Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer

• Citation: 484 F.Supp.3d 273
• Decision Date: 04 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-391
• Parties: COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Plaintiff, v. George E. SCHAEFER, in his Official Capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk; and Jacqueline C. Smith, in her Official Capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

484 F.Supp.3d 273

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Plaintiff,
v.
George E. SCHAEFER, in his Official Capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk; and Jacqueline C. Smith, in her Official Capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-391

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

Signed September 4, 2020

484 F.Supp.3d 276

OPINION & ORDER

Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Courthouse News Service's ("CNS" or "Plaintiff") Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Doc. 103. CNS seeks $2,258,505,83 in attorneys' fees and costs from April 1, 2018 through February 28, 2020. Doc. 104 at 14. "More specifically, CNS is claiming: (1) $1,890,198.50 in fees incurred prior to the conclusion of trial on February 5, 2020; (2) $135,747.50 in fees incurred after the conclusion of trial on the present fee motion and accompanying declarations; and (3) $232,559.83 in non-taxable costs." Doc. 104 at 14-15.

Defendants have three main objections to the Plaintiffs request for fees. First, Defendants object to the firm of Bryan Cave Leighton & Pasiner, LLP ("BCLP") charging of out of jurisdictional rates that are inconsistent with the local rate charged in the location where the Court sits. Second, Defendants objects to the number of hours billed by BCLP. Finally, Defendants object to $33,269.82 of trial expenses as they are expenses incurred as a result of transportation and lodging for out of state attorneys. On top of these objections, Defendants are seeking an additionally 40% reduction to total fees for the Plaintiff being unsuccessful in obtaining a preliminary injunction. Therefore, $972,394.50 of the attorneys' fees are contested. $739,834.67 are contested as an out of locality billing hourly rate. $232,559.83 are contested as a result of the number of hours charged.

For the reasons within, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees awarding the full fee amount requested by Plaintiff for fees incurred through trial, reducing the total fee award for unreasonable fees as a result of the fee petition and reducing by 10% for not obtaining injunction relief.

I. LAW AND ANALYSIS

In an action under § 1983, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee ..." 42 U.S.C § 1988. In calculating a reasonable attorneys' fee award, the Court must first determine the "lodestar" amount, which is a "reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours reasonably expended." Grissom v. The Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2008). To assess the reasonableness of both the rate and amount of hours expended, a court often considers and weighs the twelve factors identified in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974), as adopted by Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978). The Johnson factors include:

1. The time and labor required;

2. The novelty and difficulty of the questions raised;

3. The skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered;

4. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case;

5. The customary fee;

6. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent;

7. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances;

8. The amount involved and the results obtained;

484 F.Supp.3d 277

9. The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys;

10. The undesirability of the case;

11. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and

12. Awards in similar cases.

Barber, 577 F.2d at 226 n.28 ; see Daly v. Hill, 790 F.2d 1071, 1075 n.2 (4th Cir. 1986). After calculating the lodestar and applying the Johnson factors, the Court subtracts fees for unsuccessful claims and awards a percentage based on the result achieved for the plaintiff. Grissom, 549 F.3d at 321. The Court does this, while keeping in mind that "even where the plaintiff's claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith ... the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).

A. Objections to the Hourly Rates Charged by BCLP

Defendants objects to the Plaintiff's fee application based on the hourly rate charged by lawyers from the law firm of Bryan Cave Leighton & Pasiner, LLP ("BCLP").¹ The lawyers and staff from BCLP are based in...