Opinion ID: 2982668
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Block-Billing

Text: Regarding block-billing, this court has held that so long as the description of the work performed is adequate, block-billing can be sufficient. [Plaintiff] has cited no authority to support its argument that the use of block billing is contrary to the award of a reasonable attorney fee . . . in fact, our sister circuits have rejected block-billing objections to fee awards in a number of contexts. . . . [C]ounsel, of course, is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended. Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 473 F.3d 253, 273 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Oakley v. City of Memphis, No. 06-2276 A/P, 2012 WL 2682755, at  (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, No. 06-2276-STA-tmp, 2012 WL 2681822 (W.D. Tenn. July 6, 2012) aff’d, 566 F. App’x 425 (6th Cir. 2014) (“As far as this court is aware, the Sixth Circuit has never explicitly rejected the practice of block billing.”). However, we remand so that the district court can assess this objection in light of its reconsideration of the other issues addressed in this opinion. 13 Smith et al. v. ServiceMaster Holding Corp., et al., No. 14-5481 5. Unnecessary Work ServiceMaster next argues that the total award should be reduced by $1,732 for clerical tasks completed by lawyers and other billing professionals, and by $20,122.50 for entries that reflect multiple attorneys working on the same task. The district court did not address this argument. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for determination as to whether the award should be reduced to account for any clerical work performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. ServiceMaster also contends that “[i]n multiple instances, Plaintiffs sought fees for two attorneys to perform the same task.” ServiceMaster points to instances where more than one lawyer billed for meetings, calls, and depositions in which all billing lawyers participated. However, ServiceMaster does not provide any relevant authority from this jurisdiction stating that when multiple attorneys work on a task, only one attorney can bill his or her time. This court has, “[i]n complicated cases, involving many lawyers, [] approved the arbitrary but essentially fair approach of simply deducting a small percentage of the total hours to eliminate duplication of services.” Sigley v. Kuhn, 205 F.3d 1341, 2000 WL 145187, at  (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2000) (table). We remand this issue to allow the district to determine if the duplicative entries are warranted. 6. Fees for Attorney Travel Time Finally, ServiceMaster alleges that the district court erred by awarding Plaintiffs 95.2 hours of travel time, totaling $49,028, in attorney’s fees because Smith did not provide evidence that the attorneys worked while traveling.8 “The Sixth Circuit has often found travel time to be compensable if determined by the district courts to be the local practice regarding payment for travel time.” Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02100-JTF-cgc, 2014 WL 8 ServiceMaster does not contend that any of the travel time submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel was unnecessary. 14 Smith et al. v. ServiceMaster Holding Corp., et al., No. 14-5481 4472720, at  (W.D. Tenn. July 28, 2014) (quoting Robinson v. Elida Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ., 99 F.3d 1139, 1996 WL 593535, at  (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1996)); see also Perotti, 935 F.2d at 764 (“We believe that matters of this sort [travel time] are within the discretion given the district court, which has greater familiarity with local practice than does this court, and we will not reverse on this record.”). The district court made no findings pertinent to the local practice regarding travel time, or whether the attorneys were performing legal services while traveling. Therefore, we remand this issue as well.