Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress

Background

The plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and non-statutory costs after prevailing on claims that allowed fee recovery and obtaining injunctive relief. The opinion states that the litigation lasted more than four years and included a six-week trial. The plaintiffs sought fees for work by twelve attorneys and two paralegals, relying on attorney declarations and a chart describing the work and hours rather than producing the underlying contemporaneous time records.

The plaintiffs sought $13,780,317 in attorney fees after voluntarily reducing the larger lodestar amount by 25% to account for possible duplication and inefficiency. They also sought $1,035,717.68 in non-statutory costs. The defendants challenged the billing rates, the hours, the request for work by in-house counsel, the plaintiffs’ degree of success, and the supporting evidence for the costs.

Attorney-fee analysis

The court declined to rely fully on the defendants’ expert declaration because the defendants had not adequately discussed it in their opposition and because it contained unsupported legal opinions, miscalculations, and other deficiencies. The court nonetheless considered portions of the declaration in connection with arguments properly presented by the defendants.

The court found the requested rates reasonable in light of the case’s scope and complexity and rates approved in the district for similarly experienced lawyers and staff. But because the plaintiffs did not explain large increases in the rates of associates Arielle Feldshon and Matthew Diton, the court awarded their time at their initial rates plus 25%.

The court also reduced the fees sought for in-house counsel. It reduced Beth Parker’s time by 70% because much of her work involved typical in-house functions, such as advising affiliates, supervising outside counsel, and making strategic decisions, or appeared duplicative. It reduced Maithreyi Ratakonda’s time by 90% because most of her work appeared to involve traditional in-house tasks or duplication, while some document-location and witness-preparation work was compensable litigation work.

The court found the remaining hours reasonable. It relied on the detailed declarations and chart, its knowledge of the litigation, the plaintiffs’ 25% overall reduction, and the defendants’ failure to identify specific unreasonable or duplicative work based on their own counsel’s knowledge. The court also declined to deduct fees for unsuccessful or non-fee-generating claims because the claims shared facts and legal theories with the successful claims.

Costs and disposition

The plaintiffs requested costs for categories including e-discovery, travel, depositions, trial support, hotels, experts, contract document review, jury consulting, and witness security. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the requested costs even though the plaintiffs did not submit the underlying invoices. It awarded all requested non-statutory costs except $37,598.51 for executive security. The court excluded that category because the plaintiffs did not show that such costs were typically incurred and compensated in the district, and did not adequately answer the defendants’ specific objection.

Judge William H. Orrick granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and non-statutory costs after applying the reductions described in the order. He directed plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a revised proposed order and a declaration explaining the required deductions and recalculations within fourteen days. Any objection was due within five days after that submission.