Johnson v. Maple Tree Investors

Background

Defendants filed a motion for administrative relief asking the court to require Plaintiff Scott Johnson to provide an unredacted line-item attorney-fee invoice under General Order 56. In the alternative, Defendants asked that Plaintiff provide a complete version to the mediator and a redacted version to Defendants. Plaintiff opposed the request.

General Order 56 states that when parties reach a tentative agreement on injunctive relief, the plaintiff must promptly provide a statement of costs and attorney’s fees incurred to date. It also states that, if requested, the plaintiff should provide supporting documentation similar to a billing statement provided to a client.

Plaintiff had provided a billing summary identifying twelve billers as attorneys and listing the total hours and amounts billed by each. The summary did not describe what tasks the billers performed, when they performed them, or how long they spent on each task.

Arguments and analysis

Plaintiff argued that the word “should” in General Order 56 meant that further documentation was not required. The court rejected that interpretation, reasoning that it would make the documentation provision meaningless. The court held that General Order 56 required Plaintiff to provide documentation and support for the requested attorney’s fees because Plaintiff had not identified a reason for an exception.

Plaintiff also argued that the additional information was protected by attorney-client privilege. The court explained that California law did not squarely address privilege in this setting. It considered California authority stating that, while a legal matter remains pending and active, the privilege can cover everything in an invoice, including aggregate fees. The same authority recognized that information may no longer be privileged when it does not reveal litigation strategy or legal consultation, including in some matters that concluded long ago.

The court noted that the parties had agreed on statutory damages and remedial measures, that the scope of injunctive relief had been agreed for months, and that Plaintiff acknowledged Defendants had voluntarily removed the barriers at issue. The parties planned to mediate the amount and reasonableness of attorney’s fees. The court also noted that Plaintiff had previously publicly disclosed similar work descriptions and had represented that an unredacted billing statement had already been provided to the mediator.

The court found that more detailed billing information was justified because Defendants needed to understand who performed what work in order to challenge any improperly charged fees. The court referred to Defendants’ assertions that earlier billing information included charges for site inspections Plaintiff did not attend and that a later billing summary substantially increased the claimed fees. The court did not resolve all discrepancies but found that the record supported requiring additional detail.

Order

The court granted in part Defendants’ request for administrative relief. As a compromise intended to address both General Order 56 and Plaintiff’s privilege concerns, the court ordered Plaintiff to provide Defendants and the mediator with a line-item fee invoice by October 31, 2019. The invoice had to identify the date, biller, hourly rate, justification for the hourly rate, task, and amount of time billed for each task.

The court allowed Plaintiff to describe tasks at a high level, such as “legal research” or “drafting complaint,” to avoid revealing the type of research or other information directly related to litigation strategy or legal consultation.

The court also denied Plaintiff’s request for certification of the order for interlocutory review. It concluded that the order did not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), including the requirement of a controlling legal question that could materially advance the end of the litigation.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it concerns administrative relief and attorney-fee documentation rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The opinion does not decide the ultimate amount or reasonableness of attorney’s fees.