Opinion ID: 184763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Number of Hours Devoted to the Case

Text: 19 EPA also contends that Davis County is seeking recovery for a substantially excessive number of hours. EPA notes that the other petitioners received only $58,000 (Waste Energy Partners (WEP)) 6 and $61,749 (Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition) 7 in fees and costs, and argues that Davis County's attorneys could not reasonably have been required to work so many more hours on the same appeal as to justify this much greater award. 20 Arguing that the awards to the other petitioners should not serve as a reference for its request, Davis County notes that the motions to expedite and for a stay were prepared by its attorneys alone, and that these motions required extensive work. Davis County also states that it briefed and argued one of the principal issues (whether the EPA's rule was arbitrary and capricious) alone and that this issue consumed 60% of its billing hours. 8 Davis County also asserts that it has voluntarily reduced its billable hours by at least 10%. 21 It is difficult for us to determine on the record before us precisely how much time Davis County is claiming for each litigation-related task. Although its time is broken down into subsections, the subsections themselves include several different tasks. The breakdown is as follows: 22 Fee 9 Hours Task 10 $26,620 133.25 prefiling research, preparation, and evaluation of case, and preparation of petition for review $14,610 69.75 preparation of court docketing materials, and research and preparation of motion to expedite and application for stay $14,430 66.50 research for briefs and motions; reply on motion to expedite; deal with appendix, consolidation and briefing issues; general case management $44,710 232.50 drafting of opening brief; motion to stay; general case management $9,211.50 44.90 deal with stay issues; research and respond to motion for voluntary remand; errata for opening brief $21,682.50 109.75 appendix and reply brief $38,965 159.00 preparation for oral argument and oral argument; settlement discussion $50,990.75 272.20 post argument work 23 Many of the itemized descriptions (such as telephone conference with Bill Evans) within the subsections are too vague to identify with any particular task. 24 We do conclude, however, that the total number of hours claimed by Davis County seems unreasonably high. Davis County lists around 160 or 170 hours consumed in preparation for oral argument and the argument itself (the itemization makes an exact determination difficult). In American Petroleum Inst. v. United States EPA, 72 F.3d 907, 917 (D.C.Cir.1996), the court found unreasonable a fee petition seeking recovery for 116.25 hours spent by a partner on oral argument and reduced the figure to 80, allowing 10 hours billed by another lawyer and a paralegal to stand. WEP listed 23.65 hours on oral argument (Davis County and WEP split the argument). 25 Three entries from late September, 1997, are duplicated. In response to EPA's observation about duplicated entries, Davis County deleted several from January, 1997, but neither party noticed the September entries. 26 EPA objects to time spent by a senior attorney at $265/hour on basic research. For example, on 2/15/96, the attorney is listed for 4.5 hours for research regarding court obligation to defer to agency construction when statutory language is plain. Billable hours in fee applications are susceptible to reduction for failure to allocate tasks efficiently to different attorneys based on experience. See Sierra Club, 769 F.2d at 807-08. Beyond the particular examples cited by EPA, it seems to us the hours devoted to research throughout the itemization are allocated to relatively senior attorneys more frequently than seems justifiable. 27 Duplication of effort is another basis on which Davis County's hours seem excessive. See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (D.C.Cir.1993). Davis County seeks recovery for the time of ten different attorneys (or nine and one law clerk). Although this alone may not be a reason to eliminate hours, see Donnell, 682 F.2d at 250 n. 27, it appears to have resulted in multiple attorneys performing the same tasks. For example, two attorneys are listed at different points as drafting the attorney fees application, while a third had been listed months earlier for work on fee application. Similarly, there appears to have been an unusually high number of attorneys reviewing and editing briefs. 28 Hours may also be rejected when work descriptions are so general that a court cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the time claimed. See American Petroleum Inst., 72 F.3d at 915, 917. Davis County's fee petition is illustrative of this problem in many places. 29 On the other hand, we are not persuaded by EPA's suggestion that the number of billable hours listed by Davis County on the fees issue is excessive simply by virtue of that number. As EPA notes, it is hard to tell just how much time Davis County is listing for recovery of fees, but by our calculation it appears to be at least 125 hours. Because the itemization is often vague, the number might be substantially higher. 11 EPA cites American Petroleum Inst., 72 F.3d at 918, which reduced the award for time spent on a fee petition to 30 partner and 60 associate hours. The 90 hours in American Petroleum Inst. only covered the fee petition, however, whereas the billable hours listed by Davis County also cover negotiations over the fee. Still, Waste Energy Partners requested only 98 hours for all post-argument work and the section of Davis County's billable hours itemization suffers from some of the other defects we have already identified. 30 Based on these considerations and with the goal of providing guidance to the parties on remand, we list the following amounts as falling within a reasonable range for the categories of work listed. The reductions are meant not as the final word on what Davis County can seek or EPA can agree to, but rather as what we might have expected in an appeal of this kind compared to others similar both in complexity and end product. The Utah rates we use are based on those used by Davis County in its 1997 fee proposal to the government, as evidenced by an attachment to EPA's brief. Because the record is not sufficiently clear for us to conclude that these are the proper rates, the parties may also need to address this subject on remand. 31 Fee Request Reduced to Reduced to #Hours #Hours Category @ D.C. @ Utah Reque- reduced rates rates sted to $26,620 11,060 $6,398.75 133.25 56.75 prefiling research, preparation, and evaluation of case, and preparation of petition for review $14,610 $7,215.50 $3,875 69.75 33.50 preparation of court docketing materials, and research and preparation of motion to expedite and application for stay $14,430 $7,075 $4,440 66.50 34.50 research for briefs and motions; reply on motion to expedite; deal with appendix, consolidation and briefing issues; general case management $44,710 $27,677.50 $16,819 232.50 142.70 drafting of opening brief; motion to stay; general case management $9,211.50 $4,594 $2,827 44.90 21.15 deal with stay issues; research and respond to motion for voluntary remand; errata for opening brief $21,682.50 $12,970 $7,765 109.75 66.25 appendix and reply brief $38,965 $12,627.50 $7,062.25 159.00 49.00 preparation for oral argument and oral argument; settlement discussion $50,990.75 $31,645.50 $17,418.25 272.20 160.10 post argument work ------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- $221,219.75 $114,865 $66,605.25 1,087.85 563.95 12