Gannon v. Hoon On Co., Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-01657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gannon v. Hoon On, Judge Moses denied defendants’ application to compel a settlement-damages breakdown, while suggesting fee documents could help settlement.
Plaintiff Stephen Gannon and his counsel were not required by this ruling to provide the requested fee-related settlement documents. Defendants Hoon On Co., Inc. and Three Guys Deli & Grocery Inc. did not obtain the requested order compelling production, although the court indicated that producing the documents voluntarily for settlement purposes only could help the settlement conference.
What happened
In Gannon v. Hoon On Co., Inc., defendants Hoon On Co., Inc. and Three Guys Deli & Grocery Inc. asked the court to require plaintiff Stephen Gannon to provide a good-faith breakdown supporting his settlement demand. The request concerned court instructions for exchanging settlement information before a settlement conference.
Defendants argued that Gannon’s demand included compensation, statutory damages, attorney fees, expert fees, costs, and expenses but lacked supporting details. They requested documents such as the lawyer’s engagement agreement, time records, and records of claimed expenses. The opinion states that Gannon’s lawyer had submitted a settlement demand after the court ordered him to explain why he should not be sanctioned.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the application. She ruled that the case-management plan and settlement-conference order did not require plaintiff to satisfy the demanding standards used for a formal attorney-fee application. Judge Moses added that providing the requested fee-related documents for settlement purposes only could help produce a successful settlement conference and reminded the parties to reschedule that conference.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. Hoon On Co., Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01657
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 14, 2022
Background
The defendants, Hoon On Co., Inc. and Three Guys Deli & Grocery Inc., asked the court to require plaintiff Stephen Gannon and his lawyer, Adam Douglas Ford, to comply with two prior court directives. One directive required the plaintiff to exchange a settlement demand with an accompanying breakdown of damages. The other required the plaintiff to conduct at least one good-faith settlement discussion and convey at least one good-faith settlement demand before September 1, 2022.
The settlement-conference order warned that failure to comply with pre-conference responsibilities could result in sanctions. On September 1, 2022, the court ordered Attorney Ford to explain in writing why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) or the court’s inherent authority for failing to comply with the settlement-conference order. The opinion states that Attorney Ford later submitted a letter asserting that he had complied and communicated a monetary settlement demand.
Defendants’ Application
The defendants argued that the settlement demand still lacked a good-faith accompanying breakdown of damages. They stated that the demand included compensatory damages, statutory damages, attorney fees, expert fees, costs, and expenses, but did not provide support for those categories.
For the fee-related portion of the demand, the defendants requested the plaintiff’s engagement agreement with counsel, contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney’s date, hours, and work, and documents concerning claimed third-party expenses and costs. They relied on legal standards governing the court’s review of formal attorney-fee requests, including the need to assess the reasonableness of fees and avoid excessive charges or attorney windfalls.
Ruling
The court denied the application. It held that neither the Case Management Plan nor the Order Scheduling Settlement Conference required the plaintiff to meet the exacting standards that apply to a litigated attorney-fee application.
The court nevertheless advised that producing the requested fee-related documents for settlement purposes only would be conducive to a successful settlement conference. The parties were reminded to contact Chambers to reschedule the settlement conference.
Disposition
Application denied. The opinion does not state that the application was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.