Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Choi

Background

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit membership organization representing more than 6,000 Minnesota businesses, previously won summary judgment on its First Amendment challenge to provisions of the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing those provisions. The Chamber sought attorneys’ fees, expert-witness fees, and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The defendants did not dispute that the Chamber was a prevailing party eligible to seek fees, the reasonableness of its lawyers’ hourly rates, or most of the hours claimed. Members of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board challenged four parts of the request: expert-witness fees, fees for representing three nonparty member-witnesses, fees for redacted billing entries, and $840 in electronic-discovery platform expenses.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the request for $44,325 in expert fees as attorneys’ fees. It explained that the Chamber’s claim arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that § 1988 permits reasonable attorneys’ fees in such cases but does not generally include expert fees. The court awarded $80 as witness costs because the two experts were each deposed for one day, and federal law capped the witness fee at $40 per day.

The court rejected the challenge to $58,992 in fees for Winthrop & Weinstine’s representation of witnesses from Extempore, Lake of the Woods, and SPS Commerce. Although those entities were not parties, the Chamber paid the fees, the defendants’ discovery requests caused the work, and the work helped the Chamber establish associational standing and advance its case.

The court also rejected the challenge to $58,840.50 in fees associated with redacted billing entries. It found that the redactions were limited and generally did not prevent the court from evaluating the reasonableness of the work. Although some entries were difficult to evaluate, the court found no indication that the redactions concealed noncompensable work and noted that counsel had already written off $29,840 in fees and costs.

The court denied recovery of the $840 Relativity expense. It held that the Chamber had not shown whether the $60-per-month database-hosting charge was a case-specific out-of-pocket expense or ordinary office overhead.

Disposition

The court ordered that the Chamber’s motion for fees and expenses was GRANTED IN PART. It awarded $706,855.75 in attorneys’ fees, $80 in expert fees, and $97.90 in expenses. The court also allowed the Chamber to seek fees incurred in preparing the fee motion, with the final judgment to be entered after that follow-on request was resolved or an approved stipulation was filed.