Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 11, 2020

Figueroa v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:18-cv-11187
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
8
Fee PetitionDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Figueroa v. W.M. Barr, Judge Parker awarded the defendant $12,484.10 in attorneys’ fees as discovery sanctions.

Who this affects

W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. received the $12,484.10 fee award; Marilyn Figueroa was the opposing party responsible for payment under the order.

What happened

In Figueroa v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., the court considered the defendant’s application for attorneys’ fees after previously ordering sanctions for the plaintiff’s discovery conduct.

The defendant requested $12,484.10 for work related to discovery conferences, letters seeking court intervention, a sanctions motion, and the plaintiff’s failure to attend a conference. The plaintiff did not oppose the application or challenge the requested rates or hours.

Judge Katharine H. Parker found the hourly rates and documented work reasonable and awarded the defendant $12,484.10, payable within 30 days of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Figueroa v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11187
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
May 11, 2020

Background

The court had previously granted W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 based on Marilyn Figueroa’s conduct during discovery. In that earlier order, the court held that the defendant was entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to the sanctions motion, several letters seeking conferences about discovery disputes, and Figueroa’s failure to appear at a November 2019 conference.

The defendant then submitted a fee application seeking $12,484.10. Its counsel provided a declaration and detailed time records describing work by attorneys and paralegals from Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP and Bowman and Brooke, LLP. The requested hourly rates were $290 for Michael H. Bai, $250 for Jon J. Hernan, $239 for Collin Crecco, $200 for Suzanne L. Kersh, $158 for Willem Lee, and $110 for Kara Thomas. The defendant represented that the rates were charged to it and were regular or comparable rates for similar matters. Figueroa did not oppose the application or contest the rates or hours.

Legal standard

The court explained that the party seeking fees must show that the requested fees are reasonable. Courts generally calculate a presumptively reasonable fee, called a “lodestar,” by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably spent. The court may exclude hours that are excessive, duplicative, or unnecessary, and it may consider the nature of the matter and the fact that the fees were sought as a discovery sanction.

Court’s analysis

Judge Katharine H. Parker found that the requested rates were reasonable. The court noted that the defendant’s lead counsel stated that his rate was below his regular rate for similar cases and that the other rates were typical for comparable matters. The court also compared the requested rates with rates approved in other Southern District of New York cases.

The court separately found that the hours were reasonable and adequately documented. It noted that defense counsel recorded time in tenths of an hour, properly delegated tasks, and documented work on discovery disputes and related motions. Based on the court’s management of the case, it found that Figueroa had been late in providing discovery responses, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to appear for a conference. The court also stated that Figueroa had represented that she had an expert supporting her liability theory, but no expert appeared, causing the defendant to incur additional expenses in preparing for a potential expert.

Disposition

The court awarded W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. attorneys’ fees of $12,484.10. The amount was payable within 30 days of the May 11, 2020 order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 8-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.