Marc Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice

Background

This was a fee dispute arising from a Freedom of Information Act case. The court had previously awarded Marc Cohodes $180,808.50 for attorney’s fees incurred in the underlying litigation. Cohodes then sought $73,948.95 for time spent preparing and litigating the motion for attorney’s fees.

The court allowed the government to file a supplemental opposition and Cohodes to reply because the initial fee motion estimated the requested amount and documented the fees only in the reply.

Legal standard

The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates a fee award by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. Attorneys may recover fees for time reasonably spent preparing and litigating a fee motion.

The parties’ arguments

The government challenged the requested fees on three grounds. First, it argued that hourly rates justified for the underlying FOIA litigation were not justified for fee litigation and that counsel should be limited to $700 per hour. Second, it argued that the hours were excessive, including time spent by multiple attorneys on the reply and briefing discussions, as well as 19.3 hours spent on research and fact-gathering. Third, it argued that the fee-motion award should be capped at 20 percent of the underlying $180,808.50 award, or $36,161.70.

Cohodes argued that the rates remained reasonable because the fee motion involved complex issues concerning eligibility for and entitlement to fees. He also argued that the challenged hours, and all other billed hours, were reasonable.

Ruling

The court awarded the full $73,948.95. It held that the hourly rates were reasonable because the fee litigation required more than simply multiplying hours by rates; Cohodes had to establish eligibility for fees and justify his entitlement to them. The court also relied on the earlier litigation’s complex issues, counsel’s expertise, and the fact that Cohodes paid the fees as evidence of the market rate.

The court rejected the government’s objection to the hours. It found that the work by multiple attorneys and the 19.3 hours of research and fact-gathering were reasonably expended given the legal issues, the four-year span of the case, and the significant issues involved.

The court also rejected the proposed 20-percent cap. It distinguished cases involving unsuccessful litigation, unnecessary work, nonspecific billing records, or less complex issues. Here, the court found that the litigation was successful, the tasks were necessary, and the billing records supported the hours claimed. Counsel had also reduced the time billed on the fee motion by 10 percent.

The court’s total attorney’s-fee award was $254,757.45, consisting of the earlier $180,808.50 award plus the $73,948.95 awarded in this order.