Stollman v. Williams
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Stollman v. Williams, Magistrate Judge Fox awarded plaintiffs $12,010.50 in fees after their discovery motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Shmuel Stollman and Elisa Stollman received a $12,010.50 attorneys’ fee award, and the defendants were responsible for the apportioned expenses under the court’s order.
What happened
In Stollman v. Williams, the plaintiffs sought records identifying two people who reported suspected child abuse to New York’s State Central Register and sought permission to question witnesses about those reports. Their earlier motion to compel was granted as to the 2017 reporter but denied as to the 2016 reporter.
The plaintiffs requested $17,304.72 in legal fees. The defendants argued that the request should be reduced substantially because the plaintiffs succeeded only in part and because some hourly rates and time entries were unreasonable. The plaintiffs argued that their requested rates and hours were reasonable and had already reduced the request for unsuccessful work.
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox awarded the plaintiffs $12,010.50. He approved the hourly rates, excluded certain time, applied a 15 percent reduction for unrelated work, and applied an additional 5 percent reduction for work concerning the 2016 reporter and a 20 percent reduction for an unsuccessful legal argument about confidentiality protections.
The detailed version
- Stollman v. Williams · No. 1:20-cv-08937
- John Cronan
- Dec. 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs had previously moved to compel disclosure of unredacted records and to ask deposition questions about the identities and factual allegations of two reporters to New York’s State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The earlier motion was granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to the 2017 reporter and denied as to the 2016 reporter.
The court then asked the parties to address whether the plaintiffs should receive reasonable expenses incurred in making that motion. The plaintiffs sought $17,304.72 in attorneys’ fees. They said their attorneys and legal assistant had spent 33.3 hours on the motion and had already reduced the fee request by 15 percent for time that might have involved unrelated matters. They also deducted an additional 5 percent for work concerning the unsuccessful portion involving the 2016 reporter.
The defendants argued that the fee request should be reduced by 90 percent because the plaintiffs had succeeded only on a waiver issue involving the 2017 reporter. They also challenged the hourly rates and several time entries, and requested a lower award if the court rejected their proposed reduction.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court may divide reasonable expenses between the parties. The court considered whether the plaintiffs had tried in good faith to obtain the information without court action, whether the defendants’ withholding of the information was substantially justified, and whether other circumstances made an award unfair.
The court found that the plaintiffs had made a good-faith effort before filing the motion. It also found that the defendants had not shown that their withholding of the information was substantially justified or that other circumstances made an award unfair. The court therefore decided to apportion the reasonable expenses.
The court approved hourly rates of $700 for Carolyn A. Kubitschek and David Lansner, $350 for Lesley Berson Mbaye, and $150 for Michelle Huey. It found those rates reasonable based on the attorneys’ experience, skills, reputation, and the rates supported by the record.
The court excluded 1.8 hours Kubitschek spent reviewing and discussing a court order and deposition transcripts, and 1.9 hours she spent preparing a corrected and supplemental declaration. The court found that correcting an earlier declaration was not reasonably compensable work on the motion. It did not exclude two hours Huey spent reviewing deposition transcripts and helping prepare the supplemental declaration.
After those exclusions, the court calculated reasonable fees of $18,840. It reduced that amount by 15 percent for possible unrelated work, resulting in $16,014. It then applied a 5 percent reduction for work concerning the unsuccessful 2016-reporter portion and an additional 20 percent reduction for the plaintiffs’ unsuccessful argument that New York Social Services Law § 422 did not protect the reporters’ information in federal litigation. The resulting award was $12,010.50.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ordered that the expenses be apportioned and awarded the plaintiffs $12,010.50 in reasonable attorneys’ fees. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the underlying lawsuit.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.