Pursuant to Fede ral R u l e of Civil Procedure 25(d), G. Way ne Cloug h is substi tuted as 1 Secre tary for his pre dece ssor, L awr ence M. Small, S ecr etar y of the Smithsonian I nstitut ion. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) BET H M. NORDEN , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1232 (RM C) ) G. WA YNE CLOUGH , Secre tary, Sm it hso nia n Ins ti tu ti on, 1 ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Dr. B eth M. Norde n won par tial sum mary

judgme nt ag ainst the Smit hsonian I nstitut ion for its violations of her rig hts under the Reha bilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq . The pa

rties settled her

claims befor e a tr ial on damag es. Pending befor e the Court is Dr. No rd e n’ s mo tio n f

or a tto rn e y s’ fe e s [D kt. # 8 3]. F or the re a so ns e xpla ine d h e re in, the mot ion wi ll be g ra nte d in pa rt and de nie d in pa rt
. I. F AC TS Dr . N or de n c on tr a c te d De ngue He mor ra g hic F e ve r in 2 00 0 w hil e tr a ve lin g in B ra zil on the business of her

employ er, the Smit hsonian I nstitut ion. The disease ne arly killed her a

nd has left her with the perma

nent pre sence of dengue antibodies that ca use her to suffer from continuing phy sical and me ntal ailments. After y ear s of rec overy and unsucce ssful eff orts to r eturn to work pa

rt time, in late 2003 Dr. Norden’s doctors assure d the S mithsoni an that she could work a full 40-hour“[C] ase la w construingwhat constit utes a ‘reasona ble’ fee applies uniformly acr oss fede ral 2 fee -shifting statutes that employ t h i s l anguag e.” Miller v. Holzmann , 575 F. Supp. 2d 2, 11 n.18 (D.D.C. 2008). -2- wee k if she receive d proper acc ommodations. I n response , the S mithsoni an Institut ion conditioned Dr. Nor den’s r eturn to work on r etaliatory and illeg al terms and, w hen she a s k ed for better

acc ommodations for her g enuine disability , it fired her

.

On Aug ust 3, 2007, the Cour t gr anted pa rtial summary

judgme nt to Dr. Norde n, finding that the Smiths onian I nstitut ion violated the Rehabilitation Act whe n it failed and r efuse d to return Dr . Norde n to w ork in 2004 and discha rg ed her

. See Aug ust 3, 2007 Mem. Op. & O rder [Dkt. ## 38 & 3 9 ]. T h e matt e r w a s s e t f o r tr ia l o n d a ma g e s a f

te r me d iati o n f

a il e d

. H o w e v e r, the matter ne ver w ent t o trial beca use Dr. Norden a cce pted Def endant’ s offe r of judg ment in the amount of $800,000, excluding costs and rea sonable attorney s’ fee s. See April 9, 2009 Notice of Acc eptanc e of Off er of J udg ment [Dkt. # 80]. Pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of C ivil Procedur e 68(a), the Cl erk of Co u rt e n te r e d an $ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 ju d g me n t f o r D r . N o r d e n an d a g a in s t D e f e ndant. See April 16, 2009 J udg ment on Offe r and Acc eptanc e [Dkt. # 81]. The Clerk taxed Defe ndant $3,699 in costs. See Au g us t 3, 20 09 B ill of

Cos ts a s Ta xed [Dk

t. # 98 ]. Dr . N or de n s e e ks $1 ,6 36 ,8 34 .2 0 in a tto rn e y s’ fee s, see Dkt. # 83, which De fenda nt opposes, see Dkt. # 101. II. LEGAL STANDARDS T h e R eh ab i l i t at i o nAc t p ro v i d es : “In an y ac t i o n o r pr o ce ed i n g t o en fo rc e o r c h ar ge a violation of a pr ov ision of this subchapter, the c ourt, in its dis cre tion, may allow the pre vailing pa rt y , o the r t han th e Un ite d St a te s, a

re a so na ble a tto rn e y ’s fe e a s p art of the c os ts. ” 29 U. S.C. § 794a(b)

. “T h e u s u al m ethod of c alculatingrea sonable attorney s’ fe es is to multi ply the hours 2

rea sonably expended i n the l itigation by a re asonable hourly fee , producingthe ‘lodestar ’ amount.”-3-

Bd. of Trs. of

Hotel & Restaurant Employee s Local 25 v. JPR, Inc. , 136 F.3d 794, 801 ( D.C. Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Pe nn sy lv an ia v. De law ar e Va lle yCiti ze ns ’ C ou nc il f or Cle an Ai r , 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1 98 6) ). “ Th is a

mou nt m ay the n b e a djust ed by a multip lie r ‘ in c e rt a in ‘ ra re ’ a nd ‘e xce pti on a l’

case s,’ althoug h there is a ‘strongpresumption that the lodestar f igur e . . . re prese nts a ‘re asonable ’ fee .’” Id. (q u o t i n g Delaware Valley , 478 U.S. at 565). The “lodestar ” approa ch to fe e aw ards wa s established by the Supreme Court in He ns le yv . Ec k e rh ar t , 461 U.S. 424 (1983), and is the a pproac h followed by the federa l courts in most fee awa rd disputes. Se e Gi

sb re c ht v . B ar

nh ar t , 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002) ( “Thus, the lodesta r method today

holds sway in f

eder al-c ourt adjudication of disputes over the amount of fe es prope rly shifted to the loser in the litigation.”). F eder al courts rely on the lodestar method to calc ulate fe es without reg ard to whe ther the a war d would exceed a

conting ent-fe e ag ree ment betwee n client and c ounsel. Blanchard v. Be rgeron , 4 8 9 U

. S

. 8 7 , 9 3 ( 1 9 8 9) ; se e als o Ve ne ga s v . M itc he ll , 495 U.S. 82 , 87 (1990). The fee applicant bears t he burde n of demonstrating that the claimed r ate a

nd number of h o u rs are rea sonable. Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984). III . A NA LY SIS

Def endant a rg ues that no fe es ar e owe d beca use Dr. Norde n’s counsel failed to ke ep

c on te mpo ra

ne ou s re c or ds of the ho ur s the y sp e nt wo rk ing on thi s lit ig a tio n. Th is C ir c uit “ re qu ir e [s] that fee applications include conte mporane ous time recor ds of hours wor ked and r ates c laimed, plus a deta iled descr iption of the subject matter of the work w ith supporting docume nts, if any .” I n re Donovan , 877 F.2d 982, 994 ( D.C. Cir. 1989). “Casual a fter- the-fa ct estimates o f t i me expended

on a ca se are ins ufficie nt to support an award of attorney s’ fees. Attorney s who anticipate making a fe e application m us t m ai ntain contempora neous, complete and standa rdized time recor ds whichCouns e l a sse rt that “ [w]e dr a ft

our b ill s a

t th e tim e se rv ic e wa s r e nd e re d a nd /or our b ill s 3 are ba se d u

po n, su pp or te d b y , a nd /or c ro ss- c he c ke d a g a ins t th e b a c k u p a n d save d s pe c if

ic do c ume nts such as e mails, documents, corr espondenc e, and ple ading s to assu re t heir c ompleteness, ac cura cy and re a so na ble ne ss, and fi na lly , we c ro ss- c he c k and c ro ss- re fe re nc e the bil ls be tw e e n c o- c ouns e l to also assure their complete ness, ac cura cy and reasonable ness.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Compel at 5. The Court interpr ets this to mean that contempora neous re cords we re not ke pt at all times. I nasmuch a s this matter settled befor e trial a nd Dr. Nor den only

won par tial summary 4 judgme nt, the total number of hour s claimed a ppear s to be excessive. -4- acc urate ly

ref lect the wor

k done by eac h attorney .” Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec ’y of De f. , 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (empha sis added). “ This require ment is particular ly apt wh e n th e fe e re qu ir e me nts wi ll b e satis fi e d f ro m th e Un ite d St a te s T re a sury” be c a us e a c ourt

“ mus t strictly construe a

waiver of sover eig n immunit y .” In re Donov an , 877 F.2d at 994. The Court ag ree s that “it is e vident from the rec ord that counsel for Plaintiff fa iled to m a int a in a

nd pr od uc e ‘ c o nt e m

p o r a n e o u s, c omp le te and

sta nd ard ize d ti me re c or ds ’ t o s up po rt the ir

asser tions as to the time spent on this m atter.” Def .’s Opp’n to Mot. for Att’y Fe es [Dkt. # 101] at 1 8 (q u o t i n g Concerned V

eterans , 675 F.2d at 1327)

. The re cords submitted by Dr. Nor den’s c ounsel appea r to be “ [c] asual a fter- the-fa ct estimates” of time spent on this li tigation, not “conte mporane ous, complete a nd standardized time re cords.” Concerned V eterans , 675 F.2d at 1327. Dr. Nor den’s c ounsel admit that neither ke pt “ra w data” rec ords. See Pl. s’ Op p’ n to Mo t. t o Com pe l [Dk t. # 97 ] at 4- 5. Th a t D r. No rd e n’ s c ouns e l f a ile d to ke e p c on te mpo ra ne ou s r e c or ds is 3 confirme d by

the discre pancie s betwee n the hours cla imed in the m ediation statement a nd the instant motion. See Def

.’s Opp’n, Ex. 6 (cha

rt showing entries on fee pe tition t hat diffe r fr om the mediation fe e re qu e st)

. Gi ve n c ouns e l’ s loo se re c or d- ke e pin g pr a c tic e s, the Court “ c ann ot b e g in t o e va luate the re asonable ness of the attorney time expended” under

the lodestar me thod. In re Nor th , 32 F.3d 4 607, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1994).-5- Whil e counse l’s failure to maintain contempora neous re cords preclude s them from

re c ov e r i n g u n d e r

t h e l o d e s t ar

m e t h o d , “ [t ]o t a l d e n i a l o f r e qu e s t e d

f e e s a s a p u r e l y p r o p h y la c tic

measure . . . is a st ri ng ent sanc tion, to be reser ved for only the most severe of situations, and appropr iately invoked only in ve ry limit ed cir cumstance s.” Jordan v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 691 F.2d 514, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Outrig ht denial may be jus tified when the party seekingfee s declines to proffe r any

substantiation in the form of af fidavits, timesheets or the like, or whe n the application is g rossly and int olera

bly exagg erated, or manifestly filed in bad fa ith.” Id. Wherea s here counsel

mere ly failed to ke ep conte mporane ous rec ords, i t would be unjust to preclude the m from re cover ing any fee s at all. “In this Circuit, ‘an attorney ’s us ual bi lling rate i s presumptively the re asonable rate , provided that this rate is in li ne with those pre vailing in the c o m m u nity for similar ser

vices by lawy ers of rea sonably compar able skil l, experience and re putation.’” Miller , 575 F. Supp. 2d at 11- 1 2 (D

. D. C

. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Kat tan by Tho ma s v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 995 F.2d 274, 278 (D.C. Cir. 19 93 )) ; see also Cobell v. Norton , 231 F. Supp. 2d 295, 302-03 (D.D .C. 2002) (“‘ There is no better indication of what the marke t will bear than w hat the lawy er in f act char g es for

his service s and what h i s cl i en t s p ay . ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Gr iff in v . W as h. Con v e nti on Ctr

. , 17 2 F

. Sup p. 2d 19 3, 19 7 (D .D .C. 2001)). Dr. Norde n’s counsel customarily char g e their clients on a conting ency fee basis. See Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Att’y Fe es [Dkt. # 83] , Ex .3 (De cl. of Vic ki I . Fa ng ) ¶ 8 ( “The complex fede ral c ases we take a

re pr osecute d either entirely on a conting ency

fee basis, or with a c ontinge ncy fe e and a sig nif ic antl y re du c e d h ourly

pa y me nt, i.e ., a

tok e n p ay

me nt. ” ); id. , Ex . 4 (De cl. of Ale x Slih e e t) ¶ 1 (“ 10 0% of

my c a se s are take n o n a

c on tin g e nc y

ba sis, i nc lud ingthi s c a se .” ). Whil e ordinarily “a c ontinge nt-fee contra ct does not impose an automatic ce iling on an a war d of attorne y ’sBe cause the plaintiff won pa rtial s u mmary

judgme nt, a re sult the Court chara cter ized as 5 “ra re,” see Aug ust 3, 2007 Me morandum Opinion [Dkt. # 38] at 1, Dr. Norde n’s counse l seeks “a n enhanc ement of the lodestar by a fac tor of two.” Pl.’s Me m. at 44. They attribute this re sult to t he superior qua lity

of their r epre sentation. See id. at 43. No enha n ce m en t is warra

nted bec ause the result was not so much attributable to counsel’s r epre sentation as it was to the fa cts of the c ase. -6- fee s,” Blan c ha rd , 489 U.S. at 93, in the circ umstances of this case , wher e a lodestar amount cannot be ca lcul a te d d

u e to c o u n s e l’ s f

a il u r e to k e e p c o n te mp o r an e o u s r e c o r d s , th e Co u rt f in d s th at the conting ency

fee is the closest proxy to a “r easona

ble” f ee. A ccor dingly , the Court will order Def endant to pay

Dr. Nor den 40% of

$800,000, or $320,000. 5 IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the Court will g rant in par t and deny in part Dr. Norde n’s motion for attorney s’ fe es [Dkt. # 83]

. The Court w ill orde r Def endant to pa

y Dr. Norde n $320,000. A memorializing Or der a ccompa nies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date : D e c e mbe r 1 1, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge