Peterson v. Scott A. Peterson
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03769
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Ballast Advisors v. Peterson, Magistrate Judge Docherty granted in part and denied in part Ballast's request for attorney fees, awarding $88,350 as a discovery-sanctions penalty against defendants.
Parties in commercial litigation who face or seek monetary sanctions for the destruction or loss of electronically stored information (spoliation), and attorneys whose billing practices — particularly block billing — may be scrutinized in fee-petition proceedings in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Scott A. Peterson, et al., No. 23-CV-3769, a federal court in Minnesota is overseeing a dispute in which the plaintiff, Ballast Advisors, previously won a partial sanctions ruling against the defendants for destroying or losing electronically stored information (ESI) during the litigation. A prior order required the defendants to reimburse Ballast for the legal fees it spent pursuing a September 2025 motion to force the defendants to produce documents and a February 2026 motion for sanctions related to that ESI loss. Ballast then submitted a request for approximately $163,819.50 in attorney fees and additional paralegal fees, and the defendants opposed the amounts as excessive, duplicative, vague, and overbroad.
The court evaluated Ballast's fee request using the standard 'lodestar' method — multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent by a reasonable hourly rate. The court found the hourly rates charged by Ballast's three attorneys (ranging from $430 to $685 per hour depending on the year) and one paralegal ($210–$230 per hour) to be reasonable and consistent with Twin Cities market rates. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the total hours were excessive or that multiple attorneys working on the same motions created impermissible duplication, finding instead that the attorneys divided tasks appropriately. However, the court agreed that eight specific billing entries — totaling 39.5 hours and $25,852 in fees — were improperly 'block-billed,' meaning they lumped multiple tasks together without showing how much time was spent on each, making it impossible to assess their reasonableness. Those entries were excluded. The court also declined to cut the $6,419 billed for preparing the fee application itself, finding that work was expressly requested by the court and therefore compensable.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty then made a further reduction because the original motion to compel had covered discovery issues beyond the ESI spoliation that triggered the sanctions, and Rule 37(e) only permits fees caused by the spoliation itself. Finding it fair to cut the motion-to-compel portion of fees in half to account for that broader scope, the court reduced the running total further. In the end, the court granted in part and denied in part Ballast's fee requests, ordering the defendants to pay $88,350 in total — $85,189 in attorney fees and $3,161 in paralegal fees — while acknowledging that the sum is substantial but reflecting that the amount of ESI lost through spoliation was also large and potentially highly relevant to the case.
The detailed version
- Peterson v. Scott A. Peterson · No. 0:23-cv-03769
- Patrick Schiltz
- Aug. 3, 2026
Background
This fee-petition order arises out of a larger civil lawsuit in the District of Minnesota. A prior order, dated June 2, 2026, granted in part Ballast Advisors' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which governs sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) — commonly called 'spoliation.' That prior order required the defendants to reimburse Ballast's fees and costs incurred in bringing (1) a September 18, 2025 Motion to Compel Discovery and (2) a February 16, 2026 Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37(e). The current order resolves the amount of those fees after Ballast submitted its accounting and the defendants filed opposition.
Legal Standard: The Lodestar Method
The court applied the 'lodestar' method, the standard framework for calculating reasonable attorney fees. The lodestar is computed by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. The party seeking fees bears the burden of documenting both hours and rates; inadequate documentation can result in a reduced award. Courts are not required to achieve perfect accounting precision but must do 'rough justice' and may use reasonable estimates.
Reasonable Hourly Rates
Ballast sought fees for three attorneys and one paralegal at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.:
- Matthew T. Boos (shareholder, 30+ years of business litigation experience): $655/hour in 2025, $685/hour in
- - Melissa Stumbras (senior associate): $555/hour in 2025, $600/hour in
- - Christopher Markuson (associate): $430/hour in 2025, $510/hour in
- - Annagrace Noor (paralegal): $210/hour in 2025, $230/hour in 2026.
The court found these rates reasonable and consistent with Twin Cities market rates, citing recent District of Minnesota decisions approving comparable rates for attorneys and paralegals with similar skill and experience.
Reasonable Hours: Defendants' Objections and Court's Rulings
Excessive Hours
Defendants argued that 49.3 hours billed solely for drafting the memorandum of law in support of the motion was unreasonable for a discovery motion, and requested a 50% reduction. The court disagreed. It found that Ballast's counsel drafted a 41-page memorandum, conducted legal research, prepared for meet-and-confer efforts (conferences between opposing counsel required before filing certain motions), and addressed multiple discovery disputes. The court concluded the hours for the Motion to Compel were reasonable and declined to reduce them on grounds of excess.
Duplicative Time
Defendants argued that multiple attorneys billing for the same motions constituted impermissible duplication. The court found that the billing records showed attorneys dividing responsibilities — research, drafting, preparing exhibits, and addressing separate discovery issues — rather than duplicating each other's work. The court declined to reduce fees on this ground.
Vague or Block-Billed Entries
'Block billing' refers to billing entries that group multiple distinct tasks together under a single time entry without specifying how much time was spent on each task. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that block billing can warrant a reduction in fees because it makes it 'nearly impossible' to assess whether the time spent on any individual task was reasonable.
The court agreed with defendants that eight specific entries were impermissibly block-billed and excluded them from the award:
- September 10, 2025 entry by Mr. Boos: 1.50 hours - September 17, 2025 entry by Mr. Boos: 7.50 hours - September 25, 2025 entry by Mr. Boos: 3.00 hours - September 30, 2025 entry by Mr. Boos: 6.00 hours - October 1, 2025 entry by Mr. Boos: 8.30 hours - January 5, 2026 entry by Mr. Boos: 2.80 hours - February 16, 2026 entry by Mr. Boos: 5.50 hours - February 15, 2026 entry by Ms. Stumbras: 4.90 hours (the opinion states January 16 in one place and February 15 in another — the exclusion list uses February 15)
These exclusions totaled 34.60 hours at Mr. Boos's rates and 4.90 hours at Ms. Stumbras's rate, reducing Mr. Boos's bill by $22,912 and Ms. Stumbras's bill by $2,940, for a total block-billing reduction of $25,852.
Lodestar Calculation and Further Deductions
Ballast's original claimed amounts were $152,066.50 in attorney fees, $5,334.00 in paralegal fees, and $6,419.00 for preparing the fee accounting itself (11.90 hours).
Step 1 — Block-billing reduction
After subtracting $25,852 in block-billed entries, the running attorney fee total was reduced to $126,214.50.
Step 2 — Fee accounting time
The court declined to deduct the $6,419 billed for preparing the fee application, finding this work was expressly directed by the court in its May 1, 2026 Report and Recommendation and is generally compensable under Eighth Circuit precedent.
Step 3 — Motion to Compel scope reduction
The court noted that Rule 37(e)(1) permits only fees causally connected to the ESI spoliation. The original Motion to Compel, heard on October 2, 2025, addressed multiple discovery issues beyond the ESI loss. Ballast sought approximately $82,051 in attorney fees and $4,347 in paralegal fees attributable to the Motion to Compel. Because the motion covered a broader scope than just ESI spoliation, the court found it fair and reasonable to exclude half of those amounts. This reduced attorney fees by a further $41,025.50 and paralegal fees by $2,173.50.
Final Award
The court awarded:
- Attorney fees: $85,189 - Paralegal fees: $3,161 - Total award: $88,350
Defendants are ordered to pay $88,350 to Ballast's counsel. The court acknowledged this is a substantial sum but noted that it results from straightforward application of legal principles governing fee awards, and that the amount of ESI lost through spoliation was also large and potentially highly relevant to the case.
Disposition
Plaintiff's Requests for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. Nos. 221, 226) were granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.