REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARRY L. GARBER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court by Order of Reference from Senior United States District Judge Paul C. Huck for a Report and Recommendation "regarding the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Steven Frediani (the defendant) was indicted and charged with conspiracy to commit aircraft fraud and two additional substantive charges of aircraft parts fraud. Richard Della Fera was appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act to represent the defendant who was unable to hire counsel.
A review of the record in this cause reveals that it was indeed a complex case and involved voluminous discovery production and examination, conferences with experts in the aviation field, and preparation for hearings and trial.
Mr. Della Fera sent a letter to the Court wherein he requested that he receive fees and costs of $21,983.46, which is in excess of the cap of $9,800.00 for attorney's fees. The Court finds that Mr. Della Fera did an outstanding job in his representation of the defendant notwithstanding his conviction and obtained an excellent result regarding the sentence that was imposed.
However, the Court, based upon its examination of the record and its expertise on issues pertaining to reasonableness of fees and costs, finds that there are numerous instances where time spent on specific tasks was excessive and unreasonable. The Court shall point out several examples.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Della Fera expended 10.9 hours in the preparation of a Motion to Dismiss. Said motion was five pages in length. In excess of one page was spent on setting forth the counts in the Indictment. The Court finds that such Motion should have been completed in, at most, 3 hours.
A claim for 6.2 hours in the preparation of Objections to the Pre-Sentence Investigation report is excessive and this 2 page document could have been completed in 2 hours or less.
A claim for 3 hours is made for review of file. Given the diligence with which Mr. Della Fera has conducted the defense, it would appear that such review could have been completed in one hour or less. Numerous requests for fees regarding discovery review have been made but have not been specific as to the nature or volume of such discovery.
The foregoing examples are set forth as a basis for the Court to rely upon the ruling in Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994), which states inter alia that, "where a fee documentation is voluminous, such as in the instant case, an hour-by-hour review is simply impractical and a waste of judicial resources." Other circuits have almost uniformly held that where a fee application is voluminous, an hour-by-hour analysis of a fee request is not required. Jacobs v. Mancuso, 825 F.2d. 559 (1st Cir.1987); Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton, 801 F.2d. 1197, 1202-03 (10th Cir. 1986); Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 903 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
"In fact, given a voluminous application, most circuits recognize the utility of across the board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure." Loranger, 10 F.3d at 783. The Eleventh Circuit, in Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 380 Fed. Appx. 888 (11th Cir. 2010), holds that "if the district court finds that the number of hours claimed is unreasonably high, the court may either conduct an hour-by-hour analysis or it may reduce the hours using an across the board cut." The Court deems an across the board percentage cut to the requested fees is appropriate here and recommends a fifteen percent reduction.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
For reasons set forth above and based upon the Court's review of the record, and consideration of the submissions of the parties, the undersigned respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the application for fees in the amount of $21,772.50 be reduced by 15%, or $3,265.88, for toward fee award of $18,506.63. Adding in Mr. Della Fera's costs, the total award of fees and costs equals $18,627.59.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with Senior United States District Judge Paul C. Huck. See 28 U.S.C. §636 (1991). Failure to file timely objections may bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED at the United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida this 1st day of August 2014.
