Opinion ID: 725286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Oral Argument (Ragsdale II )

Text: 35 Plaintiffs claimed 83.5 hours. Two quarter-hours were spent in August in discussion with an opposing attorney concerning scheduling of oral argument. There were 42 entries from September 4 to October 22, 1986, the date of argument. Four attorneys made entries, including review of briefs, outlining argument, review of testimony, preparation conferences and moot of oral argument, evidently rehearsals with questioning, on October 10 and 16. 36 Judge Nordberg disallowed .25 hours on October 21 where the subject of an office conference was not stated. He found that all other hours appear reasonable. State Defendants contend there should have been further deductions. Their one half page on this subject notes that the four attorneys participated in two moot arguments, three continued to prepare although only one argued and two attorneys who did not argue charged for attending the argument. They cite a case where we cut a claim of 38 hours of time for preparation for oral argument to 16. Ustrak v. Fairman, 851 F.2d 983, 987 (7th Cir.1988). We characterized the case as involving simple facts, a three-day trial, and legal issues of limited (though not trivial) scope and novelty. Ragsdale II was a far different case. We are unable to find clear error or abuse of discretion here.