Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-9063,95-9063
• Citation: 125 F.3d 1387
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 635 Stacy C. GRAY, individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Defendant. Grace M. SCHUMACHER, individually, and as Surviving Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as Personal Representative of Lt. John T. Hartman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Defendant. Wilma J. JENNINGS, individually and as Surviving Parent of Lt. David S. Jennings, and as Personal Representative of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1387

125 F.3d 1387

11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 635

Stacy C. GRAY, individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Lt.

Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of

Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of

Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant,

United States of America, Defendant.

Grace M. SCHUMACHER, individually, and as Surviving Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as Personal Representative of Lt. John T. Hartman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of

Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant,

United States of America, Defendant.

Wilma J. JENNINGS, individually and as Surviving Parent of

Lt. David S. Jennings, and as Personal Representative of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of

Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Appellant,

United States of America, Defendant.

No. 95-9063.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 24, 1997.

Edgar A. Neely, III, Richard B. North, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Howard M. Acosta, St. Petersburg, FL, Edward W. Killorin, Robert Ware Killorin, Killorin & Killorin, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge:

Appellant, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. (Lockheed), appeals from a district court order granting the appellees, Stacy Gray, Grace Schumacher and Wilma Jennings, the amount of their requested attorneys' fees and costs, which were awarded as a sanction against Lockheed for destroying documents involved in a discovery request. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In October 1991, the appellees brought wrongful death and survival actions against Lockheed for damages after an S-3 Viking jet aircraft that Lockheed manufactured crashed and claimed the lives of the appellees' decedents. In August 1992, during discovery, the appellees served a request for production (RFP) of documents on Lockheed concerning the aircraft at issue. Lockheed responded that it would produce the documents to the extent possible. Later, Lockheed suggested the appellees visit and inspect the documents at its offices in California. Appellees served a second RFP on October 30, 1992. Prior to responding to the second RFP, Lockheed learned that between June and August of 1992, a member of its legal department had destroyed some of the documents that appellees sought. Lockheed did not inform appellees of the documents' destruction, and made a general objection to appellees' second RFP of documents. In December 1992, Lockheed informed the appellees of the documents' destruction. Appellees filed a motion to compel as to their second RFP in January 1993, and Lockheed responded explaining its objection.

On February 22, 1993, appellees filed a motion for sanctions because of destroyed documents. The district court denied the motion to allow the parties further discovery to develop the factual record. After a more complete record developed, the appellees renewed the motion for sanctions on July 26, 1993. Lockheed opposed the motion, arguing that its employee inadvertently discarded the twenty-year-old documents. On September 30, 1994, the district court found Lockheed negligent and liable for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) because Lockheed's actions caused appellees to expend time and effort seeking documents that no longer existed. The district court ruled as a sanction against Lockheed that the appellees were entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs they incurred for litigating the destroyed documents issue.

After all discovery concluded in this case, the appellees' wrongful death and survival actions commenced to a bench trial in February and March of 1995. On March 31, 1995, the district court issued an opinion finding Lockheed liable and awarding damages to the appellees and the decedents' estate. Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 880 F.Supp. 1559 (N.D.Ga.1995). After entry of judgment on April 3, 1995, appellees filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, related to their motion for sanctions on the destroyed documents issue, and Lockheed opposed the amount of fees that the appellees requested. On July 21, 1995, the district court awarded appellees attorneys' fees and costs based on the hours expended and the requested hourly rate.

ISSUE

The sole issue we discuss is whether the district court abused its discretion in determining the attorneys' fees and costs awarded to appellees.

CONTENTIONS

Lockheed contends that the district court applied an hourly charge far in excess of the prevailing market rate; awarded fees for legal services unrelated to the document destruction issue; and erroneously awarded attorneys' fees for excessive, duplicative and unnecessary billings. Appellees maintain that the district court properly rejected the attorneys' fee rate suggested in Lockheed's affidavit; determined a reasonable rate of compensation and number of hours expended; and correctly found that Lockheed failed to make specific objections to the hours claimed.

DISCUSSION

We review a district court's award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion, closely scrutinizing questions of law that are decided in reaching the fee award. Hollis v. Roberts, 984 F.2d 1159, 1160 (11th Cir.1993). Here, Lockheed raises objections to ...