Summary
The District Court of Guam grants in part and denies in part John Ryan’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 following an order compelling discovery. The court finds Ryan eligible for an award despite partial success on the discovery requests and awards $41,485.50 against Defendant Marie Lizama in her official capacity, payable within thirty days.
Holdings
- A party that prevails in whole or in part on a motion to compel discovery may receive an interlocutory award of reasonable expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) without first obtaining an enforceable judgment.
- Plaintiff’s success on twenty-three of thirty-two discovery requests did not warrant denial of the fee award, but it justified a ten-percent reduction in the hours claimed.
- An hourly rate of $350 for each of Plaintiff’s two attorneys was reasonable, and after a ten-percent reduction, 118.53 hours were reasonably compensable.
- Reasonable work on supplemental briefing and attendance at hearings addressing the motion to compel was compensable as an expense incurred in making the motion.
- Defendant Marie Lizama in her official capacity was liable for $41,485.50, payable within thirty days of entry of the order; the award did not need to be reduced to a judgment.
- Plaintiff’s request for fees-on-fees was denied without prejudice because the claimed twenty hours lacked supporting evidentiary materials.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff was eligible for an award of reasonable expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) despite not having obtained an enforceable judgment.
- Whether Defendants’ partial success in resisting the motion to compel, belated disclosures, interlocutory appeal, or other circumstances barred or reduced Plaintiff’s entitlement to expenses.
- What amount of attorneys’ fees constituted reasonable expenses for the motion to compel.
- Whether the award should be reduced to a judgment or imposed against defense counsel personally.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (36)
- Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P., 336 F.R.D. 507, 513 (D. Nev. 2020)(followed)
- Anderson v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 91 F.3d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992)(followed)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 436, 438 (1983)(followed)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)(followed)
- Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-64 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1994)(followed)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397-98, 1404 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 36.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…