Casias v. N.M. Dep't of Corr.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Writing for the Court: Joel M. Carson III United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation
• Decision Date: 03 July 2019
• Docket Number: 1:16-CV-00056-JMC-SCY
• Citation: Casias v. N.M. Dep't of Corr., 1:16-CV-00056-JMC-SCY (D. N.M. Jul 03, 2019)
• Parties: ISAHA CASIAS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TARACINA MORGAN and HERMAN GONZALES, Defendants.

ISAHA CASIAS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,TARACINA MORGAN and HERMAN GONZALES, Defendants.

1:16-CV-00056-JMC-SCY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

July 3, 2019

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TAXABLE COSTS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (Doc. 230) and Plaintiff's Motion for Taxable Costs (Doc. 225). Having reviewed the arguments and the relevant law, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (Doc. 230) and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Taxable Costs (Doc. 225).

I.

Plaintiff Isaha Casias brought this civil rights lawsuit against the State of New Mexico Department of Corrections ("NMDC") and two individual NMDC transport officers, Taracina Morgan and Herman Gonzales. Plaintiff alleged Eighth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law negligence claims against the individual defendants for their actions during a prison transport. Plaintiff claimed NMDC was vicariously liable for the actions of its officers.

In April 2019, the Court held a four-day jury trial on this matter. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him $1,000,000 in compensatory damages against all the defendants, jointly and severally, and $500,000 in punitive damages against each individual defendant. On April 12, 2019, the Court entered Judgment on the Jury Verdict ("Judgment") (Doc. 223). Plaintiff now seeks attorneys' fees and litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 54(d), and District of New Mexico Local Rule of Civil Procedure ("Local Rule") 54.

II.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, prevailing parties in civil rights actions are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Neither party disputes that Plaintiff is a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Thus, the only question is whether Plaintiff's fee request is "reasonable."

To determine the reasonableness of a fee request, the Court must calculate the "lodestar" amount. Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1281 (10th Cir. 1998). The lodestar "is the product of the number of attorney hours reasonably expended and a reasonable hourly rate." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "Once an applicant for a fee has carried the burden of showing that the claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable, the resulting product is presumed to be a reasonable fee as contemplated by Section 1988." Id. (quoting Cooper v. State of Utah, 894 F.2d 1169, 1171 (10th Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiff requests $340,403.29 in attorneys' fees.¹ Doc. 240 at 15. In support of this request, Plaintiff attached billing records showing that Matthew Coyte, Plaintiff's lead attorney, billed a total of 381.5 hours² at an hourly rate of $350 per hour. Doc. 230, Ex. 1; Doc. 240, Ex. 7. Additionally, Plaintiff requests reimbursement for 198.1 hours of time billed by Vanessa Jaramillo, a paralegal in Coyte's office, at a rate of $135 per hour. Doc. 230, Ex. 1; Doc 240, Ex. 7. Plaintiff also provides billing records of Coyte's co-counsel, Adam Baker. The records reflect that Baker billed 353.4 hours³ at a rate of $300 per hour. Doc 230, Ex. 2; Doc. 240, Ex. 8. Finally, Plaintiff submits the records of his fee counsel, Philip Davis. Davis billed a total of 38.2 hours at a rate of $425 per hour. Doc. 230, Ex. 3; Doc 240, Ex. 10. Kristina Tice, a paralegal in Davis's office, billed a total of 9.9 hours at a rate of $135 per hour. Doc. 230, Ex. 3; Doc 240, Ex. 10. Plaintiff asks the Court to apply the Albuquerque gross receipts tax rate for Coyte, Davis, Jaramillo, and Tice. He asks the Court to apply the Santa Fe gross receipt tax for Baker.

A. Merits Counsel

Defendants do not dispute the reasonableness of Coyte and Baker's hourly rates. Further, Judge Yarbrough found the rates requested for Plaintiff's merits counsel were reasonable when awarding attorneys' fees for discovery violations earlier in this litigation. See Doc. 92. The Court concludes that a reasonable rate for Coyte's legal services is $350 per hour and that a reasonable rate for Baker's legal services is $300 per hour.

i. Matthew Coyte

Defendants contest two specific time entries by Coyte as being unreasonably long for the tasks described. Defendants also contest a series of time entries for inadequate documentation regarding the tasks performed.

The first entry Defendants challenge is from October 18, 2016, in which Coyte recorded 2.7 hours with the description: "Review Defendant's [sic] Supplemental Initial Disclosures; discuss with staff." Doc. 230, Ex. 1 at 12. Defendants' Supplemental Initial Disclosures were 40-pages long. Defendants claim 2.7 hours is an unreasonable amount of time for Coyte's review. Doc. 234 at 7. Defendants further claim the entry is unclear as to why Coyte needed to discuss the disclosures with staff. Id. Defendants ask the Court to reduce Coyte's hours for this task from 2.7 to 1.0 hour. Id.

Coyte explains in his supplemental affidavit (Doc. 240, Ex. 7 at 1-2), that the 2.7 hours related to the hours spent reviewing the documentation and included a strategy meeting with the litigation team. Id. According to the affidavit, the late disclosure by Defendants included inflammatory information regarding the health of additional inmates in the van on the day of the incident, which made the additional meeting necessary. Id. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that 2.7 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the described tasks. The Court will award Plaintiff the full 2.7 hours of contested time.

Next, Defendants challenge an entry from September 3, 2017, in which Coyte recorded 3.2 hours to "[r]ead the deposition of Herman Gonzales and review deposition exhibits." Doc. 230, Ex. 1 at 14. Gonzales's deposition, however, was 35 pages long and contained no exhibits. Doc. 234 at 7. On that basis, Defendants ask the Court to reduce Coyte's time to 1.0 hour for that entry. Id. However, Coyte explains that his review of depositions exhibits did not reference exhibits to Gonzales's deposition, but exhibits from all the depositions taken in this case. Doc. 240, Ex. 7 at 2. The Court reads the billing entry to support Coyte's explanation of the tasks performed and finds he expended his time reasonably. Thus, the Court will award Plaintiff the entire 3.2 hours of contested time.

Finally, Defendants challenge a series of Coyte's time entries for lack of specificity. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) ("Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly."). For example, on September 15, 2017, Coyte billed 2.5 hours with the following description: "Reviewed depositions and made notes." Doc. 230, Ex. 1 at 15. On September 18, 2017, Coyte billed 1.2 hours with the following description: "Continue reading depositions." Id. On September 19, 2019, Coyte billed 4.1 hours with the following description: "Continue reading depositions, read Taracina Morgan's statement. Telephonic statement and reviewed for contradictions." Id. Defendants contrast these time entries with others in which Coyte provided more detail about the tasks performed. See Doc. 234 at 7-8 ("[O]n 9/14/2017, Coyte had billed 5.5 hours to review the depositions and exhibits of Taracina Morgan, Derek Williams and to review DOC policies and procedures. Again on 9/21/2016, 3.4 hours was billed under the following time entry: 'Finished Taracina Morgan's depo. Started witness depositions from family.' On 9/27/2017, Attorney Coyte billed 1.6 hours as follows: 'Continued with reading remaining deposition. Derek Williams; discussed with law clerk how to get evidence of DWI not reported into evidence. Discussed Motion in Limine.'"). Defendants ask the Court for a reduction in hours billed because "Coyte has not documented accurately what hours were spent on which task." Id. at 8.

Defendants imply that Plaintiff may be seeking double recovery for certain deposition related tasks Coyte performed based on his purportedly vague descriptions of the tasks performed. The Court disagrees. Coyte's billing records are not sloppy or imprecise. See Robinson, 160 F.3d at 1284-85. Coyte's entries are sufficient for the Court to determine the general activity he was performing and that the amount of time spent was reasonable. Cf. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acers of Land, More or Less, in Providence Cnty., State of R.I., 32 F.3d 632, 634 (1st Cir. 1994) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that time sheets were not sufficiently detailed when they contained entries such as "'Confer with co-counsel,' 'Confer with client,' 'Review materials,' 'Review documents,' and 'Legal Research' without any indication of the subject matter involved"). The Court will award Plaintiff this contested time.

The Court finds that the hours Plaintiff requests with respect to Coyte are reasonable. The Court awards Plaintiff $144,040.09—the product of 381.5 hours at an hourly rate of $350 and adjusted for the 7.8750% gross receipts tax.⁴

ii. Adam Baker

Defendants object to Baker's billing entries between December 13, 2016 and December 29, 2016. These entries relate to Baker's 29.3 hours spent preparing Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response") (Doc. 70). Doc. 230, Ex. 2 at 13. Defendants posit that "charging almost 30 hours to respond to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is excessive and unreasonable." Doc. 234 at 9.

The Court disagrees. Plaintiff's Response was 25 pages, but it contained over 80 pages of exhibits, including affidavits from Plaintiff and Dr. William Foote (Plaintiff's expert witness). Doc....