Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

WEST CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT

GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Pending is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

dated October 23, 2015, ECF No. 358. The parties have been furnished a copy of 

the R&R and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court has carefully reviewed the 

objections de novo, and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is due to be adopted 

in part and rejected in part. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) raises the same

objections here as it raised before the Magistrate Judge. In general, the EEOC argues

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

that Defendant West Customer Management Group, LLC (“West”) unreasonably

added two attorneys to litigate the fee issue, Attorney Sara Janes (at $275 per hour)

and Attorney Nicole LeFave (at $240 per hour), for whom West billed 110.10 hours. 

The EEOC objectsthat this billing is duplicative of work performed by lead attorneys

Julie Springer and Geoff Weisbart. Additionally the EEOC disputes the existence of

a “clear, distinct contribution among any research and writing tasks billed by any of

the four attorneys.” ECF No. 360, at 5. The Court has carefully reviewed all entries

and finds that, although a minimal amount of overlap exists, the vast majority of the

fees are not duplicative. 

Where multiple attorneys have each made a “distinct contribution” to the case,

there is support for awarding fees for multiple attorneys, unless “the attorneys are

unreasonably doing the same work” and doubling the billings. Johnson v. Univ. Coll.

of Univ. of Ala., 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Circ. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994

(1983). The time records in this case reflect that in almost every respect, West

carefully limited its billing to avoid duplication among the attorneys. The records

demonstrate that each attorney made distinct contributions to the fee litigation, such

as Janes and LeFave’s contributions to research and drafting, whereas the lead

attorneys reviewed case law and revised and edited the drafts. Thus, Janes and

LeFave contributed and were not unreasonably doing the same work as Springer and

Case No: 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

Weisbart. The EEOC also argues that because the litigation involved only a “simple

1

discreet issue,” additional attorneys were not required. This assertion ignores the

efficiency West achieved by billing most of the research and writing tasks at a lower

rate than if the lead attorneys had done all of the work. See, e.g., Dowdell v. City of

Apopka, Fla., 698 F.2d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that to the extent work

is not overlapping, “[a]ll attorneys who contribute their services to a case may be

awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees). That said, the records reflect that a minimal

amount of time was billed by multiple attorneys for attending certain meetings

together and preparing and reading emails to each other, which must be subtracted.

2

The award will be reduced by $1,474. See Note 2.

The EECO also objects to 4.8 hours billed as attorney work that the EEOC

As one example, on 10/13/14 Janes billed West for 0.9 hours to “Review and revise 1

response to EEOC’s motion to strike, including incorporating edits from J. Springer.” EFC No. 360,

at 9. Other entries show that although Janes and LeFave were researching, the lead attorneys were

reviewing case law and revising or editing drafts. This clearly shows collaboration and not

duplication, as argued by the EEOC. 

Duplicative hours include: LeFave and Janes meeting with Weisbart on 8/11/14, billing 0.3 2

hours each and LeFave and Janes meeting with Springer on 8/18/14, billing 0.8 hours each; Janes

meeting with Springer and each billing for the time on 5/14/14 (0.2 hours), 8/27/14 (0.5 hours),

10/7/14 (0.5 hours), and 10/30/14 (0.2 hours). Also duplicative hours include Janes meeting with

Weisbart and each billing for the time on 6/2/14 (0.7 hours) and 10/22/14 (0.3 hours). This totals 4.6

hours, representing $1,226.50 (3.5 hours for Janes, at $275 per hour, plus 1.1 hours for LeFave, at

$240 per hour). The EEOC also objected to entries in which Janes billed for reading or drafting

emails between herself and co-counsel, which appears duplicative of other attorneys billing for

reading or responding to the same emails, entered on 2/4/14 (0.2 hours), 8/27/14 (0.4 hours),

10/10/14 (0.1 hours) and 10/24/14 (0.2 hours). This totals 0.9 hours at Janes’s rate of $275 dollars

per hour, for a total of $247.50. Together, these duplicative billings add up to $1,474 ($1,226.5 +

$247.50).

Case No: 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

considers clerical and 12.1 paralegal hours that the EEOC argues do not qualify as

work traditionally performed by an attorney. The Court agrees with Magistrate

Judge’s determination that the work referenced as “clerical,” which included emails

and telephone conferences to retain local counsel and prepare the required fee

affidavits, was not purely clerical in nature but consisted of reasonable and necessary

legal tasks, and thus the fee award will not be reduced for this reason. Nonetheless,

the Court agrees with the EEOC that the two mathematical errors it identified should

be corrected. See ECF No. 360, at 17 n.6 & n.9. This results in a reduction of $420

(1.2 hours billed at Springer’s $350 rate). As to EEOC’s objection that the paralegal

hours should be reduced, the R&R reflects that the Magistrate Judge already reduced

the referenced 12.1 paralegal hours by 8.8 hours, and the Court agrees that this is an

appropriate correction to eliminate billing for work that is not traditionally done by

an attorney. No further reduction is necessary. 

The EEOC argues that West’s claim for travel time and costs incurred by outof-state counsel litigating the fee issue was unreasonable given the availability of

qualified local counsel. The Court disagrees. It is reasonable to use experienced outof-state counsel, and “excluding out-of-town counsel’s travel time is proper only if

it was unreasonable to not hire qualified local counsel.” Johnson, 706 F.2d at 1208. 

The Court has previously determined that it was not unreasonable to hire the out-ofCase No: 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

state counsel in this case, see ECF No. 337, and there is no reason to conclude

differently with regard to litigation of the attorneys’ fees matter. Also, West

reasonably billed the travel time at half rate. Therefore, these entries and costs will

not be reduced.

Finally, the EEOC objects to 3.7 hours billed by Attorneys Springer and

Weisbart for work in briefing the supplemental attorneys’ fees on grounds that the

Court did not award fees on fees. Feesincurred in preparing the motion for attorneys’

fees and costs are ordinarily compensable where fees are allowed to a prevailing party

by statute, Thompson v. Pharmacy Corp. of Am., Inc., 334 F.3d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir.

2003), and here, the Court expressly awarded feesincurred in litigating the attorneys’

fee issue, which continues through the supplemental fee award. Additionally, West

exercised billing discretion by not charging all of the fees incurred in proving up the

supplemental fees. The Court agrees with West that these fees are reasonable, and

the objection is overruled. 

Accordingly:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation isrejected in part,

to the extent that the supplemental fees awarded in the R&R will be

further reduced by the sumof $1,894, in light of the objections sustained

in this Order, and the remainder of the R&R is adopted and incorporated

Case No: 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

herein by reference. 

2. Defendant West Customer Management Group, LLC is hereby awarded

an additional $68,779.50 in supplemental attorneys’ fees plus $1,873.48

in nontaxable expenses incurred in litigating post-trial issues.

3. The EEOC is directed to submit payment in that amount to West,

through its counsel, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this

Order. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2016.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK Document 362 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 6