Opinion ID: 1811971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Discovery of Vulcan's Attorney Fees

Text: According to Vulcan, the trial court, in compelling Vulcan to respond to request no. 27 and interrogatory no. 23, erroneously required Vulcan to produce detailed information concerning its attorneys' fees and other costs in this case. Petition, at 26. Vulcan argues that a defendant's litigation costs are irrelevant to the cost of the litigation, the fifth factor enunciated in Green Oil, 539 So.2d at 223. In Green Oil, this Court directed trial courts to consider `[a]ll the costs of litigation... so as to encourage plaintiffs to bring wrongdoers to trial. ' 539 So.2d at 223 (emphasis added) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 505 So.2d at 1062 (Houston, J., concurring specially)). Ordinarily, a defendant's litigation costs are, indeed, irrelevant for purposes of encouraging plaintiffs to bring wrongdoers to trial. This Court's jurisprudence clarifies that this particular Green Oil factor is directed toward the plaintiff's litigation costs. See, e.g., Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Jeter, 832 So.2d 25, 42 (Ala.2001) (the litigation-cost factor enunciated in Green Oil requires a court to consider whether the punitive-damages award was sufficient to reward the plaintiff's counsel for assuming the risk of bringing the lawsuit and to encourage other victims of wrongdoing to come forward. (emphasis added)). Information relating to a defendant's attorney fees may be discoverable in a proper case, such as where a defendant places its litigation costs in issue by challenging the reasonableness of a prevailing plaintiff's request for attorney fees. Murray v. Stuckey's Inc., 153 F.R.D. 151, 152 (N.D.Iowa 1993) (discovery of information relating to defendants' attorney fees was permitted where the defendants resisted plaintiffs' fee claim both on the basis of the number of hours claimed and the hourly rate applied); Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ. of Delaware, 143 F.R.D. 61, 64 (D.Del.1992) (discovery of information relating to defendant's attorney fees was permitted in response to the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's hours overlapped and were unreasonable). From all that appears, however, this is not such a case. There is no allegation that the reasonableness of Blizard's attorney fees is at issue. Thus, the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering Vulcan to produce the material sought by request no. 27 and interrogatory no. 23, and as to that discovery, Vulcan's petition is granted.