Opinion ID: 2779015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Summary Judgment Cross-Motions

Text: Mr. Frankel also challenges the trial court‟s denial of attorney‟s fees for the time he spent responding to ODMPED‟s summary judgment motion and preparing his own cross-motion—a ruling based on the sole ground that the motion was not meritorious. As with the motion to strike, the relevant question is not whether the pleadings were successful but whether they were useful and necessary to advancing the litigation. At the outset, it is indisputable that Mr. Frankel‟s opposition brief was causally connected to the ultimate production of documents. Had Mr. Frankel 16 yielded to ODMPED‟s motion for summary judgment, the case would have closed and he would have been left without the documents he sought and ultimately received. Because Mr. Frankel‟s suit was the catalyst for ODMPED‟s production of documents, Mr. Frankel‟s opposition to ODMPED‟s motion for summary judgment was undoubtedly useful and necessary to advance the litigation to achieve that result, Del. Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. at 561, which did not occur until nearly a year later. And while we are less confident that Mr. Frankel‟s cross-motion for summary judgment was useful and necessary for his ultimate victory, where “the actual work performed by lawyers to develop the facts [or law] of both claims [is] closely intertwined, . . . [i]t is sometimes virtually impossible to determine how much time was devoted to one category or the other, and the incremental time required to pursue both claims rather than just one is likely to be small.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 448 (Burger, C.J., concurring); cf. Fox, 131 S. Ct. at 2214. We therefore conclude that the trial court should have awarded Mr. Frankel fees for the time spent preparing his opposition brief to ODMPED‟s summary judgment motion as well as his own cross-motion for summary judgment.