BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff, Doris Nohemi Garcia Hernandez, prevailed at trial on her claim of pregnancy discrimination and now seeks from her former employer, the defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, a total of $838,122.00 in attorneys' fees and costs for 2073 hours of billed work. Pl.'s Pet. Att'ys' Fees & Costs ("Pl.'s Pet.") at 1, ECF No. 137. The parties agree that the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees, id., Def.'s Opp'n Pl.'s Pet. ("Def.'s Opp'n") at 1, ECF No. 139, and that most of the fees should be awarded based on the 2016-17 United States Attorney's Office Fee Matrix ("USAO Laffey Matrix"), Pl.'s Pet. at 10; Def.'s Opp'n at 1, but the defendant challenges a substantial number of hours billed by plaintiff's counsel as insufficiently documented or excessive and objects to the application of a higher billing rate, under Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000) ("LSI Laffey Matrix"), for 270 hours of senior attorney work in final preparation for and at trial. For the reasons set out below, the plaintiff's petition is granted in large part and denied in part.
The facts underlying the present fee petition are undisputed. For almost two years, from April 2012, when the plaintiff filed an EEOC claim against the defendant, until shortly after the filing of the instant federal action, the plaintiff was represented, pro bono, by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP ("Debevoise") and the Washington Lawyers' Committee ("WLC"). See Pl.'s Pet. at 8-9; id. Ex. C (Declaration of Peter Grossi, dated October 5, 2016 ("Grossi Decl.")) ¶ 1, ECF No. 137-3; id. Ex. G (Decl. of Christine Tschiderer, dated October 6, 2016 ("Tschiderer Decl.")) ¶ 16, ECF No. 137-7. In April 2014, two months after this case was filed, Debevoise withdrew as counsel, due to a potential conflict of interest, see Notice of Withdrawal, dated April 16, 2014, ECF No. 12; Tschiderer Decl. ¶ 16, and soon after, counsel from the firm Arnold & Porter LLP ("A&P"), entered an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, Notice of Appearance, dated April 23, 2014, ECF No. 13.
The plaintiff's discrimination case presented particular circumstances that required significant work and staffing from plaintiff's counsel. First, the defendant is an established national corporation headquartered in Denver, Colorado, while the plaintiff was employed as a "relatively new serving line worker" at the defendant's restaurant in Washington, D.C., and as such, the plaintiff "was not in any position to inform her counsel on the practices and policies of" the defendant. Pl.'s Pet. at 4. Consequently, plaintiff's counsel was required "to expend considerable time and effort developing and documenting" the "practices and policies" of the defendant. Id. at 3 (citing Grossi Decl. ¶ 19(c); see also Def.'s Answer ¶ 10 (affirming that the defendant "has its corporate headquarters in Colorado"), ECF No. 15. Second, the plaintiff and other key witnesses in the case "spoke only Spanish, thereby requiring the use" of translators throughout the litigation, Pl.'s Pet. at 3 (citing Grossi Decl. ¶ 19(b)), increasing the amount of time and preparation required of plaintiff's counsel. Third, due to "[t]he high rate of employee turnover at" the restaurant where the plaintiff worked, "and the fact that at least one key witness had left the United States entirely," plaintiff's counsel had "to search for remaining witnesses ... and ultimately to develop facts through other witnesses still associated with" the defendant. Id. (citing Grossi Decl. ¶¶ 19(c)-(d)). Fourth, notably, the defendant "repeatedly changed its purported justification for terminating the defendant," which required counsel "to investigate and refute each different theory, primarily through the examination of" the defendant's own witnesses. Id. at 3 (citing Grossi Decl. ¶ 19(a)); see also Def.'s Opp'n at 13. Finally, after the defendant raised the potential conflict of interest that required Debevoise to withdraw as counsel two years into the litigation, A&P had to step in and learn the entire case, while defense counsel not only had the benefit of those two years as background in this case, but also has significant experience representing the defendant in other employment discrimination cases throughout the country. Pl.'s Pet. at 4; Grossi Decl. ¶ 19(e) (listing cases).
After three years of litigation before this Court that culminated in a four-day jury trial, the plaintiff prevailed on her claim that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01. The jury awarded her damages of $50,000.00 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9, 31, ECF No. 1; Judgment on the Verdict, ECF No. 122, which was later reduced to a total of $390,000, including back pay, by joint stipulation of the parties, in light of the statutory cap on punitive damages, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3)(D), see J. Stip., dated September 9, 2016, ECF No. 131; Minute Order, dated September 9, 2016. The plaintiff timely filed her petition for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking a total of $838,122.00 in fees and costs, see Pl.'s Pet. at 1, which the defendant has opposed in part, see generally Def.'s Opp'n.
Under the fee-shifting provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, courts may award "a reasonable attorneys' fee" to prevailing private parties in any action or proceeding to enforce equal employment discrimination statutes. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
The D.C. Circuit has developed a three-part analysis, the "lodestar" method, for assessing "appropriate fee awards under fee-shifting statutes in cases involving complex federal litigation." Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2015). First, the court must determine the number of hours reasonably expended in litigation. Id. (citing Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107-08 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Second, it must set the prevailing market rate, or lodestar. Id.; see also Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107. Finally, it must determine whether use of a multiplier is warranted. Salazar, 809 F.3d at 61. In determining the second factor of the "prevailing market rate," three sub-elements are relevant: "(1) `the attorney['s] billing practices'; (2) `the attorney['s] skills, experience, and reputation'; and (3) `the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.'" Id. (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107). The prevailing market rate may be shown using evidence of the "attorneys' fee matrices," the "`most commonly used'" of which is the Laffey Matrix, which "sets out a general guideline for awarding attorneys' fees based on experience ... adjusted for inflation."
"[T]he `fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours, and justifying the reasonableness of the rates,' with the opposing party remaining `free to rebut [the] fee claim.'" Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d at 61 (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107-08)). At that point, the burden shifts to the opposing party to "provide specific contrary evidence tending to show that a lower rate would be appropriate." Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109-10 (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec'y of Def. ("NASC"), 675 F.2d 1319, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
The plaintiff seeks reimbursement of attorneys' fees for 2,073 billed hours of work totaling $825,123.00 in attorneys' fees, which are comprised of: (1) $683,409.00 for 1517 hours of attorney work and 232 hours of paralegal work billed at the applicable hourly rated under the 2016-17 USAO Laffey Matrix; (2) $47,430.00 for 270 hours billed at the higher LSI Laffey Matrix rate for the work of the lead attorneys from
The defendant challenges the hours for which the pending fee petition seeks reimbursement because plaintiff's counsel: (1) significantly overstaffed the case; (2) improperly billed for clerical tasks and unsuccessful filings; (3) provided vague entries in support of the fee petition; and (4) used impermissible block billing in documenting the hours spent on the case. The defendant also argues that the plaintiff has not justified application of the LSI Laffey Matrix rate to the 270 hours spent by her two lead counsel in final preparation for and at trial.
Before turning to these specific disputes, the Court notes that "trial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants" in evaluating the reasonableness of hours billed, and that the goal of fee shifting "is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection." Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011); see also Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 903 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("It is neither practical nor desirable to expect the trial court judge to have reviewed each paper in this massive case file to decide, for example, whether a particular motion could have been done in 9.6 hours instead of 14.3 hours."). With this guidance in mind, the defendant's challenges to the hours billed by plaintiff's counsel and to application of the LSI Laffey
The defendant criticizes plaintiff's counsel's billing practices as generally "fail[ing] to use billing judgment," Def.'s Opp'n at 1, prompting the defendant's four principle challenges to the hours billed and corresponding reductions in the fee petition. According to the defendant, plaintiff's counsel: (1) used "a completely unreasonable amount of attorney manpower to pursue this case," Def.'s Opp'n at 6, warranting a reduction in the plaintiff's requested fee award of $534,454.00 for 1,634.99 hours, id. at 18-19; (2) improperly billed for hours spent on "unsuccessful filings" and clerical work, warranting a reduction in the plaintiff's requested fee award of $38,877.06 for 110.98 hours of work, id. at 25-27; (3) provided only "vague time entries," warranting a reduction in the plaintiff's requested fee award of $58,224.60 for 122 hours, id. at 20-21; and (4) improperly used "block billed entries," warranting a reduction in the plaintiff's requested fee award of $278,673.00 for 1,140.75 hours, id. at 22-23. The defendant does not specify the extent to which these broad-stroke challenges target the same hours, but the end result cannot be ignored: the total reductions sought by the defendant add up to $910,228.66, which is actually $72,106.66 more than the $838,122.00 sought in the plaintiff's fee petition. In other words, wholly accepting the defendant's arguments would be difficult to reconcile with the statutory entitlement of the prevailing party in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit to reimbursement of her reasonable attorney's fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Set against this backdrop, the defendant's specific arguments are discussed next.
The defendant takes issue with the staffing of the plaintiff's case, noting that the fee petition "includes billing for 10 attorneys" and "three paralegals," Def.'s Opp'n at 6. According to the defendant, this level of staffing was "completely unreasonable," since a "team of [two] attorneys and a paralegal was more than adequate to represent Plaintiff in this matter, particularly in light of [counsel's] litigation experience and [] experience in employment law." Def.'s Opp'n at 4; see also id. at 18-19.
First, given the complexity of this case, the staffing and time spent vindicating the plaintiff's civil rights are not facially unreasonable. As already noted, plaintiff's counsel surmounted a number of obstacles that made this case notably challenging, including the plaintiff's limited familiarity with her former employer's policies and practices, the location of her former employer's headquarters and relevant witnesses in Colorado, the need for translators for the plaintiff and a number of witnesses who spoke only Spanish, the difficulty in locating witnesses given the high turn-over rate of employees for the defendant, the shifting justifications provided by the defendant for terminating the plaintiff, the withdrawal of Debevoise two years into the litigation, and the comparative knowledge of defense counsel regarding the defendant's employment practices and policies stemming from the same defense counsel representing the defendant in this and other employment cases.
Tellingly, the defendant does not discuss the actual time spent by each attorney simultaneously working on the case, only that ten attorneys worked on the case total, conflating the argument that the number of attorneys who worked on the case and the amount of work each of those attorneys did were unreasonable. The defendant fails to note that the ten attorneys and three paralegals who worked on the plaintiff's case did not do so simultaneously or for the duration of the case, and indeed, two of those attorneys and one paralegal replaced two other attorneys and one other paralegal during the course of the litigation. Pl.'s Reply at 4. Relatedly, three of the A&P attorneys for which plaintiff seeks fees performed only 35, 13, and 57 hours of work on the case respectively. Pl.'s Pet. App'x 1 ("Standard Laffey Matrix Time"), ECF No. 137. In sum, the defendant's reference to the total number of attorneys who worked on the case, without explaining the circumstances surrounding the representation, paints a misleading picture.
Further, the defendant's judgment that a "team of [two] attorneys and a paralegal was more than adequate to represent Plaintiff in this matter," Def.'s Opp'n at 4, is offered with little acknowledgement of the challenges confronted by plaintiff's counsel and is, consequently, is entitled to little weight. Moreover, the docket for this cases shows that the defendant had at least four attorneys during the course of this litigation. See Minute Orders, dated June 18, 2014, January 20, 2015, July 7, 2016, (granting motions for three attorneys to enter appearances pro hac vice on behalf of the defendant); Answer (listing fourth attorney as counsel for the defendant). This number, which does not include any attorneys or staff who worked on the case for the defendant without entering an appearance before the Court, is certainly not determinative of what constitutes reasonable staffing from plaintiff's counsel, but it weighs against the defendant's staffing argument that only two plaintiff's attorneys were necessary. The defendant may certainly have preferred that plaintiff's counsel had staffed the case with fewer attorneys, but such wishful thinking is not the standard for determining whether the hours billed are reasonable.
Second, the defendant's two examples of unreasonable time spent on specific tasks, 255.8 hours spent in preparation of an opposition to a motion for summary judgment and for 17.2 hours spent in preparation and attendance at a deposition, do not demonstrate unreasonable billing. The defendant predicates its contention that the time plaintiff's counsel spent on the summary judgment opposition is unreasonable
The defendant's challenge to the 17.2 hours spent on a deposition is likewise unconvincing. Even though the deposition itself lasted less than two hours, Def.'s Opp'n at 7-8, the defendant fails to recognize that the deposition was likely short because counsel had adequately prepared and could avoid asking extraneous questions. The defendant further ignores that the witness deposed was an adverse witness, and that given the timing of the deposition during the discovery process, plaintiff's counsel had to review "voluminous records" produced by the defendant in order to "organiz[e] the relevant materials" and "outlin[e] for an efficient deposition." Pl.'s Reply at 7. The time spent by counsel preparing for an efficient deposition and for this litigation generally was not unreasonable.
Third, the defendant challenges the 114.65 hours spent by "seven attorneys and two paralegals" on "day three of the trial," as "another stark example of Plaintiff's counsel's excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary billing practices." Def.'s Opp'n at 9. Other than this hyperbole, the defendant offers no analysis based upon the actual descriptions of the work performed by each of the billing individuals as to why these hours are "excessive." Even a cursory review of the descriptions makes clear that on the third day of trial, three attorneys attended and participated in trial, hours that were eminently necessary. Two other attorneys billed as "support," and describe their tasks "back at the office," such as "prepar[ing] [a witness] cross-examination outline," "prepar[ing] exhibits," and "conduct[ing] cite checks." Pl.'s Reply at 5; id., Ex. 1. The remaining two attorneys attended trial, and also prepared outlines for cross-examinations, drafted closing arguments, reviewed and revised exhibits, and prepared jury instructions. A&P's paralegal coordinated "legal logistical support for the legal team," which work did not need to be performed by a licensed attorney, and which was necessary for the work done by the attorneys at the trial. Id.
The defendant argues that plaintiff seeks fees for two categories of work for which she cannot be awarded attorneys' fees: fees for time spent on unsuccessful filings and for clerical work. Def.'s Opp'n at 22-26. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
First, the defendant identifies two filings by the plaintiff — the plaintiff's opposition to the defendant's motion for a protective order, Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Protective Order, ECF No. 23, and the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply in response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Pl.'s Mot. Leave File Surreply Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 55 — as "frivolously filed" and having "exceedingly low likelihoods of success." Def.'s Opp'n at 25. In the defendant's view, the plaintiff's requested fee petition should be reduced by $26,520.60 for the hours associated with plaintiff's counsel's two filings, as this work was "unsuccessful," id. at 25-26, and "did nothing to advance the case," id.
Even if these motions were "unsuccessful," however, the plaintiff would still be entitled to reimbursement of her attorney's fees. The defendant misunderstands the standard for evaluating whether a prevailing party can be awarded attorneys' fees for unsuccessful filings. While an award "should not reimburse the plaintiff for work performed on claims that bore no relation to the grant of relief," the presence of "unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney's fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of [her] civil rights." Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 834, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011). A court "should compensate the plaintiff for the time his attorney reasonably spent in achieving [a] favorable outcome," even if the plaintiff "failed to prevail on every contention." Id.
In the instant case, the filings targeted by the defendant were prepared and filed in furtherance of the plaintiff's claims, on which she was entirely successful at trial. In other words, the time spent on these filings was "reasonably spent in achieving [a] favorable outcome." Fox, 563 U.S. at 834, 131 S.Ct. 2205. The defendant's unsupported assertion that these motions were frivolously filed notwithstanding, the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees for hours billed preparing these two filings.
The defendant claims that plaintiff's counsel has provided "[v]ague time entries that do not sufficiently document how time was spent" and that such entries "should be generally stricken from the fee award," Def.'s Opp'n at 20-21, and in support provides a log of "122 hours at a cost of approximately $58,224.60," that reflect a "conservative estimate of the total time associated with these vague entries," id. at 21 (citing Exhibit F ("Vague Time Entries")), ECF No. 139-6. The defendant highlights six of these entries in its brief, totaling 24.6 hours from the same attorney, that represent a "general sample of vague entries" provided by the plaintiff in support of her fee petition. Id.
To be sure, as support for a fee petition, a plaintiff must provide "supporting documentation" that is "`of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended.'" Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). Vague entries make it "impossible for the court to verify ... the reasonableness of the billing[], either as to the necessity of the particular service or the [total] amount of time expended on a given task," In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also id. ("[B]illing entries are not adequately documented ... where no mention is made of the subject matter of a meeting, telephone conference or the work performed during hours billed.").
The defendant's vagueness argument nevertheless fails because, as demonstrated by the defendant's own examples, Def.'s Opp'n at 20-21, plaintiff's counsels' entries are not vague. The first three entries highlighted by the defendant describe a number of related tasks an attorney performed in preparing for "the Gottlieb deposition," such as "logistics for [the Gottlieb] deposition" and "script for Gottlieb deposition; revisions to same." Id. Far from being vague, these entries provide sufficient detail to evaluate the reasonableness of the
The defendant claims that "Plaintiff's billing entries are replete with blocked billed entries," Def.'s Opp'n at 22, and in support provides a twenty-four page log of 341 entries, totaling $464,455.00 in attorneys' fees, purportedly block billed. Def.'s Opp'n at 23; id. Ex. G ("Block Billing Log"), ECF No. 139-6. According to the defendant, these 341 entries makes it "impossible to determine how much time was spent on each separate task, and whether or not the time expended was reasonable." Def.'s Opp'n at 23. Contrary to the defendant's characterization, however, review of the 341 entries reveals that the vast majority are not block billed, and any small number of block billed entries are insufficient to justify a reduction in the fee award the plaintiff seeks.
An attorney impermissibly block bills by "lumping multiple tasks into a single time entry" in a manner that "mak[es] it impossible to evaluate their reasonableness," Tridico v. D.C., Civ No. 13-0937 (ESH), 235 F.Supp.3d 100, 109, 2017 WL 398320, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2017) (quoting Role Models, 353 F.3d at 971). For this reason, block billing is disfavored when a court is prevented from determining "the nature of the services for which compensation is sought." Copeland, 641 F.2d at 891. At the same time, however, a fee petition "need not present the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney." Shaw v. District of Columbia, 210 F.Supp.3d 46, 52 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting NASC, 675 F.2d at 1327). As another Judge on this Court aptly explained, requiring an attorney to break down related tasks down to "every quarter hour or half hour of how they spend their time on civil rights cases" would produce "two undesirable results ...: their fee petitions will be higher, and the lawyers will simply waste precious time doing menial clerical tasks." Smith v. District of Columbia, 466 F.Supp.2d 151, 158 (D.D.C. 2006).
Block billing is most troublesome in two circumstances. First, where a fee petitioner has prevailed only "on a portion of their claims." DL v. Dist. of Columbia, 256 F.R.D. 239, 245 (D.D.C. 2009) (rev'd on other grounds by DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In this circumstance, block billing frustrates the Court's ability to separate time spent on successful and unsuccessful claims and to award fees accordingly. See Smith, 466 F.Supp.2d at 158 (noting that Courts are
First, most of the entries listed by the defendant are simply not block billed. The defendant appears to conflate entries in which plaintiff's counsel has provided greater detail with impermissible block billing. For example, the defendant identifies as block billed, an entry for 0.3 hour, on July 20, 2016, describing "Review closing statement; email P. Grossi feedback re: same," Block Billing Log at 7; an entry for 0.2 hours, on January 5, 2015, describing "Telephone call w/D. Garcia re. scheduling of conf call; correspondence w/co-counsel re. the same," id. 5; and an entry for 0.7 hours, on November 6, 2015, describing "Confer with P. Grossi regarding arguments for surreply; research EEOC position statement case law for surreply," id. at 10. These entries, and the many entries like them, are not examples of block billing. Explaining the related tasks that went into drafting the closing statement, or in scheduling a conference call, or in drafting and researching a surreply is not block billing, but is detailing the specific tasks performed related to a larger overarching task. The inclusion of greater detail in these entries does not "mak[e] it impossible" for the Court "to evaluate their reasonableness," and review of the 341 entries identified by the defendant reveals a similar pattern, such that the Court concludes that the majority of the entries are not block billed.
Second, the limited instances of block billing do not justify reducing the fee award for two reasons. First, the defendant has not identified any hours spent on unsuccessful claims, see generally Def.'s Opp'n., and indeed the defendant cannot do so because the plaintiff was totally successful on her claims at trial. See Compl. ¶ 42; Judgment on the Verdict, ECF No. 124. Thus, any concerns about attorneys' fees for unsuccessful claims is inapplicable in this case. Second, only approximately ten entries on trial days appear to be block billed, but still describe various tasks performed in furtherance of the plaintiff's success at trial, see, e.g., Block Billing Log at 8, 18-19 (listing entries for trial days), and the remaining entries identified as block billed are all for short periods of time, see e.g., id. at 2 (entry for 0.9 hours, dated May 7, 2014, "Correspondence with P. Grossi and WLC about case strategy and settlement; call with client regarding testimony at DC council hearing"). These entries have minimal impact on the Court's overall ability to assess the reasonableness of the work done by plaintiff's counsel. Indeed, because the plaintiff was entirely
The parties agree that the 2016-17 USAO Laffey rates should be used as the billing rate for the majority of hours billed by plaintiff's counsel, Pl.'s Reply at 8; Def.'s Opp'n at 13. Def.'s Opp'n at 1; see also Young v. Sarles, 197 F.Supp.3d 38, 51 (D.D.C. 2016) (to compensate for "delayed payment of attorneys' fees," a court may "bas[e] the award on current rates (quoting West, 717 F.3d at 1034).
The defendant does not challenge the first two factors that the Court must consider in determining the "prevailing market rate" that should apply to these hours: "(1) the attorney['s] billing practices" and (2) "the attorney['s] skills, experience, and reputation," Salazar, 809 F.3d at 61 (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107), and indeed, plaintiff's counsel from both A&P and WLC have provided undisputed declarations attesting to their professional experience including their experience in civil rights cases, and their customary hourly rates, which are at or above the rates listed in the LSI Laffey Matrix. Grossi Decl. ¶¶ 1-15 (describing professional experience and averring that "the hourly rate charged" by A&P's lead attorney is "more than the highest LSI Laffey enhanced rate of $826 per hour"); Tschiderer Decl. ¶¶ 2-15, 19-22 (describing professional experience and noting that WLC relies on the "[a]djusted Laffey Matrix" as laid out in Salazar "in setting its customary hourly rates"). Consequently, the Court turns to the third element relevant to determining the reasonable hourly rate for work performed by plaintiff's counsel, namely, the prevailing market rates for attorneys of comparable experience in complex federal litigation in the Washington, D.C. area. See Salazar, 809 F.3d at 61 (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107).
In support of using the LSI Laffey rate, the plaintiff has provided, in addition to the aforementioned declarations from her lead counsel: (1) a declaration from a local attorney averring that the
In Salazar, the plaintiffs submitted, in support of their fee petition: an "affidavit of the economist that developed the LSI Laffey Matrix," "billing rates tables demonstrating the difference between average national law firm rates and the LSI update to the Laffey Matrix," and "a 2012 National Law Journal Rates Survey show[ing] that the rates for partners in Washington, D.C. on the high-end of the market far exceed[] the rates in the LSI update." Salazar, 809 F.3d at 65. Based on the evidence, and absent any rebutting evidence, the D.C. Circuit not only concluded that the LSI Laffey rates represent the "prevailing market rates for complex federal litigation" in Washington, D.C., but concluded that the LSI Laffey rates likely represent "a conservative estimate of the actual cost of legal services in this area." Id. As in Salazar, the plaintiff here has provided evidence of the billing rates
The defendant provides only cursory opposition to application of the LSI Laffey Matrix rates, despite being required to "provide specific contrary evidence tending to show that a lower rate would be appropriate." Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109-10. The defendant fails to provide any actual evidence that the LSI Laffey rate is unreasonable in the context of any complex federal litigation, let alone on the facts of this case, providing no affidavits or declarations of its own, no surveys of any rates charged in the Washington, D.C. legal market, no economic analyses of the prevailing market rate, or even examples of the rates it is charged by its own counsel for similar cases. In short, the defendant offers no evidence to rebut the plaintiff's evidence, but merely provides, in a footnote, a string cite to ten D.C. district court cases, all pre-dating the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Salazar, which it claims demonstrates "that the USAO Laffey Matrix is preferred over the [LSI Laffey] Matrix" in this Court. Def.'s Opp'n at 14 n.2. The defendant fails to discuss any of these cases, which are inapposite.
Only two of the cases cited by the defendant merit any discussion.
The second case, Berke v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 942 F.Supp.2d 71, 73 (D.D.C. 2013), is likewise distinguishable. In Berke, the prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights case was represented by both a large law firm and a non-profit organization, and the Court awarded the law firm fees at "their regular billing rates," and declined to grant the non-profit counsel fees billed at rates that "exceed[ed] even the rates sought by the private attorneys." Id. at 77. In this case, the lead attorney from A&P stated in his declaration that A&P "routinely bill[s] ... rates higher than" either the USAO Laffey Matrix or the LSI Laffey Matrix, Grossi Decl. ¶¶ 17-18, and the defendant certainly is not arguing that the Court should follow the logic of Berke and award plaintiff's counsel from A&P the firm's customary rate in excess of either Laffey matrix. Further, WLC's lead counsel does not seek fees in excess of the rate charged by the A&P lead counsel, such that Berke's conclusion that a non-profit attorney should not be awarded rates in excess of private co-counsel is irrelevant.
Moreover, even if these cases offered analysis applicable to the facts of this case, they pre-date the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Salazar, and as the D.C. Circuit noted in rejecting a similar argument in that case, "[t]he cases cited by the [defendant] are district court cases," which are "not binding precedent." Salazar, 809 F.3d at 65. Like the D.C. Circuit, this Court is not bound by other district court cases, but this Court is bound by the Circuit's decision in Salazar.
Based on the similar evidence provided by the plaintiff as in Salazar, with no rebutting evidence by the defendant, the Court has little difficulty concluding that the LSI Laffey Matrix properly reflects a reasonable, and conservative, estimate of the prevailing market rates, for complex federal litigation in the Washington, D.C. area. Salazar, 809 F.3d at 65; see also Makray, 159 F.Supp.3d at 25 (concluding that Salazar "make[s] clear that the [LSI Laffey] Matrix supplies reasonable reimbursement rates in `complex federal ligation'"); Young, 197 F.Supp.3d at 52 (same). Accordingly, the defendant's objection to application of the LSI Laffey Matrix rates is rejected and this prevailing market rate will be applied to the challenged 270 hours sought in the plaintiff's fee petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff has demonstrated that the hours for which she seeks reimbursement are largely reasonable and that the LSI Laffey Matrix provides the prevailing market rate for the 270 hours spent by two of her counsel preparing for and at trial. Accordingly, after reduction of $12,500.23 from the original request of $838,122.00, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a total of $825,621.77 in attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing her successful pregnancy discrimination claim.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
