In Re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01433
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In re Lindell Management LLC Litigation: Judge Foster granted Robert Zeidman’s fee request in part and denied it in part, awarding $4,508.
Petitioner Robert Zeidman was awarded $4,508 in attorney’s fees. The unnamed Respondent was ordered to pay that amount.
What happened
In In Re Lindell Management LLC Litigation, Petitioner Robert Zeidman asked the court to reimburse attorney’s fees for his motion seeking responses to post-judgment discovery. The Respondent admitted that its discovery responses were late and had not answered the interrogatories at all.
The court had narrowed the discovery requests because they were too broad and burdensome, then ordered the Respondent to answer the narrowed requests. Zeidman sought $12,800 for 16.1 hours of work at $800 per hour. The court found the hours reasonable but reduced the hourly rate and the hours because the requests were overbroad.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the request in part and denied it in part. The court ordered the Respondent to reimburse Zeidman $4,508 under the federal discovery rules, based on 11.27 hours at $400 per hour.
The detailed version
- In Re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation · No. 0:23-cv-01433
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Petitioner Robert Zeidman requested reimbursement of attorney’s fees incurred in bringing a motion to compel responses to post-judgment discovery. At the motion hearing, the Respondent admitted that it had provided no responses to Zeidman’s interrogatories. The Respondent had produced some documents in response to document requests, but had not provided complete responses or written explanations for withholding documents.
The Court determined that the discovery requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome because they sought irrelevant information from third parties. It narrowed the requests and ordered the Respondent to answer them as narrowed. The Court reserved its ruling on attorney’s fees and directed Zeidman to submit a written accounting.
Fee Request and Analysis
Zeidman requested $12,800 for 16.1 hours of work at an hourly rate of $800. The Respondent acknowledged that the discovery responses were delinquent and did not dispute the accuracy of Zeidman’s time records. The Court concluded that an award under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was warranted.
The Court used the lodestar method, which calculates a fee by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found that Zeidman had not provided evidence or affidavits showing that $800 per hour matched prevailing rates for similar legal work in the relevant community. Based on the record, its own knowledge of local rates, and the uncomplicated nature of the dispute, the Court set a reasonable rate at $400 per hour.
The Court found that 16.1 hours was a reasonable amount of time for the motion to compel. But because the requests were overbroad and Zeidman’s refusal to narrow them contributed to his costs, the Court applied a 30% reduction to the hours. That reduced the compensable time to 11.27 hours. At $400 per hour, the resulting award was $4,508.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that Zeidman’s request for attorney’s fees be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Respondent was directed to reimburse Zeidman $4,508 in attorney’s fees under Rule 37. This order addressed the fee request associated with the discovery motion rather than the underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.