Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 4, 2020

Johnson v. Mai

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:19-cv-00827
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Fee PetitionDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Scott Johnson v. Chi Matl, Judge Demarchi denied Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs because his submission lacked enough information to assess reasonableness.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied; the opinion does not state any further effect on the defendants.

What happened

Scott Johnson v. Chi Matl concerned Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs after the court granted his motion to compel discovery responses.

Johnson submitted a declaration stating that one of his attorneys charged $350 per hour and requested $1,470 in fees. The court found that the declaration did not provide enough information to determine whether the request was reasonable.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

The detailed version

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

Case
Johnson v. Mai · No. 5:19-cv-00827
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Sept. 4, 2020

Background On August 20, 2020, the court granted Scott Johnson’s motion to compel discovery responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). The court directed Johnson to submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs containing enough information to determine whether the amounts requested were reasonable.

Fee request Johnson submitted a declaration from one of his attorneys. The declaration stated that the attorney’s billing rate was $350 per hour and requested $1,470 in fees. The court found that the declaration did not provide enough information to evaluate whether the requested fees and costs were reasonable.

Ruling The court denied Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The order did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.