AVERN COHN, District Judge.
This is a commercial dispute. J. P. Morgan Chase (Chase) is the administrative agent for a group of lenders that extended credit to Venture Holdings Company, LLC (Venture) under a credit agreement. In 2008, Chase sued Larry J. Winget (Winget) and the Larry J. Winget Living Trust (Winget Trust) to enforce a Guaranty and two Pledge Agreements entered into by Winget and signed by Winget and the Winget Trust in 2002, guaranteeing the obligations of Venture. After years of litigation and multiple appeals, on July 28, 2015, the Court entered an Amended Judgment in favor of Chase and against Winget and the Winget Trust that enforced the Guaranty and Pledge Agreements against Winget and the Winget Trust. Specifically, the judgment against the Winget Trust was in the amount of $425,113.115.59. The judgment against against Winget was limited to $50 million. (ECF No. 568). The Court also issued an order awarding Chase $11,154,874.65 in attorney fees and expenses (Fee Order) associated with its efforts to enforce the Guaranty and Pledge Agreements through May 31, 2015. (ECF No. Doc. 671).
As will be explained, this is Chase's third motion for expenses. The prior two motions were granted. In the current motion, Chase requests expenses in the amount of $3,553,612.22. Chase says that this amount represents the services of Sidley Austin LLP and Dickinson Wright PLLC between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
In the Amended Judgment, the Court determined that Winget and the Trust are liable to Chase for the attorneys' fees and related expenses incurred in pursuing Chase's rights under the Guaranty signed by Winget and the Trust. (Doc. 568 at 3; see also Doc. 487-1 at 8-9 (Guaranty).)
Chase previously moved for an award of expenses under Section 17 of the Guaranty incurred through May 31, 2015. (Doc. 563). The Court granted the motion in part and awarded Chase $11,154,874.65 in expenses (Fee Order) associated with its efforts to enforce the Guaranty and Pledge Agreements through May 31, 2015. (Doc. 671). Winget and the Winget Trust appealed the Fee Order.
Winget then moved for partial satisfaction of the Amended Judgment, contending that his payment of $50 million satisfied the Fee Order (Doc. 672). The Court denied the motion (Satisfaction Order). (Doc. 683). Winget and the Winget Trust appealed both the Satisfaction Order and the Fee Order. The Court stayed proceedings on Chase's motion for expenses pending the outcome of the appeal. (Doc. 732).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Court had properly interpreted the language of the Guaranty to hold both Winget and the Winget Trust responsible for the full payment of costs and expenses correctly held there had been no "partial satisfaction" of the award of costs and expenses, and properly determined that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply.
Chase then filed a second motion for expenses incurred since the issuance of the Fee Order in the amount of $2,000,316.24. Chase said the amount represented the services of Sidley Austin LLP and Dickinson Wright PLLC between June 1, 2015 and November 30, 2016.
Winget first argues that the Court should not rule on Chase's fee petition while appeals are pending. As noted above, Winget's appeal of Chase's second fee petition was dismissed, leaving only the appeal relating to the Court's entry of Charging Orders. Winget contends that claims that if the Sixth Circuit agrees with him on either of his appeals, Chase would have no right to an award of fees. This argument misreads the final judgment and the Guaranty. Chase is entitled to "all costs and expenses . . . incurred by Chase in endeavoring to collect the Guaranteed Obligations from, or in prosecuting this or any related or future actions against, Winget and the Winget Trust." (ECF No. 568 at p. 3). Chase's expenses arising from post-judgment efforts to collect on the final judgment were plainly incurred in "endeavoring to collect" the Guaranteed Obligations awarded in July 2015.
Further, the outcome of the Charging Order appeal is not relevant to Chase's right to recover attorneys' fees arises out of the Guaranty. Chase's right to damages under the Guaranty was established and reduced to judgment.
Winget also argues that certain hours are excess and reflect duplicate work, arguments he presented in response to Chase's prior fee petitions. As an initial matter, both prior fee orders were based on hourly rates which the Court found reasonable. This holding is the law of the case. Moreover, the Court has again reviewed the rates and continues to find them reasonable.
As to excessiveness, Winget cites two examples of what he characterizes as excessive billing and overstaffing. Neither supports a reduction in Chase's attorney and paralegal hours. First, Winget asserts that Chase's depositions reflect overbilling and overstaffing because more than one attorney participated in the depositions. However, Courts in this district have recognized, "there is nothing inherently unreasonable about a client having multiple attorneys."
Second, Winget asserts that Chase's courtesy copies show excessive billing and overstaffing, specifically, two courtesy copies submitted in April 2017. Legal work was necessary to comply with the Court's standing order, which requires courtesy copies to include key cases with the relevant portions highlighted and notes about their key holdings. The remaining administrative work was appropriately delegated to a project assistant.
Finally, Winget argues that Chase's billing records are inadequately documented because portions of certain entries have been redacted. Winget raised this argument in opposition to Chase's last fee petition, and the Court rejected it, stating "[a]lthough Chase has redacted certain time entries to protect privileged material, those redacted entries still provide a sufficient description of the tasks completed."
Winget also suggests that Chase waived privilege over protected material in its billing records. The Court considered and rejected this argument in Chase's second fee petition.
In the end, Exhibit A to Chase's motion is a sworn declaration with supporting tables showing costs and expenses billed to Chase by the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP related to efforts to collect the Guaranteed Obligations from Winget and the Winget Trust and in prosecuting any action against Winget and the Winget Trust with respect to their obligations under the Guaranty between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. (See Chase's Ex. A, Decl. of James W. Ducayet.) The total amount billed to Chase by Sidley Austin LLP is $3,441,975.00 in attorney fees and $77,622.94 in expenses, for a total of $3,519,601.94.
Exhibit B to Chase's motion is a sworn declaration with supporting tables showing expenses billed to Chase by the law firm of Dickinson Wright PLLC related to efforts to collect the Guaranteed Obligations from Winget and the Winget Trust and in prosecuting an action against Winget and the Winget Trust with respect to their obligations under the Guaranty between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. (See Chase's Ex. B, Decl. of William T. Burgess.) The total amount billed to Chase by Dickinson Wright PLLC is $31,682.00 in attorney fees and $2,328.28 in expenses, for a total of $34,010.28.
The total amount of recoverable expenses based on Exhibits A and B combined is $3,553,612.22. Chase is awarded this amount.
SO ORDERED.