Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 6, 2020

The Board of Trustees v. Ernest Borbor Dee

Full caption

The Board of Trustees, in their capacities as Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Ernest Borbor Dee

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:19-cv-07434
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Board of Trustees v. Ernest Borbor Dee, Judge Westmore ordered plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing about counsel’s billing records.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and their counsel, who were ordered to provide supplemental briefing and time records; the order did not impose a stated obligation on the defendant.

What happened

The Board of Trustees, in their capacities as Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Ernest Borbor Dee concerns the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.

The court said the plaintiffs’ lawyer provided the total hours worked by each timekeeper but did not explain how those hours were spent. Without that information, the court could not assess whether the requested hours were reasonable or excessive, duplicative, or unnecessary.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing and their lawyer’s time records by August 13, 2020. Judge Kandis A. Westmore did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
The Board of Trustees v. Ernest Borbor Dee · No. 3:19-cv-07434
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Aug. 6, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs had filed a motion for default judgment. The court reviewed the motion and focused on the plaintiffs’ request for attorney-fee-related compensation and their counsel’s billing records.

The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a declaration listing the total hours worked by each timekeeper, but did not provide a breakdown showing how those hours were spent. The court explained that the party seeking fees must document the hours worked and support the requested hours and rates with evidence. Without more detailed time records, the court could not determine whether the requested hours were reasonable or whether any were excessive, redundant, or unnecessary.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing concerning their counsel’s time records by August 13, 2020. The order did not state that the motion for default judgment was granted or denied.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it required additional briefing about billing records and did not decide the underlying motion for default judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.