Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc.

Background

The court addressed Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees as a sanction against Troy Law and John Troy. The fees arose from discovery problems involving Plaintiffs Tong Wei Wu and Weiting Zhao, including their failure to appear for scheduled depositions and the failure of Troy Law to provide new deposition dates. On July 13, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of Zhao and Wu and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs caused by delays resulting from Troy Law and John Troy’s failure to schedule depositions and obey court orders. The court directed Defendants to submit documentation supporting the amount of the award.

Defendants requested $29,211.50 for legal work relating to the discovery problems, including preparing for depositions, addressing deficient discovery responses, communicating with opposing counsel, conducting a meet-and-confer, and preparing a motion to dismiss. Troy Law opposed the request, challenging the lawyers’ hourly rates and the number of hours billed.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) requires a disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by a failure to obey a discovery order, unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would otherwise be unjust. Courts commonly calculate reasonable fees using the “lodestar” method: the reasonable number of hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.

Court’s analysis

The court found the submitted hourly rates reasonable in light of the lawyers’ experience in labor and employment litigation and the rates approved in the Southern District of New York. The court also considered the passage of time since earlier sanctions proceedings and the customary increase in law-firm billing rates.

The court reviewed the submitted time entries and found that the 53.4 hours billed were reasonable and related to the conduct covered by the July 13, 2022 sanctions order. The court rejected objections concerning block billing and work that could allegedly have been performed by a paralegal or intern. It found that the billing descriptions were sufficiently specific to allow meaningful review and that legal research and communications with opposing counsel were appropriate attorney tasks.

Disposition

The court approved the full requested award of $29,211.50. It granted Defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs against Troy Law and John Troy. Troy Law and John Troy were ordered to pay that amount to Defendants by August 4, 2023. John Troy was also ordered to file a status update by August 11, 2023, certifying compliance with the order.