Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2025

McInnis v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Full caption

JENNIFER MCINNIS, individually and on behalf of her infant children O.S., C.S. (female), and C.S. (male) v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:24-cv-03449
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Fee PetitionDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McInnis v. City of New York, Judge Tarnofsky granted in part a fee application, approving $5,500 in attorneys’ fees for a discovery-sanctions motion.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ counsel, Wertheimer Fleder LLP, is to receive $5,500 from the Hospital Defendants within 30 days of the order. The plaintiffs’ fee application was granted in part, and a $480 charge for time billed by Joel Wertheimer was excluded.

What happened

In JENNIFER MCINNIS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, the plaintiffs sought reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs connected to their earlier motion alleging that the Hospital Defendants failed to update disclosures and produce documents as ordered. The court had previously granted that sanctions motion in part and ordered the Hospital Defendants to pay reasonable fees and costs.

The plaintiffs then requested $5,980 in attorneys’ fees. The court found that attorney Ms. Fleder’s hourly rates and 12.1 hours spent on the sanctions motion were reasonable, as were the 4.9 hours spent preparing the fee application. But the court excluded a $480 charge for time billed by Joel Wertheimer because that time was not reflected in a prior submission covering the same day.

Judge Tarnofsky granted in part the fee application and approved $5,500 in attorneys’ fees. The payment is due to the plaintiffs’ counsel, Wertheimer Fleder LLP, within 30 days of the order, and the court directed the Clerk to terminate the fee application.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McInnis v. CITY OF NEW YORK · No. 1:24-cv-03449
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Sept. 11, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They sought expenses and attorneys’ fees based on the alleged failure of the Hospital Defendants to timely update their initial disclosures and comply with a court order requiring production of certain documents. The court previously granted that sanctions motion in part and ordered the Hospital Defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to the sanctions motion.

The pending issue was the plaintiffs’ application for $5,980 in attorneys’ fees for work connected to the sanctions motion. The application also included time spent preparing the fee application.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that reasonable attorneys’ fees generally depend on factors such as the work and skill required, the difficulty of the issues, the attorney’s customary hourly rate, the attorney’s experience, and awards in similar cases. Courts generally use rates prevailing in the district where the court sits and multiply a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked.

The court found that Ms. Fleder’s hourly rates—$450 for time billed as an associate and $600 for time billed as a partner—were reasonable for this district. It also found reasonable her 12.1 hours spent on the sanctions motion, including time meeting with her client, because the time records documented the work in tenths of an hour. The court likewise found reasonable the 4.9 hours spent preparing the fee application.

The court excluded a $480 fee for time billed by Joel Wertheimer. That time was not reflected in a May 22, 2025 submission to the court that included time Ms. Fleder billed on the same day as Mr. Wertheimer’s time.

Disposition

The court granted in part the fee application and approved an attorneys’ fee award of $5,500. The award is payable to the plaintiffs’ counsel, Wertheimer Fleder LLP, within 30 days of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the fee application.

This is an ancillary fee ruling concerning the amount of compensation awarded after an earlier discovery-sanctions ruling; it does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.