Opinion ID: 187229
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorneys' fees. Reasonableness

Text: Lumping tasks together. In In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428-29 (D.C.Cir. 1989), we noted that when an attorney bill[s] for more than one task in a day, the court is left to approximate the amount of time which should be allocated to each task. With such inadequate descriptions the court cannot `determine with a high degree of certainty,' as it must, that the billings are reasonable. For example, on May 4, 2004, an attorney entry for 3.8 hours indicated that the following five tasks were performed: Review articles in preparation for conference call regarding public relations issues; participate in teleconference with R. Cossack, S. Yohay, K. Dunne, B. Ficken, S. Perillo and A. Zappone, regarding same; meet with S. Yohay regarding demolition issues; teleconference with RJR representatives regarding same; draft letter to D. Sherman regarding same. Also, on November 1, 2004, a lead attorney submitted an entry for 2.7 hours for the following nine tasks: Telephone conference with D. Sherman, S. Yohay regarding upcoming settlement proposal; telephone conference with S. Demitrio, S. Yohay regarding deposition schedule and discovery orders issued by Judge Rooney; followup telephone conference with S. Yohay regarding depositions; review correspondence from Keating counsel F. Jacoby regarding same; telephone conference with S. Yohay regarding same; contact N. Devine regarding preparation of settlement proposal for submission to D. Sherman; review and revise settlement proposal; review press coverage of one-year anniversary of garage collapse. Fabi has indicated that it has made deductions for work done on public relations and press coverage, but because those tasks have been lumped together with other tasks we are unable to ascertain with certainty whether the correct deductions have been made. Inadequate detail. In In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.C.Cir.1990) (per curiam), the court made deductions to the requested attorneys' fees award because [t]he time records maintained by the attorneys, paralegals and law clerks are replete with instances where no mention is made of the subject matter of a meeting, telephone conference or the work performed during hours billed. The billing entries here are replete with such entries. There are, for example, numerous entries concerning telephone calls, telephone conferences, email exchanges, and meetings that give no further information of what these communications concerned. See, e.g., entries on: Apr. 6, 2004 (Telephone conference with L. Daley regarding various matters); May 5, 2004 (telephone conference with S. Perillo; telephone conferences with B. Ficken); July 20, 2004 (reviewing email from O. Guedelhoefer re numerous issues); Aug. 11, 2004 (telephone conference with D. Morikawa Site-Blauvelt counsel); Sept. 13, 2004 (Meeting in Philadelphia with Pepper Hamilton team, and with A. Zappone and S. Perillo); Mar. 7, 2005 (Meet at Pepper Hamilton); Mar. 17, 2005 (phone conferences with C. Guedelhoefer); Mar. 29, 2005 (phone conferences with S. Demetrio, D. Tigue, J.F. Lagroterria, C. Reynolds); Apr. 6, 2005 (meet with RR & J at Pepper); Oct. 17, 2005 (confer with Corvo and Kreig); Nov. 15, 2005 (phone conference with Horty & Horty); Oct. 9, 2007 (draft e-mails to S. Gordon). Relevancy. We note that there are various entries that do not appear to be relevant to defending the Secretary's allegations and therefore may not be included in an award. See, e.g., entries on July 12, 2004 (review motion concerning extrajudicial statements filed in state litigation); Sept. 24, 2004 (call from K. Levin re recent status conference in state court matter); Oct. 27, 2004 (calls from S. Perillo and A. Zappone re reporter's interest in OSHA Report); Nov. 1, 2004 (call from S. Perillo re press coverage); May 16, 2005 (telephone conference with R. Deluca re: state-court litigation); July 5, 2005 (phone conference with R. Deluca regarding civil lawsuit, status, strategy). Taking all of the above-mentioned billing defects into considerationi.e., tasks lumped together, inadequate detail, and irrelevancywe will reduce by 25 percent the amount of $645,881.15, which, as noted above, Fabi states is the total for attorneys' fees expended in litigating the merits of this case. See Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 973 (D.C.Cir.2004) (award reduced by fifty percent for, among other deficiencies, multiple tasks lumped together, inadequate detail, and irrelevancy). This reduction yields an amount of $484,410.86.