Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tinsley v. City of Charlotte, 3:16-CV-656-GCM. (2017)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20171220e51 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Produce and for Costs (Doc. No. 24). The Court has already granted Plaintiff's Motion to Produce. The Court ordered Plaintiff's attorney to provide an accounting of time spent in this matter, and Plaintiff has accordingly requested $2,080.00 from 5.20 hours of work. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Court must order a payment of reasonable attorney's fees unless the movant failed
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Produce and for Costs (Doc. No. 24). The Court has already granted Plaintiff's Motion to Produce. The Court ordered Plaintiff's attorney to provide an accounting of time spent in this matter, and Plaintiff has accordingly requested $2,080.00 from 5.20 hours of work.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Court must order a payment of reasonable attorney's fees unless the movant failed to first attempt in good faith to obtain the discovery, the nondisclosure was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award unjust.

Here, Plaintiff had previously moved to compel and received relief from the Court on August 8, 2017. However, Defendant did not comply by providing access to the personnel files of the twenty-eight named employees, requiring Plaintiff to file a Second Motion to Compel. Finding the conditions of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) to be met and that the amount requested is reasonable, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Costs.

Defendant is hereby ordered to pay $2,080.00 to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer