Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Background

The court’s November 4, 2021 order directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Advanced Analytics on a limited portion of its breach-of-contract claim and award $1 in nominal damages. The order also directed judgment for defendants on the rest of Advanced Analytics’ claims and on defendants’ counterclaim for fees and costs under the parties’ Non-Disclosure Agreement, and directed that the case be closed. The Second Circuit later affirmed the entry of judgment, and its mandate issued on June 30, 2025.

The Non-Disclosure Agreement states that the prevailing party is entitled to recover court costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. After the Second Circuit’s mandate, defendants proposed a streamlined fee application. They represented that defense counsel’s records contained nearly 18,000 individual time entries spanning more than 750 printed pages and that reviewing the entries for attorney-client privilege and work-product protection would require substantial redaction. Defendants proposed providing quarter-by-quarter summaries listing timekeepers, hours, and expenses, together with summaries of case events.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the party seeking fees bears the burden of providing definite information about how time was spent so the court can evaluate whether the requested fees are reasonable. Although the parties appeared to assume that contemporaneous daily records were always required, the court noted that New York courts do not invariably impose that requirement when the right to fees arises from a contract or state common law. The court found that distinction immaterial because defendants appeared to possess contemporaneous time records.

The court held that defendants’ proposed quarter-by-quarter summary was insufficient. A summary that referred only to case events, rather than the work performed, and that totaled hours and fees over periods of several months would not give the court enough information to review the request or give Advanced Analytics enough information to challenge the reasonableness of the fees. The court also identified concerns with descriptions that combine multiple tasks into a single entry because they make it difficult to determine how much time was devoted to particular tasks.

The court agreed, however, that defendants did not have to waive attorney-client privilege or work-product protection as a blanket condition of seeking fees. It therefore sought to balance the need for meaningful billing information against the burden of reviewing and redacting every original time entry.

Ruling and Required Submission

The court denied defendants’ request to proceed solely with the proposed quarterly summaries. Instead, it directed defendants to provide daily summaries of the time and expenses for which they seek recovery. For each day and each timekeeper, the summary must identify the person’s name, total time, billing rate, and a description of the work performed. Expense entries must identify the nature and amount of each requested disbursement.

If a work description omits tasks or topics to protect attorney-client privilege or work-product information, the daily summary must note that an omission was made, identify the asserted protection, and describe the type of omitted work, such as a meeting, memorandum, or research topic. The court also encouraged defendants to provide quarterly summaries and, if feasible, a category-by-category breakdown organized by major case phases and subcategories.

Under the court’s prior order, defendants’ fee application must be filed within 45 days after August 12, 2025. The court stated that docket entry 521 was resolved. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.