A. Richard Caputo, United States District Judge.
Presently before the Court are five (5) post-trial motions: (1) Plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages (Doc. 147); (2) Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's certificate of counsel as to Rule 68 Offers (Doc. 158); (3) Plaintiffs' motion for pre-judgment interest (Doc. 160); (4) Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs (Doc. 163); and (5) Plaintiffs' motion for defense counsel's time records, bills, and invoices (Doc. 179). Because Defendant Lackawanna County ("Defendant" or the "County") failed to establish that its violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was in good faith, Plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages will be granted. However, because a plaintiff cannot be awarded both liquidated damages and pre-judgment interest under the FLSA, Plaintiffs' motion for pre-judgment interest will be denied. Because Defendant's Rule 68 Offers are relevant to my determination of attorney fees and costs, Plaintiffs' motion to strike will also be denied. Unlike Defendant's Rule 68 Offers, however, defense counsel's time records and billing invoices are not relevant to my determination of attorney fees or costs and Plaintiff's motion for these records will therefore be denied. Finally, because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated their entitlement to all fees and costs as requested, their motion for attorney fees and costs will be granted in part and denied in part.
This action represents the consolidation of two (2) matters arising out of the County's failure to pay overtime to Plaintiffs Michael Souryavong, Edwin Velez, and Nelson Rolon (collectively "Plaintiffs"), employees who were working in excess of forty (40) hours per week for the County. Plaintiffs were all members of the Lackawanna County Deputy Sheriff's Association (the "Association"), which is the union that represents Lackawanna County's Deputy Sheriffs for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
On June 7, 2013, Plaintiffs Souryavong and Velez initiated this action against the County and the Association by filing a Complaint (Doc. 1). They asserted claims for a breach of the collective bargaining agreement and for violations of the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") against the County. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim against the Association for a breach of its duty of fair representation.
On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff Rolon filed a similar complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants. (Rolon v. Lackawanna County et al., No. 13-cv-1581, M.D. Pa., Doc. 1.) All three (3) plaintiffs are represented by Cynthia Pollick, Esq. Both cases were consolidated under the caption Souryavong et al. v. Lackawanna County, et al., No. 13-cv-1534.
On May 27, 2015, summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs was granted in part and denied in part. (Docs. 82 & 83.) Summary judgment was granted for Plaintiffs with respect to claims based on events relating to the County's failure to pay Plaintiffs within the FLSA's minimal statute of limitations, which is two (2) years. The remainder of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to claims based on events that fell outside of the two (2) year
On November 2, 2015, a consolidated jury trial commenced. At the close of Plaintiffs' case, judgment as a matter of law was granted in favor of the Association. On November 5, 2015, trial concluded and judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against the County on their FLSA claims with respect to events that occurred within the minimum two (2) year statute of limitations.
On November 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for liquidated damages. On November 11, 2015, the County opposed Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to liquidated damages because the County "acted in good faith" relative to Plaintiffs' overtime. Specifically, the County asserts that it "had objectively reasonable grounds for believing that it was in compliance with the FLSA and was in fact in compliance with the FLSA in each department of its governmental unit but failed, as the result of a computer generated program, to aggregate an employee's hours from department to department." (Doc. 165, at 6.)
On November 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief, arguing that they need not establish an intentional violation of the FLSA to recover liquidated damages, and that lack of knowledge is insufficient to establish good faith. Plaintiffs emphasize that the record here is silent as to efforts made by Lackawanna County to comply with the FLSA. Plaintiffs further argue that even after finding out that the County was violating the FLSA in March 2011, it
Plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages will be granted. The FLSA provides for liquidated damages and states that such damages shall be paid unless "the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." 29 U.S.C. § 260. In order to show "good faith," the defendant employer "must show that he took
Here, there was no evidence that the County took affirmative steps to ascertain the FLSA's requirements or acted in "good faith" with regard to its failure to pay overtime to Plaintiffs. Although the County requested a hearing on the motion "should the Court so require," such a hearing would be unnecessary since any evidence of good faith that the County might have on the issue should have been presented at trial, since a critical issue for the jury to determine was whether the County willfully violated the statute. Absent a showing of affirmative steps that Defendant took to comply with the FLSA, Defendant's mere assertion that the computer system failed to capture overtime hours of Plaintiffs fails to establish good faith. See Martin, 940 F.2d at 907-10 (concluding that the district court had "no discretion to deny liquidated damages" because the defendant had not demonstrated that it took affirmative steps to ascertain the legality of its pay practices and remanding for an order awarding mandatory liquidated damages). Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages will be granted.
On November 5, 2015, Defendant filed a Certificate of Counsel as to Rule 68 Offers. (Doc. 146.) This document attaches offers that the County made to Plaintiffs on November 28, 2014, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The offers allowed judgment to be entered against the County to Plaintiff Souryavong in the amount of $12,124.72; Plaintiff Velez in the amount of $6,356.04, and Plaintiff Rolon in the amount of $854.41, excluding attorney's fees, yet including all of Plaintiffs' claims for relief. None of these offers were accepted by Plaintiffs. After proceeding to trial, each plaintiff was awarded an amount for less than the amount in the Rule 68 Offer: Souryavong was awarded $608.30, Velez was awarded $4,672.50, and Rolon was awarded $307.50. Plaintiffs have moved to strike Defendant's Certificate of Counsel attaching these Rule 68 offers, arguing that the offers are null and void because they were not approved by the Court and that they serve no purpose since they were not filed in response to anything filed by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' motion to strike will be denied. First, the offers are relevant to my assessment of costs. Where a plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment for an amount more favorable than the amount in an unaccepted Rule 68 offer, the plaintiff may not recover costs incurred after the offer was
Second, Defendant's Rule 68 Offers are relevant to my assessment of attorney fees. When a plaintiff rejects a Rule 68 offer and judgment is obtained for less than that offer, "these circumstances
However, unlike the fee-shifting provision of section 1988, the FLSA does not define attorney fees as part of costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ("The court in such action shall ... allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action."); see also Haworth, 56 F.3d at 1051 (explaining the same). Therefore, in the FLSA context, the failure of a plaintiff to recover a judgment greater than an amount offered pursuant to Rule 68 does not preclude the recovery of reasonable attorney fees for services rendered after the Rule 68 offer was made. Haworth, 56 F.3d at 1051; Wales v. Jack M. Berry, Inc., 192 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1325 (M.D.Fla.2001). However, the Rule 68 offer must be considered in determining whether the lodestar calculation of a reasonable attorney fee is excessive and whether a downward departure from the lodestar is warranted. Haworth, 56 F.3d at 1051-52
The cases that Plaintiffs cite in support of their motion are inapposite. First, Plaintiff relies on Luna v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, No. 1:06-CV-2000-JEC, 2008 WL 754452 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 19, 2008), to argue that FLSA claims may only be abridged or settled after a court reviews the proposed settlement to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. In Luna, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' Rule 68 offers, but only because the defendants had not presented the Rule 68 offers to the court. Id. at *12. The court explained that this was with good reason because the parties had not yet conducted any merits discovery or provided even an estimate as to the amount the plaintiffs might be entitled to recover on their FLSA claims, and therefore, there was "absolutely no basis for determining whether the offers [were] fair and reasonable." Id. Here, in contrast to the facts in Luna, Defendant has presented its Rule 68 Offer to this Court. In addition, trial has already concluded and judgment entered; therefore, there
Plaintiffs also rely on Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.2015) and Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1982), to argue that FLSA claims cannot be settled unless the district court approves of the settlement and enters a stipulated judgment. However, this is irrelevant. There has been no proposed settlement that Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed upon and proposed to this Court for approval. Rather, the proposed offer was rejected and this case went to trial where the parties were judged by a jury of their peers. Defendant is not submitting the offer for approval, but for consideration in the award of costs and attorney fees, which is an issue that is neither addressed by Cheeks nor Lynn's Food Stores. Cheeks and Lynn's Food Stores addressed the very specific issue of whether parties could stipulate to settle an FLSA claim without approval of a district court or the Department of Labor. Neither of these cases even mention Rule 68, nonetheless discuss its relevance in the context of a fee petition. Critically, not a single one of Plaintiffs' cases address the issue of whether I may consider rejected Rule 68 offers in the context of attorney fee petitions. Therefore, Plaintiffs' cases do not apply here.
Additionally, Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for attorney fees raises a new argument as to why I may not consider the County's Rule 68 Offers. Plaintiffs argue that I may not consider the Rule 68 Offers because they do not include an amount for attorney's fees and costs and are therefore invalid. (Doc. 185, at 3-4.) The County's Offer of Judgment to Souryavong provides as follows:
(Doc. 146, at 3-4.) The County's Offers to Velez and Rolon contain similar language, only with different amounts. (Doc. 146, at 5-6, 8-9.)
However, as previously explained by this Court and affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, this does not preclude my consideration of the County's Rule 68 Offers to assess costs and attorney fees. See Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-CV-1342, 2013 WL 685144, at *4-*6 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 25, 2013) (rejecting Attorney Pollick's argument that a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment was defective because it did not explicitly provide for fees and costs), aff'd, 548 Fed.Appx. 58 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Carroll v. Clifford Twp. et al., No. 3:12-0553, 2015 WL 7016435, at *1 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 12, 2015) (precluding the recovery of costs made after the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment was rejected where the offer did not include an amount for costs or attorney fees). Plaintiffs rely on two (2) cases from outside of the Third Circuit for their assertion that a Rule 68 Offer is invalid for failure to include an amount for costs and attorney fees: Scheriff v. Beck, 452 F.Supp. 1254 (D.Colo.1978); and Fulps v. The City of Springfield, 715 F.2d 1088 (6th Cir.1983). However, the Supreme Court of the United States has since clarified the language of Rule 68 to reject Plaintiffs' interpretation of the Rule:
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 6, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (emphases added). Therefore, "it is immaterial whether [Defendant's] offer recites that costs are included." Id. As long as the County's Offer "does not implicitly or explicitly provide that the judgment not include costs," it will be valid. Here, the County's Offers make clear that costs may be determined and recovered by a court at a later date, and are therefore valid. (Doc. 146, at 4 ("This Offer of Judgment shall not be filed with the Court unless (a) accepted or (b)
On November 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for pre-judgment interest. Defendant opposed the motion, conceding that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest but arguing that Plaintiffs cannot recover both pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages under the FLSA. Although Plaintiffs have not filed a reply, their time to file one has expired and this motion is now ripe for adjudication.
Because Defendant is correct that Plaintiffs cannot recover both pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages under the FLSA, Plaintiffs' motion will be denied. The Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs are precluded from recovering both liquidated damages and interest on their wages in FLSA cases. See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 714-16, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945); see also id. at 715, 65 S.Ct. 895 ("Interest is not recoverable in judgments obtained under Section 16(b)."). The Court explained that by enumerating the sums recoverable in an FLSA action under Section 16(b), Congress "meant to preclude recovery of interest on minimum wages and liquidated damages." Id. at 716, 65 S.Ct. 895. The Supreme Court further explained that "[t]o allow an employee to recover the basic statutory wage and liquidated damages, with interest, would have the effect of giving an employee double compensation for damages arising from delay in the payment of the basic minimum wages." Id. at 715, 65 S.Ct. 895; see also Martin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 910-11 (vacating the lower court's award of pre-judgment interest and remanding for an award of liquidated damages because the purpose of liquidated damages under section 16(b) is to compensate employees for any losses caused by delayed receipt of overtime wages they are due and awarding pre-judgment interest would serve the same purpose as liquidated damages).
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs rely on Starceski v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 54 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir.1995), a case where the Third Circuit reversed a trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest. However, Starceski involved the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"),
Id. at 1102 (emphasis added). Therefore, because Plaintiffs may not recover both pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages for their FLSA claims, Plaintiffs' motion for pre-judgment interest will be denied.
On November 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. (Docs. 163 & 164.) Plaintiffs request a $400.00
Defendant has opposed Plaintiffs' motion, objecting to Plaintiffs' requested hourly rates for Attorney Pollick and legal staff as well as the number of hours for which they request compensation. A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion was held on January 26, 2016.
Under the FLSA, the Court "shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In FLSA cases, courts have analyzed attorney fee requests using the lodestar method, which multiplies the number of hours counsel reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate. See Loughner v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 260 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir.2001). When calculating the lodestar, a court should exclude hours that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary." Id. at 178. A court should also reduce the number of hours requested "by the number of hours spent litigating claims on which the party did not succeed ... and for which the fee petition inadequately documents the hours claimed." Id.; see also Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir.1990) (explaining that a court may "deduct hours when the fee petition inadequately documents the hours claimed"). However, the district court cannot decrease a fee award based on factors not raised at all by the adverse party. Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183. Because I find that Plaintiffs' requested hourly rate of $400.00 is excessive and that several of the hours billed are incompensable, Plaintiffs' requested award for fees and costs will be reduced as follows.
To determine a reasonable hourly rate, courts apply a burden-shifting analysis. See Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 273 F.3d 346, 361 (3d Cir.2001). First, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case by producing sufficient evidence of what constitutes a reasonable market rate "for the essential character and complexity of the legal services rendered." Smith v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 107 F.3d 223, 225 (3d Cir.1997). A reasonable market rate is "calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)). The court "should assess the experience and skill of the prevailing party's attorneys and compare their rates to the rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 184 (3d Cir.2001)
Once the plaintiff has established her prima facie case, the defendant may contest the reasonableness of the rate with "appropriate record evidence." Evans, 273 F.3d at 361. Hourly rates that were set for a specific attorney in previous court decisions do not generally constitute record evidence, Smith v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 107 F.3d 223, 226 (3d Cir.1997), unless those rates were set for the same attorney and for the same type of work over a contemporaneous period, see Black Grievance Comm. v. Phila. Elec. Co., 802 F.2d 648, 652 (3d Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 483 U.S. 1015, 107 S.Ct. 3255, 97 L.Ed.2d 754 (1987). Once the defendant raises objections to the fee request, the district court has a "great deal of discretion" to adjust the fee award in light of those objections. Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183; see also Shea v. Galaxie Lumber & Construction Co., No. 99-1738, 2000 WL 868605, at *2 (7th Cir. June 28, 2000) ("It is well established that a district court has `wide latitude' in determining the amount of attorneys' fees in an FLSA case.").
Here, Plaintiffs request an hourly rate of $400.00 for Attorney Pollick, $150.00 for a legal researcher, and $100.00 for a legal assistant. Defendant objects to each of these rates as excessive.
Plaintiffs request an hourly rate of $400.00 for Attorney Pollick. In support of their motion, they submit an affidavit by Attorney Pollick, wherein she outlines her experience since graduating from law school in 1999, noting that she is in her sixteenth (16th) year of the practice of law, and that has had her own law practice for fifteen (15) years, focusing primarily on civil rights matters. (Doc. 163-5, at 3.) In her affidavit, Attorney Pollick attests that $400.00 is her current hourly rate and notes that she received that rate in two (2) cases: (1) Harris v. City of Scranton, 13-2282; and (2) Vitro DePietro v. USDOJ, USM-2013-00357.
Second, Plaintiffs do not provide any documentation supporting Attorney Pollick's assertion that she received an hourly rate of $400.00 in Vitro. See Loughner, 260 F.3d at 180 (explaining that satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate requires more than the attorney's own affidavits). Nor do Plaintiffs provide any information about Vitro so that I can assess whether Attorney Pollick's legal services in Vitro were similar to her legal services provided here. Maldonado, 256 F.3d at 184 (explaining that the court should compare the experience and skill of the attorney seeking fees to rates prevailing in the community for
Attorney Pollick also asserts that $400.00 reflects the market rate in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre for civil rights lawyers with extensive trial experience who take these cases on a contingency basis. In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs submit a declaration by a local litigator, Attorney Jonathan S. Comitz, Esq., in which he attests that the market rate for experienced attorneys in Northeastern Pennsylvania capable of serving as lead or solo counsel in employment discrimination cases and willing to do so on a contingent fee basis is at least $400.00 per hour. (Doc. 163-3, Ex. C, at 3.) He further attests that he is familiar with Attorney Pollick and believes that her rate of $400.00 "is more than fair and reasonable for employment related litigation as she is certainly worthy of that rate based on her reputation, persistence, track record, esteem and work ethic as here in Northeastern Pennsylvania." (Id.)
However, Attorney Comitz notes that the basis for his opinion is that the federal courts have adopted the community legal services ("CLS") rate standard with this type of litigation, and cites to several cases from the
In further support of Attorney Pollick's hourly rate, Plaintiffs also rely on a chart outlining attorney fees pursuant to the Community Legal Services ("CLS") of Philadelphia. (Doc. 163-4, Ex. D.) Pursuant to that chart, a lawyer with sixteen (16) to twenty (20) years of experience, like Attorney Pollick, should receive an hourly rate of $435.00 to $515.00. Plaintiffs also submit the "Laffey Matrix," which is used for determining fees of attorneys practicing in the District of Columbia. (Doc. 185-6, Ex. I.) This matrix lists an hourly rate of $435.00 for lawyers with eleven (11) to nineteen (19) years of experience. Again, Plaintiffs' reliance on the CLS of Philadelphia and the Laffey Matrix for attorneys in the District of Columbia is misguided because they do not speak to what the prevailing market rates are in the forum litigation, i.e., the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs also rely on various declarations submitted by attorneys in support of their petitions in
Finally, Plaintiffs rely on testimony at the fee hearing provided by Shelley L. Centini, Esq., and Carlo Sabatini, Esq. Attorney Centini testified that her current hourly rate is $350.00 and Attorney Sabatini testified that his current hourly rate is $375.00. However, both testified that these rates have not yet been approved by a court in this region. Attorney Sabatini testified that his last hourly rate that was approved by the Middle District of Pennsylvania was $350.00. Upon review of Attorney Sabatini's testimony at the fee hearing and his declaration filed in support of a fee petition in Lukawski v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 12-cv-02082, Doc. 23, Ex. 1 (Sept. 30, 2013), I do not find that Plaintiffs' reliance upon his hourly rate supports their requested fee. Attorney Sabatini is board-certified in consumer bankruptcy law by the American Board of Certification, and is the only attorney with an office within fifty (50) miles of the William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse who has obtained this certification. Lukawski v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 12-cv-02082, Doc. 23, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4-5 (Sept. 30, 2013). He has taught continuing legal education courses on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), appeared on WBRE television to discuss consumer issues, and has filed several hundred cases under the FDCPA. Lukawski involved a claim under the FDCPA, a statute that has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States as "a comprehensive and complex federal statute." See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573, 587, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 176 L.Ed.2d 519 (2010). Therefore, Attorney Sabatini's expertise in the area as well as the lack of other attorneys with similar expertise in the region justified his hourly rate.
In contrast, Attorney Pollick requests an hourly rate that is even higher than Attorney Sabatini's hourly rate, yet has not demonstrated that she provided special expertise in this particular litigation or that there was a lack of other employment attorneys with similar expertise in the region that could justify a higher rate. See, e.g., Wales v. Jack M. Berry, Inc., 192 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1318-19 (M.D.Fla.2001) (holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that there was a lack of local attorneys available to take FLSA cases so as to justify their requested hourly rate). Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate how Attorney Pollick's services in this FLSA action are similar to Attorney Sabatini's services in his FDCPA action. See Maldonado, 256 F.3d at 184 (explaining that the prevailing party's attorney's rates should be compared to rates of attorneys in the
Accordingly, I find that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing a prima facie case that their requested hourly rate of $400.00 is consistent with the prevailing market rate. I must therefore conduct my own analysis to determine what award is reasonable. See Carey v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 496 Fed.Appx. 234, 237 (3d Cir.2012) ("If the plaintiff fails to meet her prima facie case, the district court has the discretion to determine what award is reasonable.").
Defendant suggests an hourly rate of $250.00, a rate that I previously awarded Attorney Pollick in a case from 2013, which was subsequently affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-CV-1342, 2013 WL 685144, at *10 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 25, 2013), aff'd, 548 Fed.Appx. 58, 62-63 (3d Cir.2013). In support of this reduction, Defendant cites to previous cases in which Attorney Pollick was denied her requested hourly rate, which at the time was $300.00. See Carey v. City of Wilkes-Barre, No. 3:05-cv-2093, 2011 WL 1900169 (M.D.Pa. May 19, 2011) (holding that Attorney Pollick's length of practice and experience did not entitle her to an hourly rate of $300.00 and instead awarding an hourly rate of $225.00); Lohman v. Borough, No. 3:05-cv-1423, 2008 WL 2951070 (M.D.Pa. July 30, 2008) (holding that an hourly rate of $300.00 was not appropriate for Attorney Pollick and instead awarding an hourly rate of $215.00).
Based on all of the evidence before me and my knowledge of this case, I find Plaintiffs' requested hourly rate of $400.00 for Attorney Pollick unreasonable. I find that Defendant's proposed hourly rate of
Plaintiffs seek an hourly billing rate of $150.00 for their legal researcher. Defendant objects to this rate as unreasonable, and argues that Plaintiffs should not be able to recover fees for a legal researcher for whom the name and qualifications are not provided. However, Plaintiffs are not required to provide the names and qualifications of their legal staff in order to recover fees for their work. See, e.g., Jama Corp. v. Gupta, No. 3:99-cv-1624, 2008 WL 108671, at *5 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 4, 2008) (awarding fees for an unnamed law clerk). Therefore, this objection will be overruled.
As for reasonableness of the hourly rate for Plaintiffs' legal researcher, I will look to the prevailing hourly rate of legal researchers in this region. In the last two (2) to four (4) years, I have approved hourly rates of $100.00 for legal researchers. See Dee, 2013 WL 685144, at *11; Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 3:06-cv-00793, 2012 WL 2905458, at *3 (M.D.Pa. July 16, 2012). Therefore, I find that Plaintiffs' requested hourly rate of $150.00 for their legal researcher is reasonable.
Plaintiffs seek an hourly rate of $100.00 for their legal assistant. Defendant again objects to this rate as unreasonable, and argues that Plaintiffs should not be able to recover fees for a legal assistant for whom the name and qualifications are not provided. However, as previously noted, Plaintiffs are not required to provide the names and qualifications of their legal staff in order to recover fees for their work. See, e.g., Jama Corp., 2008 WL 108671, at *5 (awarding fees for an unnamed law clerk). Therefore, this objection will again be overruled.
As for the reasonableness of the hourly rate for Plaintiffs' legal assistants, a survey of billing rates that have been recently approved for legal assistants in this region shows that hourly rates range from $75.00 to $150.00. See, e.g., Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:02-cv-0134, 2014 WL 2860863, at *13 (M.D.Pa. June 23, 2014) (approving hourly rates of $120.00 and $130.00 for legal assistants); Dino v. Pennsylvania, No. 1:08-cv-1493, 2013 WL 6504749, at * 3 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 11, 2013) (approving an hourly rate of $150.00 for a legal assistant in an FLSA case); Dee, 2013 WL 685144, at *11 (approving an hourly rate of $75.00 for a legal assistant); Overly v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Inc., 1:10-cv-2392, 2011 WL 2651807, at *5 (M.D.Pa. July 6, 2011) (noting that typical rates for legal assistants in the Middle District of Pennsylvania are between $70.00 and $120.00 an hour); see also Doc. 185-2, Ex. E (Attorney Vito declaration stating that his legal assistant bills an hourly rate of $100.00). Therefore, I find that Plaintiffs' requested hourly rate of $100.00 for their legal assistant is reasonable.
In addition to determining a reasonable hourly rate, a court must also determine whether the number of hours spent on the litigation was reasonable. Public Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1188 (1995) (citations omitted). A court "should review the time charged, decide whether the hours claimed were reasonably expended for each of the particular purposes described, and then exclude those that are `excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'" Id.; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (a trial court will "exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were
Here, Defendant makes several objections to the number of hours for which Plaintiffs seek compensation. Therefore, I must conduct a detailed review of Plaintiffs' requested fees. Having carefully reviewed each of Defendant's objections and Plaintiffs' submitted time entries, Plaintiffs' requested award will be reduced as follows.
Defendant argues that several hours billed by Plaintiffs' counsel were actually for Plaintiffs' claim against the Association, not the County. For example, Plaintiffs seek to recover the full time counsel spent on drafting pleadings that involved claims against both the County and the Association. (See, e.g., Doc. 177, Tab A, at 6.) I will overrule these objections because the pleadings highlighted by Defendant, such as the Complaint and the Amended Complaint, were pleadings filed early in the case that primarily dealt with claims against the County, not the Association. Therefore, Defendant's request for a fifty percent (50%) reduction would be inappropriate.
However, Defendant's objection will be sustained as to pre-trial and trial time billed up until the Rule 50 motion in favor of the Association was granted. Plaintiffs were not successful at trial in their claims against the Association. Therefore, they may not recover for this time. Plaintiffs argue that a fifty percent (50%) reduction for this time spent until the Rule 50 motion was granted would be inappropriate because a majority of the claims were against the County and not the Association. Although Plaintiffs are correct that there were three (3) claims against the County and only one (1) claim against the Association in the Amended Complaint, the trial was only concerned with one (1) claim against the County-the FLSA violation. Neither the breach of the collective bargaining agreement nor the PWPA claim was addressed at trial. Therefore, the trial involved only one (1) claim against the County (the FLSA claim) and one (1) claim against the Association (the breach of duty of fair representation claim). After conducting a careful, line-by-line review of Plaintiffs' submitted time entries, I find that Attorney Pollick's pre-trial and trial time up until the Rule 50 motion amounts to 66.9 hours and the legal assistant's pre-trial and trial time up until the Rule 50 motion amounts to 10 hours. Because a fifty percent (50%) reduction of this time is appropriate,
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to recover for time spent
Moreover, as suggested by Defendant, my review of Plaintiffs' counsel's billing reveals several time entries that appear multiple times but for the same work. For example, Attorney Pollick billed 0.1 hours on October 14, 2015 for "Receipt and review of Exhibit List — union" on
Defendant also objects to the number of hours Plaintiffs' counsel billed as unreasonably duplicative. Specifically, Defendant notes that several hours billed for the Souryavong/Velez matter should not have also been billed to the Rolon matter because much of the work must have overlapped, given the nearly identical nature of the two (2) cases. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' attorney fees should be reduced by at least fifty percent (50%) due to the duplicative nature of the work done for the Souryavong/Velez matter and the Rolon matter.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that the filings in Rolon do not mirror the filings in Souryavong/Velez. Plaintiffs also argue that because a private attorney could charge his client for time spent on both of these matters, Plaintiffs' counsel here may be compensated as well. See Davis v. City & Cty. of S.F., 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir.1992), vacated in part on denial of reh'g, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir.1993) ("[P]revailing civil rights counsel are entitled to compensation for the same tasks as a private attorney").
At the time that Plaintiffs Souryavong and Velez commenced this case, similarly situated Plaintiff Rolon brought a nearly
Likewise, here, the work done by Attorney Pollick for the Souryavong/Velez matter is similar to her work for the nearly identical Rolon matter. Therefore, I will reduce Plaintiffs' submitted time for the Rolon matter by fifty percent (50%). Plaintiffs' counsel has submitted 21.1 hours of time spent solely on the Rolon matter. (See Doc. 163-1, Ex. A (listing 10.9 hours for 2013, 6.5 hours for 2014, and 3.7 hours for 2015).) As noted above, 2.5 of these hours will be deducted because they were spent on Plaintiffs' claims against the Association, not the County, thereby lowering the total time billed by Attorney Pollick on the Rolon bill to 18.6 hours. Accordingly, this will be reduced by fifty percent (50%) and Plaintiffs' requested fee award will be reduced by
Plaintiffs have also submitted 4.1 hours of legal assistant time for the Rolon matter. (See Doc. 163-1, Ex. A, at 5-6 (listing 1.6 hours for 2013 and 2.5 hours for 2014, totaling 4.1 hours).) Accordingly, this time will be reduced by fifty percent (50%) and Plaintiffs' requested fee award will be reduced by
Defendant argues that several entries on Attorney Pollick's time records are "cryptic and vague" and should therefore be deleted from her requested fee award. Specifically, Defendant challenges (1) 8.3 hours of billing for telephone conferences with Souryavong and Velez "regarding case"; (2) 22.5 hours for "legal research" without specifying what the research was or if it was for Plaintiffs' claim against the County or the Association; (3) 3.9 hours for meetings with Souryavong and Velez regarding case without specifying whether Plaintiffs' claims against the County were even discussed; (4) 3.6 hours for correspondence with Souryavong and Velez, without specifying whether this correspondence was in any way related to Plaintiffs' claims against the County; (5) 1.7 hours of telephone conferences with Rolon without specifying whether these conferences related to Plaintiffs' claims against the County; (6) 1.0 hours for a June 11, 2013 meeting with Rolon without specifying whether this meeting related to his claims against the County; and (7) 1.8 hours of correspondence with Rolon without specifying if this correspondence related to Plaintiff's claim against the County.
In response, Plaintiffs submit Exhibit A, which is a document listing their responses
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that a fee petition should include "some fairly definite information as to the hours devoted to various general activities, e.g., pretrial discovery, settlement negotiations, and the hours spent by various classes of attorneys, e.g., senior partners, junior partners, associates." Rode, 892 F.2d at 1190 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is an established proposition of law that "`[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the reward accordingly.'" Washington v. Phila. Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1037 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933). Although "it is not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney," a fee petition must be specific enough for the district court "to determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed." Id.
Courts within this district have disregarded time entries based on lack of specificity. See, e.g., Jama Corp., 2008 WL 108671, at *7 (disregarding time entries that "include[d] broad statements such as `Review litigation documents,' `Review documents for Exhibit list,' `Review pleadings,' `Review trial exhibits,' and `Review trial exhibits & documents.'"); id. (reducing total number of hours for one of the attorneys to eight (8) hours of various research assignments on trademark law); Arlington Indus., Inc., 2014 WL 2860863, at *8-*9 (striking counsel's entries "for vague and unspecified tasks such as `confer with counsel; review docs; review docket; memo re: same,'" and reducing counsel's billed time by 50.33 hours); id. at *9 (further reducing ten (10) hours of another attorney's submitted time for "work on" [Plaintiff's] brief, declaration, or motion" because they were `vague and unspecified"); id. (disregarding ten (10) hours of another attorney's submitted time for "research" and "continue research" as "vague and overbroad").
Plaintiffs note that I have approved Attorney Pollick's billing entries in several fee petitions, such as Dee v. Dunmore Borough. However, they fail to mention that in Dee, I deducted time from Attorney Pollick's submitted entries based on lack of specificity. See, e.g., Dee. v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-CV-1342, 2013 WL 685144, at *7 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 25, 2013) (deleting vague time entries and reducing Attorney Pollick's requested attorney's fee award), aff'd, 548 Fed.Appx. 58 (3d Cir. 2013). Other courts outside of this district have also reduced requested attorney fee awards based on vague time entries. See, e.g., Wales, 192 F.Supp.2d at 1323 (sustaining "any objection to an entry referring to a conference, a telephone call, or the like... if the entry does not identify the subject of the communication," because "[w]hile it is not expected that discussions or other messages should be particularized in detail, it is easy enough to add a couple of words regarding the subject matter of the communication in order to show that it is compensable under the FLSA-if it is").
Here, Plaintiffs' bare-boned entries are too vague for a court to fairly determine if
Upon review of time records submitted in prior fee petitions from attorneys in this district, including one who Plaintiffs called to testify at the fee petition hearing, requiring this additional detail is not unreasonable and in fact consistent with other attorneys in the region. For example, in support of a fee petition in Lukawski v. Client Servs., Inc., Attorney Sabatini submitted time records that included entries such as "Research for authority to indicate that Plaintiff's subjective interpretation of the letter is irrelevant, so, her deposition should not be had." (See Lukawski v. Client Servs., Inc., No., Doc. 23-1, Ex. A, at 4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2013).) These entries provide sufficient detail for a court to determine whether the corresponding number of hours submitted are reasonable without divulging attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs' bare-boned entries, such as "Legal research for case," fail to provide this Court with sufficient detail as to whether the number of hours spent on these tasks were reasonable. (Doc. 163-1, Ex. A, at 1.)
Therefore, after conducting a detailed, line-by-line review of Plaintiffs' submitted entries, I will reduce Attorney Pollick's submitted time by
Defendant also argues that 0.2 hours of submitted time should be deducted from Plaintiffs' fee request because it relates to reviewing press coverage on the case, which is not compensable. Specifically, Attorney Pollick submitted a time entry on June 8, 2013, for 0.20 hours for her "review of article on case." (See Doc. 163-1, at 1.) In the past, courts within this district have denied attorney compensation for time spent
Plaintiffs rebut that reviewing news and media reports about a case
Therefore, consistent with how other courts have approached this issue, I hold that Plaintiffs may not recover fees for an attorney's time spent on media and press coverage unless they can show that it contributed, directly or substantially, to the attainment of Plaintiffs' litigation goals. Here, it cannot be said that Attorney Pollick's time spent reviewing an article on the case, which I will note was the day immediately after the original Complaint was filed, contributed directly or substantially to the attainment of Plaintiffs' litigation goals. It is this Court that decides this case, not the community. Although Plaintiffs could potentially argue that press coverage might be relevant to counsel during jury selection and trial, though even that is a stretch given my instruction to jurors
Defendant has made several other objections to Plaintiffs' time entries as incompensable, but they will be overruled. (See Doc. 177, at 27-34.) I find that these entries, such as time billed for setting up a telephone conference with the Court, internal discussions that counsel had with her legal staff regarding the case, filing documents with this Court, travel time, legal assistant time at trial, and legal assistant time preparing exhibit binders, are all reasonable time entries that could properly be charged to one's client, and are therefore recoverable. Davis, 976 F.2d 1536 ("[P]revailing civil rights counsel are entitled to compensation for the same tasks as a private attorney").
Defendant also objects to time billed relating to Plaintiffs' arbitration proceedings because it was a separate and distinct legal proceeding in which Attorney Pollick did not participate. However, I find that this time is compensable because counsel's time spent on the arbitration, even though she did not personally participate in it, was directly related to her work for Plaintiffs in this matter. For example, Attorney Pollick performed legal research on the effect of the arbitration on the case and discussed the arbitration with her clients, all of which is compensable time because it was in preparation for this matter and could have been billed by a private attorney to her client.
Defendant also objects to 0.1 hours for duplicate billing wherein Plaintiffs' counsel billed 0.1 hours concerning a Recusal Order of this Court both on June 19, 2013, and June 26, 2013. However, Plaintiffs rebut that this was not duplicate billing because on June 19, 2013, counsel spent 0.1 hours reviewing the Order recusing Judge Mannion and on June 26, 2013, counsel spent 0.1 hours reviewing the order noting that the case had been reassigned to this Court. Accordingly, the objection will be overruled.
However, I will sustain Defendant's objection to the 0.2 hours Attorney Pollick billed on June 7, 2013 for the receipt of payment entries. (See Doc. 163-1, at 1.) This is not compensable time that an attorney
Defendant further objects to Attorney Pollick's billed time entries as excessive in light of the work performed. In particular, Defendant argues that Attorney Pollick's recorded time of 18.75 hours of legal research and preparation of a brief in opposition to the County's motion to dismiss is excessive because it resulted in only a ten (10) page brief. I have carefully reviewed Plaintiffs' brief, and I agree that the 18.75 hours of legal research and preparation billed for this brief is excessive. First, I find that calling Plaintiffs' brief a ten (10) page brief is a generous characterization, given that one of these ten (10) pages is almost entirely consumed by a block quote copied and pasted verbatim from another court opinion, a second page is only one (1) sentence long, and a third page contains no legal analysis as it is simply the certificate of service. However, my finding that 18.75 hours is excessive for this brief is not based on the brief's length.
Defendant also objects to 5.6 hours that Plaintiffs' counsel seeks for both the preparation of a Complaint and the Amended Complaint as excessive, arguing that it should be significantly reduced, "especially the 3.5 hours in preparation of the Complaint that was done prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint." Defendant also argues that I should reject the 0.9 hours claimed by counsel for preparation of the Rolon Complaint because "little argument can be advanced" that it did not mirror exactly the previous complaint filed for Souryavong and Velez. In reviewing the complaints, I do not find that this time is excessive. Accordingly, these objections will be overruled.
Plaintiffs also seek $2,800.00 for seven (7) hours spent preparing their motion for attorney's fees (Doc. 163, at 3) and $4,000.00 for an additional ten (10) hours associated with preparing their reply (Doc. 185, at 23). Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees for the preparation of
Plaintiffs seek $147,040.00 in attorney fees based on 367.6 hours billed by Attorney Pollick; $9,810.00 based on 98.1 hours billed by their legal assistant; and $2,512.50 based on 16.75 hours billed by their legal researcher.
However, a court may adjust the lodestar downward if the lodestar is not reasonable in light of the results obtained. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434-37, 103 S.Ct. 1933; Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183. In Hensley, the Supreme Court explained that a court's assessment of attorney fees does not end with the lodestar calculation: there are several other factors to consider, referring to the twelve (12) factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974):
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (citing Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19.).
In adjudicating a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that settlement negotiations and Rule 68 Offers are a permissible factor for consideration in awarding attorney fees, and that courts may consider the amount in a rejected settlement offer to the amount ultimately awarded by the jury as an indication of the success in the litigation as a whole. See Lohman v. Duryea Borough, 574 F.3d 163, 167-69 (3d Cir.2009). Consistent with this holding, courts nationwide have compared the amount offered in rejected settlement offers to the amount ultimately obtained at judgment to assess the success of the results obtained. See, e.g., Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 220-21 (holding that the plaintiff was only entitled to
Here, I find that the lodestar is not reasonable in light of the results obtained. Plaintiffs' counsel focuses on the fact that she received a jury verdict in her favor, but it appears to me that her success at trial was relatively limited. Prior to trial, summary judgment had already been entered in favor of Plaintiffs on their FLSA claim against the County. All that remained to be determined at trial was (1) an award of damages based on the FLSA claim, including whether the County acted willflully or if equitable tolling applied, either of which would extend the period of time for which Plaintiffs could recover overtime, and (2) whether the Association violated its duty of fair representation to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to obtain an award more favorable than that offered to them by the County prior to trial, failed to establish that the County acted willfully, failed to establish that equitable tolling applied, and failed to prevail on their duty of fair representation claim against the Association. In other words, Plaintiffs were relatively unsuccessful at trial. See Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, 633 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir.2011) (affirming my reduction of the lodestar calculation for the plaintiffs because Attorney Pollick and her client only prevailed on one claim and obtained a less favorable result from trial than they would have obtained from settlement).
Furthermore, Attorney Pollick would have achieved greater pecuniary success for the Plaintiffs if the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer had been accepted. In fact, Souryavong would have obtained an award almost twenty (20) times the size of the award he obtained by going to trial. Velez would have obtained an award that was 1.36 times the size of the award he obtained by going to trial. Rolon would have obtained an award that was almost three (3) times the size of the award he obtained by going to trial. However, I am mindful that success in litigation, especially civil rights litigation, cannot be measured purely by the financial success obtained. Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-cv-1343, 2008 WL 4542246, at *13 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 9, 2008). While the Plaintiffs could have accepted Defendant's Rule 68 Offers before trial, the offers may not have provided the valuable satisfaction that may have been derived Plaintiffs vindicating their rights against Defendant in court in front of a jury of their peers. Id. Because of the inherent difficulty in discerning or quantifying the gain Plaintiffs received from this, I view the Rule 68 Offers as important, but not entirely dispositive, in determining an appropriate fee award here.
Additionally, other Johnson factors besides the "results obtained" factor, also justify a reduced award. The skill requisite to perform the services here was not particularly rigorous — Plaintiffs' counsel often brings labor and employment cases, and this FLSA wage-and-overtime claim was not a new or novel issue of law. See Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, No. 3:05-cv-1343, 2008 WL 4542246, at *13-*14 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 9, 2008) (reducing lodestar calculation in First Amendment case because counsel often brings First Amendment retaliation claims, and the claims presented were "not particularly difficult" and there was "not a new or novel issue of law"); id. (further noting that Attorney Pollick "did not demonstrate any special ability in the prosecution of the case" and that the case could not be considered "undesirable" — there was "no evidence" that the plaintiff "was unable to attract other attorneys to [the]
Based on the Johnson factors, including the critical "results obtained" factor, I find that a downward departure of the lodestar is warranted, and Plaintiffs will be awarded a total of
As the prevailing party in this FLSA litigation, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (providing that "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party"); see also Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (providing that the Court "shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.") Here, Plaintiffs seek costs in the amount of $2,845.25. However, as explained earlier, Plaintiffs may not recover costs incurred after November 28, 2014, the date on which Defendant's Rule 68 Offers were made because the amount in those offers exceeds the amount they ultimately obtained at judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(d) (providing that "[i]f the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made."); Marek, 473 U.S. at 7-9, 105 S.Ct. 3012 (holding that the defendants were not liable for attorney fees incurred by plaintiff after the defendants' Rule 68 Offer was made because the plaintiff ultimately recovered judgment for less than the rejected Rule 68 Offer); Haworth v. State of Nevada, 56 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.1995) (vacating district court's award of costs to the plaintiff in an FLSA case because the plaintiffs recovered less by judgment than the defendant's Rule 68 Offer, and therefore are not entitled to any costs incurred after the Rule 68 offer of judgment was made); Dee, 2013 WL 685144, at *6 (holding that because the defendants' Rule 68 Offer was more favorable than the judgment, the plaintiff was precluded from recovering costs incurred after the Offer was made), aff'd, 548 Fed.Appx. 58 (3d Cir.2013); Shea, 2000 WL 868605, at *1-*2, 221 F.3d 1339 (affirming reduction of costs incurred after a Rule 68 offer was rejected in FLSA case); Carroll v. Clifford Twp., No. 3:12-0553, 2015 WL 7016435, at *2 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 12, 2015) (holding that "the plaintiff is only entitled to the costs accumulated prior to the [Rule 68] Offer" because it exceeded the amount the plaintiff ultimately received after judgment). I have conducted a careful, line-by-line review of Plaintiffs' unbilled costs in this litigation (Doc. 163-2, Ex. B), and found that the total costs incurred by Plaintiffs after November 28, 2014 amount to $1,242.40. Therefore, Plaintiffs' requested award for costs of $2,845.25 will be deducted by this amount. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will be awarded
Plaintiffs request defense counsel's time records and attorney billing invoices, arguing that because defense counsel has contested time spent on this matter, it is important for the Court to see defense counsel's time records and billing statements. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant's records and bills will be relevant in helping the Court to "evaluate the time [Plaintiff] spent successfully pursuing their FLSA claim," which would be helpful in this Court's evaluation of what fee to award to Plaintiffs' counsel. (Doc. 183, at 3.)
Plaintiffs' request for defense counsel's time records and billing invoices will be denied. First, Defendant makes only three (3) objections to Plaintiffs' time entries as excessive: (1) 18.75 hours for legal research and preparation of a brief in opposition to the County's motion to dismiss; (2) 5.6 hours billed for the preparation of a Complaint and an Amended Complaint; and (3) Attorney Pollick's travel time. In the past, requests for opposing counsel's time and billing invoices have been denied where there were only a limited number of objections based on excessive time. See, e.g., Dee, 2013 WL 685144, at *1 (denying Attorney Pollick's motion for defense counsel's time and billing because only two (2) of the objections to the motion for attorney's fees challenged time spent on particular tasks as excessive); see also Supinski, 2012 WL 2905458, at *3 (denying Attorney Pollick's motion for defense counsels' time records and billing invoices for this reason). Instead, Defendant's objections here predominantly focus on the reasonableness of Attorney Pollick's requested hourly rate and the specificity of her time entries, not excessiveness.
Second, the parties have already supplied me with more than sufficient evidence to determine a reasonable attorney fee without defense counsel's records. I see no need in permitting "an already cluttered record to be further confused by an inquiry so completely collateral to the central issue of reasonableness of the fee requests." In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 751 F.2d 562, 587 (3d Cir.1984).
Third, I am not persuaded that defense counsel's time and billing records are necessarily helpful in assessing the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' counsel's time and billing records. See Samuel v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 80 F.R.D. 293, 294 (1978) ("[T]he number of hours required by opposing counsel to defend a claim has little relevance to the reasonableness of the number of hours which plaintiffs' counsel
Furthermore, I also find that defense counsel's time records often bear little relevance to the reasonableness of plaintiff's counsel's time records because cases may often have a greater precedential value for one side over the other, or may involve more complicated legal defenses for one side over the other. See, e.g., Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 770 F.2d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that the Eleventh Circuit has on multiple occasions questioned the relevance of defense counsel's time and billing records, explaining that their "reasoning has been that the number of hours needed by one side to prepare adequately may differ substantially from that of opposing counsel because the nature of the work on each side may differ dramatically" and because "the case may have far greater precedential value for one side than the other")
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages (Doc. 147) shall be granted. However, Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's Rule 68 Offers (Doc. 158); Plaintiffs' motion for pre-judgment interest (Doc. 160); and Plaintiffs' motion for defense counsel's time records, bills, and invoices (Doc. 179) shall be denied. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs (Doc. 163) shall be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $54,250.00 in attorney's fees and $1,602.85 in costs, for a total of
An appropriate order follows.
Failure to post this required notice will toll the running of the one hundred eighty (180) day administrative filing period, at least until such time as the aggrieved person seeks out an attorney or acquires actual knowledge of his rights. Bonham v. Dresser Indus., 569 F.2d 187, 193 (3d Cir.1977).
