Opinion ID: 2268995
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The collective merit of Sam's first three motions

Text: Because the court described Sam's three motions as baseless and unsupported, we consider whether they collectively justified an award of full fees. That finding addressed only the three motions, not Sam's post-trial conduct generally. We are well aware that trial courts are in the best position to accurately assess the parties' motives and decide whether posttrial claims were or could have been raised at trial. And trial courts must have the tools to keep litigants from sparring on after the closing trial bell has rung. But we conclude that Sam's three motions were not collectively so baseless and unsupported as to justify full fees under the vexatious or bad faith conduct standard of Rule 82(b)(3)(G). We reaffirm that trial courts are not without tools to provide substantial relief: they can award enhanced Rule 82(b)(3) feesalthough not full feeseven absent vexatious or bad faith conduct. In short, we reverse the full fees award as to Sam's two motions to compel and affirm the award as to Sam's motion to correct. Kathleen supported her fees request with a certificate of counsel and an exhibit specifying the legal services required by each of Sam's motions, and Sam's appeal raises no dispute about the value of services performed in opposing each motion. We therefore affirm the $2,299.50 award of fees incurred in opposing his motion to correct, and reverse the $4,842 award of full fees incurred on his two motions to compel. We do not foreclose the superior court on remand from awarding Kathleen enhanced fees on Sam's motions to compel. But we observe that a rapid and economical close to this entire dispute is in the interest of both parties and that tertiary fees litigation is unlikely to be productive.