Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2021

UMB Bank, National Association v. Bluestone Coke, LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-02043
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In UMB Bank v. Bluestone Coke, Judge Liman ordered more fee documentation before deciding whether requested contract fees and costs were reasonable.

Who this affects

UMB Bank must provide additional documentation supporting its requested attorney’s fees and expenses; Bluestone Coke may respond with a supplemental opposition.

What happened

UMB Bank, National Association sued Bluestone Coke, LLC and others seeking principal, interest, attorney’s fees, and expenses under an indenture.

Bluestone Coke objected that UMB Bank’s billing records did not provide enough information to evaluate whether the requested fees were reasonable. Some records were heavily redacted, and other records contained no time entries.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered UMB Bank to submit records or other documentation describing the work performed and limiting redactions to privileged attorney information. Bluestone Coke may file a supplemental opposition afterward.

The detailed version

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

Case
UMB Bank, National Association v. Bluestone Coke, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02043
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
July 13, 2021

Background

UMB Bank, National Association, acting as trustee, sought recovery from Bluestone Coke, LLC under an indenture. Its requested recovery included principal, interest, attorney’s fees, and expenses. Bluestone Coke objected that the billing records supporting UMB Bank’s statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 did not permit review of the fees for reasonableness.

The opinion states that records from Chapman and Cutler were redacted to remove descriptions of the work performed, while records from Cozen O’Connor contained no time entries. UMB Bank offered to provide unredacted invoices for the court’s private review. The court observed that the redactions appeared broader than necessary to protect attorney work product or attorney-client communications.

Court’s Action

The court did not decide whether the requested fees and costs were reasonable or whether the contract required reasonableness. Instead, Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered UMB Bank to file, by July 19, 2021, time records or other documentation sufficient for the court to evaluate the fees and costs. The documentation could include contemporaneous billing records or other materials, but it had to describe the work sufficiently to allow review of the hours and charges. The court directed that only information revealing attorney work product or attorney-client communications be redacted. Bluestone Coke could file any supplemental opposition by July 26, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.

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.