clerk's Office



_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION Bee 2
FEB 12 2004
RICHARD FRANZEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 03 C' 0641
y. )
) Judge John W. Darrah
ELLIS CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
MORANDUM OPINION RDE

Presently pending before the Court are Defendant’s two petitions for reasonable costs and
attorneys’ fees. Previously, Defendant was granted reasonable costs and attomeys fees incurred by
Defendant for Plaintiff's deposition and in bringing a previous motion for sanctions. Defendant was
granted additional costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendant as a result of Plaintiff's failure
to appear for two depositions on December 3, 2003.

The party seeking attorney’s fees bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the hours
worked and the claimed hourly rates. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (Hensley).
The amount of reasonable fees is the number of hours reasonably expended on the case multiplied
by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

After determining the reasonably expended hours, a court must determine a reasonable
hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The reasonable hourly rate is based on the “market rate” for

the services rendered. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir.


1996). , Counsel seeking fees has the burden of proving the market rate. Once counsel establishes
this rate, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate why the ate should be lower.
Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, 554 (7th Cir. 1999) (S2egon).

An attorney’s market rate is the rate that lawyers of similar experience and ability in the
community normally charge their paying clients for the same type of work. Spegon, 175 F.3d at 555.
Counsel’s actual billing rate for comparable work is presumptively appropriate for use as the market
rate.

Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Related to Plaintiff's Initial Depositions and Motion for Sanctions

Defendant seeks a total of $13,975.32 in costs and fees relating to Plaintiff's first two
depositions and the Motion for Sanctions. This amount includes a total of 57.25 hours of work
performed by Attorney Alysa Barancik at the rate of $195.00 per hour and 2.50 hours of work
performed by Attorney Thomas Piskorski at the rate of $415.00 per hour.

Defendant has provided a detailed itemization that includes the description of the work
completed by the specific attorney and the time needed to complete such work. A review of the
itemized list demonstrates that some of the fees sought are not properly recoverable. Defendant was
awarded the reasonable fees related to Plaintiff's first two depositions and the Motion for Sanctions
based on Defendant’s inability to complete the deposition because of Plaintiffs counsel’s improper
conduct during the depositions. However, fees that Defendant would have incurred regardless of
Plaintiff's counsel’s conduct are not recoverable. The five hours spent by Barancik preparing and
traveling to the depositions are not recoverable because these costs would have been incurred by the
Defendant irregardless of any sanctionable conduct. Furthermore, the 19.5 hours spent on drafting

the Motion for Sanctions and the 13.25 hours spent on drafting the eight-page reply brief are not