Borum v. Brentwood Vill., LLC
| Decision Date | 04 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 16-1723 (RC) |
| Parties | ADRIANN BORUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC FILING
Re Document Nos.: 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 190 194, 195
On August 25, 2016, ONE DC, a community organization, joined a class action by residents of the Brookland Manor apartment complex ("Brookland Manor") against Defendants Brentwood Associates, L.P., Mid-City Financial Corporation, and Edgewood Management Corporation, for violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19, and the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code §§ 2-1401 to 2-1404. Plaintiffs alleged that the planned redevelopment of the complex by Defendants was discriminatory and would force certain residents out of their homes. Summary judgment was granted for the Defendants on March 30, 2020. See Mem. Op. Granting Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 180. Now pending before the Court are three different fee- and cost-related matters. The first concerns a dispute during discovery, which arose when Defendants learned that an employee of ONE DC had deleted relevant electronically stored information ("ESI") after filing of the suit. On Defendants' motion, this Court granted sanctions against Plaintiff ONE DC, including a reasonable amount of associated fees and expenses. See Mem. Op. Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.' Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 136. However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the appropriate quantum of fees and costs, and Defendants filed the present motion with proposed fees and expenses. Defs.' Mot. Attys' Fees, ECF No. 151. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the second motion pending before the Court: their own motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses regarding (1) efforts to compel production of certain documents during discovery and (2) costs incurred in opposing Defendants' unsuccessful motion to compel responses to interrogatories issued to absent class members. Pls.' Mot. Attys' Fees, ECF No. 153. The third pending matter is Defendants' Bill of Costs, which concerns strictly taxable costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and this Court's Local Rule 54.1. Defs.' Bill of Costs, ECF No. 190. Plaintiffs maintain that the Bill of Costs is improperly calculated, and that given the financial situation of the Plaintiffs, imposition of costs in this matter is inequitable.
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs only in part, as it disagrees with Defendants' calculation of some costs. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses because the Court cannot conclude that Defendants unjustifiably withheld certain documents or issued interrogatories on absent class members in bad faith. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to obtain the requisite leave of the Court before filing this motion, even after being warned of the consequences of doing so. Lastly, the Court grants Defendants' Bill of Costs only in part because pro hac vice fees are not taxable, Defendants' improperly calculated some of their transcription costs, and imposing full costs would be inequitable.1
During discovery, Defendants learned that Yasmina Mrabet, an employee of ONE DC, had deleted relevant ESI after Plaintiffs filed their suit. Defendants moved for sanctions pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defs.' Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 94-2. As relief, Defendants requested that the Court dismiss ONE DC from this case, and that the Court award Defendants fees and costs associated with discovery and defending against ONE DC's claims. Id. The Court granted Defendants' motion for sanctions only in part. Mem. Op. Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.' Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 136. The Court found that an award of some fees and costs was appropriate under Rule 37(e)(1) to cure the prejudice to Defendants resulting from the spoliation. Id. However, the Court also found that ONE DC did not act intentionally to deprive Defendants of the lost ESI, and therefore did not grant any claim-dispositive sanctions. Id. The Court specifically ordered ONE DC to reimburse Defendants for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Defendants incurred in (a) preparing for and conducting the portions of the depositions of Dominic Moulden, ONE DC's corporate representative, and Yasmina Mrabet relevant to the spoliation issues, and (b) litigating the motion for sanctions. Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.' Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 135. The Court further ordered Defendants to submit a motion for reasonable fees and costs if they could not resolve the matter after meeting and conferring with ONE DC. Id. It is undisputed that the parties met and conferred and that they were unable to reach an agreement on the amount of fees and expenses to be awarded. See Defs.' Mot. Attys'Fees at 2-3; Pls.' Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Attys' Fees at 2, ECF No. 155. On September 16, 2019, Defendants filed their motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Defs.' Mot. Attys' Fees. Defendants request a total of $115,133.78 calculated as follows: (1) $34,398.53 in fees associated with preparing for and taking the portions of the depositions of Moulden and Mrabet related to the spoliation issue; (2) $2,006.25 in costs associated with these depositions; (3) $60,039.00 for litigating the sanctions motion; and (4) $18,690.00 for litigating the instant fee motion. Defs.' Reply Supp. Mot. Attys' Fees at 11, ECF No. 158.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs alleging, inter alia, that (1) expenses related to the Moulden and Mrabet depositions are excessive; (2) the hours spent by Defendants' counsel litigating the motion for sanctions, Defs.' Mot. Sanctions, are excessive and supported by inadequate records; and (3) Defendants are not entitled to fees and costs associated with the instant motion because Defendants did not provide ONE DC with sufficient information during the meet-and-confer process to analyze the appropriateness of Defendants' fee demand. Pls.' Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Attys' Fees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the Court find reasonable attorneys' fees for the relevant activity total no more than $33,034. Id. at 9. The Court is now left to determine the appropriate amount of fees and costs that are to be awarded to the Defendants.
Plaintiffs also move for an order requiring Defendants to pay the reasonable fees and expenses incurred in connection with (1) Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to compel interrogatories issued to absent class members; and (2) Plaintiffs' efforts to compel production of certain financial documents.
(1) Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Related to Interrogatories
During discovery, Defendants issued a set of interrogatories to the named head-of-household of all 3-, 4- or 5-bedroom apartments in the complex. See Defs.' Mot. Compel Interrogs. at 3, ECF No. 79. Plaintiffs objected to these interrogatories on absent class members, and Defendants thereafter filed a motion to compel responses. Defs.' Mot. Compel Interrogs. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to compel on the grounds that Defendants failed to provide a legitimate basis that would allow discovery of the roughly 130 absent class members. Pls.' Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Compel at 13, ECF No. 91. The Court subsequently reviewed Defendants' proposed interrogatories and Plaintiffs' objections and denied Defendants' motion to compel. Order Den. Defs.' Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.' Mot. Compel, ECF No. 115. The Court found that all of Defendants' proposed interrogatories sought information that was either already available or not relevant to the decision of common questions. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiffs now claim that Defendants are responsible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) for covering the expenses and fees Plaintiffs incurred in opposing Defendants' unsuccessful motion to compel discovery. Pls.' Mot. Attys' Fees at 11. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or should have known that courts generally forbid discovery on absent class members and therefore Defendants were not justified in making their motion. Defendants argue the Court should deny Plaintiffs' fee motion because Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer with Defendants before filing this fee motion, Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of the Court as required by the Revised Scheduling Order, ECF No. 96, and Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that an award of fees under Rule 37 is appropriate. Defs.' Opp'n Mot. Attys' Fees at 16-18, ECF No. 161.
(2) Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Related to Document Production Dispute
During discovery there was an additional dispute over the production of certain so-called "pro forma" financial models (and associated documents) relating to the finances of the planned Brookland Manor project. See Order Den. Defs.' Mot. Compel, Granting Pls.' Mot. Compel at 5. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of these models and documents. Pls.' Mot. Compel Produc., ECF No. 100-2. Defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with the procedures set forth by the Court in the Revised Scheduling Order. See Defs.' Mot. Den. Pls.' Mot. Compel, ECF No. 101. Defendants further claimed that the discovery dispute concerned proprietary financial documents that were immaterial to Plaintiffs' claims and were thus irrelevant to the case....
To continue reading
Request your trial