ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

On March 27, 2018, the undersigned granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions and ordered plaintiffs to submit the billing records necessary to calculate fees. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs have done so, and the court hereby orders fees in the amount of $32,452.50.

I. Relevant Background

On July 31, 2017, this court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to compel. ECF No. 52. As part of this order, the court required the production of several categories of documents, overruled certain privilege objections, and ordered production of a privilege log. Id. The parties continued to engage in discovery, including an informal telephone conference with the court on January 11, 2018. ECF 59. On February 20, 2018, plaintiffs moved for sanctions and to enforce the July 31, 2017 discovery order. ECF No. 60. On March 27, 2018, following a hearing on the motion, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and ordered that an award of fees as sanctions would follow separately upon the submission of the necessary documentation from plaintiffs. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs submitted the necessary documentation on April 2, 2018. ECF No. 66. On April 9, 2018, defendants filed a response and objections. ECF No. 67.

II. Analysis

The parties have not disputed that the appropriate method for computing fees in this case is the lodestar approach, in which the court multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Cunningham v. City of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 484 (9th Cir. 1988). In order to reach a determination of total fees owed as sanctions, the court must consider (1) when the billable hours began to run towards sanctions, and (2) the appropriate rates by which to multiply the hours for each billing individual.

As to the first matter, the court determines that hours began to run towards sanctions for all discovery-related efforts taking place on or after July 31, 2017. The court's directives in its July 31, 2017 order were clear, and had defendants complied with that order, no further hours spent on discovery-related conflict would have been necessary. Thus, the court accepts the hours presented for attorneys and paralegals1 represented in Table 2 of Robert L. Boucher's Declaration. ECF No. 66 at 4.

With respect to rates, plaintiffs submit lengthy declarations as to why the court should make an upward deviation from the "local rates" previously determined by this court. The court has recently held rates at $350 per hour for attorneys and $75 per hour for paralegals are appropriate in this district. Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. California Dep't of Educ., No. 2:11-CV-03471-KJM-AC, 2017 WL 2492850, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2017); see also Ass'n v. California Dep't of Educ., No. 2:11-CV-03471-KJM-AC, 2017 WL 2492850, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2017), Orr v. California Highway Patrol, 2015 WL 9305021 at * 4, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170862 at *13 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (Shubb, J.); Lin v. Dignity Health, 2014 WL5698448 at *3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155980 at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Mueller, J.). Though the court has reviewed the submitted declarations and understands that plaintiff's counsel ordinarily bills at higher rates, the court does not find good cause to deviate from the ordinarily enforced rates in this district. A calculation of plaintiffs' billed time since July 31, 2017 at the accepted local rate yields a fees as sanctions award of $32,452.50, as represented in the table below.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, it is hereby ordered that defendants shall pay to plaintiffs $32,452.50 in fees as sanctions within 10 days of this order. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in further sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.