Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Judge Liman ordered plaintiffs or counsel to pay $5,095 after denying their discovery motion.
Plaintiffs Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz, and their counsel, must pay the Federal Reserve Bank of New York $5,095 jointly and severally within two weeks.
What happened
In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to require the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to produce documents. The court had denied that request because the requests were covered by an agreement, untimely, already answered, unsupported by responsive documents, or overly broad and disproportionate.
The court then asked the plaintiffs to explain why they should not pay the defendant’s reasonable expenses for opposing the motion. The plaintiffs said they honestly believed the defendant had not produced the required documents, but they did not show that their motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances made an award unfair.
Judge Liman ordered the plaintiffs or their counsel, jointly and severally, to pay the defendant $5,095 within two weeks. He reduced the requested amount because the attorneys’ time was excessive and duplicated work, and he reduced the paralegal’s hourly rate from $200 to $100.
The detailed version
- Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01585
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz filed a motion to compel the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to produce five categories of documents. The court had denied the motion. It found that one request concerned documents covered by an agreement with plaintiffs’ prior counsel; another sought documents that plaintiffs had not requested on time; a third sought documents already produced; and a fourth sought documents for which there were no responsive documents and which would have been irrelevant even if they existed. The only request concerning relevant documents was overly broad and disproportionate.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), when a motion to compel is denied, the court generally must require the moving party, the attorney who filed the motion, or both to pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. The rule does not require payment if the motion was substantially justified or if other circumstances would make an award unfair. The court gave plaintiffs an opportunity to explain why expenses should not be awarded. Plaintiffs responded that they honestly believed the defendant had failed to meet its document-production obligations, but they did not identify facts showing substantial justification or circumstances making an award unfair. The court stated that bad faith was not required for an award under the rule.
Amount of the award
The defendant requested $7,450 based on 15.3 hours of attorney time and three hours of paralegal time. The court found that 15.3 attorney hours were more than reasonably necessary for the defendant’s three-page response and likely reflected duplication from multiple attorneys working on it. The court reduced the attorney hours by 30 percent. It found the requested attorney rates, ranging from $400 to $500 per hour, reasonable, but reduced the paralegal’s rate from $200 to $100 per hour.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman awarded the defendant $5,095 in expenses. The order requires plaintiffs or their counsel to pay that amount jointly and severally within two weeks of the order’s date.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.