Opinion ID: 2708354
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fee itemization

Text: All three appellants also argue they were not given an opportunity to respond to both Smith and the ISPs’ fee item‐ ization and were prejudiced by this alleged omission. Once again, they miss the mark. They had a full opportunity to respond to Smith’s itemization but chose to focus on other issues. With respect to the ISPs’ itemization, they are correct that the district court erred when it ruled too quickly, but we conclude that this error was harmless. Smith filed his itemization on November 8, 2013; he added a notice that he would raise the itemization at the November 13 hearing. On November 10, Hansmeier filed a notice of intention to file a response to Smith’s itemization on or before November 22. On November 12, the court sent a Notice of Striking, which required Smith to re‐file his itemization with a corrected signature block; Smith complied that same day. On November 13, the district court held a rehearing on the matter of Smith’s fees and an initial hearing on the ISPs’ request for fees. On November 25, the district court ordered the docket text to be modified to describe defendants’ November 12 re‐submitted itemization as a supplement to the motion for sanctions. The court did not indicate any change in the deadline for a response. The court then issued its ruling finding the fees reasonable on November 27—five days after the date by which Hansmeier had promised his response to Smith’s itemization. While appellants contend that the court reset the response deadline on November 25 when it characterized Smith’s re‐submitted itemization as a supplement, they give us no indication why this should be so. Beyond the fact that the district court never actually reset the deadline, there was no change to the Nos. 13‐3801 & 14‐1682 13 substance of Smith’s itemization. Moreover, appellants could not have relied on that November 25 characterization, because their deadline to submit their opposition was that same day. In short, appellants had ample opportunity to be heard on any questions related to Smith’s itemization of fees. The time the court gave for responses to the ISPs’ itemi‐ zation was shorter than the 17 days called for by the local rules. AT&T did not file its itemization until November 15; Comcast’s filing was even later, November 22. The district court ruled on the submissions on November 27, just 12 and five days later. The court’s order noted that Duffy, Hansmei‐ er, and Steele had not filed responses to the specific itemiza‐ tion. It went on to explain that it found a response unneces‐ sary because, after having reviewed the itemizations, it con‐ cluded that the itemized fees were reasonable. We can as‐ sume that it was error for the court to accelerate the time for ruling without informing the parties of the revised schedule. Nevertheless, any such error was harmless. Appellants have not given us any reason to believe that the ISPs’ itemization was unreasonable. Indeed, in focusing on the errors in Smith’s fees, appellants argue that Smith’s fees are unreason‐ able when compared to the fees requested by Comcast. We see no reversible error here.