Opinion
No. CV–12–02649–PHX–JAT
12-21-2016
Kimberly ISOM, Plaintiff, v. JDA SOFTWARE INCORPORATED, Defendant.
Daniel Lee Bonnett, Evan Robert Browne Schlack, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Ravi Vasishta Patel, Susan Joan Martin, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff. Laura Lawless Robertson, Lawrence Jay Rosenfeld, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
Daniel Lee Bonnett, Evan Robert Browne Schlack, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Ravi Vasishta Patel, Susan Joan Martin, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
Laura Lawless Robertson, Lawrence Jay Rosenfeld, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JDA SOFTWARE'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR RENEWED JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
James A. Teilborg, Senior United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for New Trial and/or to Amend the Judgment and Motion for Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law. (Doc. 183) Plaintiff filed a response to the motion (Doc. 188) and Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 194). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kimberly Isom's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 184). Defendant JDA Software filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 191), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 195). The Court now rules on the motions.
The following summary is based upon stipulated facts, credible testimony during trial, and documentary evidence submitted into the record.
Plaintiff Kimberly Isom sued her former employer, Defendant JDA Software Incorporated ("JDA"), alleging JDA interfered with her right to take maternity leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a). At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was employed by JDA as a sales account manager. In December 2010, Plaintiff informed JDA of her pregnancy and began asking Human Resources representatives about the possibility of taking maternity leave under the FMLA. Plaintiff specifically expressed her concerns that taking leave would allow her sales management team to remove certain accounts from her sales pipeline, thereby nullifying her "hard work over the last [two] years." In addition to speaking with human resources, Plaintiff also informed her immediate supervisor of her pregnancy and made him aware of her concerns regarding commissions and account retention.
For the next six months, Plaintiff continued her attempts to determine whether taking leave was in her financial and professional interest. Between January and March 2011, Plaintiff lodged multiple inquiries with human resources in an effort to determine whether her accounts could be reassigned to her detriment if she were to take FMLA leave. Despite her repeated inquiries, JDA did not provide Plaintiff with answers to her questions or concerns. Eventually, Plaintiff contacted JDA's in-house counsel, but counsel was similarly unable to provide Plaintiff with meaningful guidance.
Plaintiff ultimately decided to take the allowed twelve weeks of leave under the FMLA after she gave birth to twins in June 2011. During her leave, JDA reassigned one of Plaintiff's sales accounts (the "Sears Canada" account) to another salesperson. Plaintiff requested that JDA revisit the account's reassignment after she returned from work in August 2011, but JDA explained that it would not do so in accordance with "company policy." Plaintiff received no commission when the Sears Canada sale closed in March 2012.
Two of Plaintiff's accounts were ultimately transferred. Only the Sears Canada account is at issue here.
Plaintiff filed suit against JDA, alleging that its reassignment of accounts interfered with her statutory rights to be returned to the same or an equivalent position upon her return from leave. See 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)(A). After a trial, the jury ruled in Plaintiff's favor and awarded her $114,618 in compensatory damages for lost commission associated with the Sears Canada account. This Court then awarded Plaintiff liquidated damages in the same amount pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii), finding JDA did not act in good faith. (Doc. 175). JDA then filed a combined motion for new trial or to amend the judgment and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. 183).
The Court also awarded Plaintiff prejudgment interest totaling $1,744.82 on the jury's lost wages award and on the liquidated damages. (Doc. 175). JDA does not challenge the Court's award of prejudgment interest.
II. Motion for New Trial and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
JDA argues it is entitled to relief from the judgment or, in the alternative, to a new trial. (Doc. 183 at 9). JDA contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a claim under the FMLA, and the jury's verdict reflects a fundamental misapplication of the law. (Id. )
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 50 allows the Court to enter judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") on an issue if it finds "that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the [nonmoving] party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). JMOL is proper "if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict." Pavao v. Pagay , 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). Even if findings contrary to the jury's verdict are possible based on the evidence, the Court must uphold a verdict if "substantial evidence adequate to support" the jury's conclusion exists in the record. Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. , 743 F.3d 1236, 1242 (9th Cir. 2014). When ruling on a motion for JMOL, this Court does not weigh evidence or make determinations of credibility, but construes all inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
A motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) may be granted "after a jury trial, for any reasons for which a new trial has heretofore been granted" in federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). Reasons for granting a new trial may include a verdict that is contrary to the weight of the evidence or a trial that was manifestly unjust to the nonmoving party. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. , 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007). Unlike with a Rule 50 motion, the Court may make determinations as to the weight of the evidence and credibility of witnesses when determining whether a new trial is warranted. See Kode v. Carlson , 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010).
B. Analysis
Under the FMLA, an employee who returns from leave is entitled "to be restored to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment." 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)(B). An "equivalent position" is one that is "virtually identical to the employee's former position in terms of pay, benefits and working conditions" and involving "the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities." 29 C.F.R. § 825.215.
Here, the jury determined that JDA did not restore Plaintiff to an equivalent position upon her return from leave and awarded her damages representing the commission she could have earned from closing the sale to Sears Canada. JDA argues the verdict therefore necessarily implied a conclusion that, in order to be restored to an equivalent position, Plaintiff was entitled to a return of the status quo, or "restoration of every one of the [sales] opportunities" she pursued prior to taking her FMLA leave. (Doc. 183 at 3, 6:13–14). JDA contends such a verdict is contrary to law, arguing that the FMLA does not require an employer to restore an employee back to an unchanged sales portfolio upon her return.
The Court does not agree with JDA's characterization of the jury's verdict. The verdict in Plaintiff's favor does not necessitate a legal conclusion that she was entitled to precisely the same accounts upon her return from leave. Rather, it supports a conclusion consistent with the law: because Plaintiff was not reassigned to substantially equivalent accounts upon her return from leave, her employment was significantly altered in terms of earning potential. Plaintiff herself did not argue that only the restoration of the Sears Canada could have satisfied her rights under the FMLA; she also made the alternative argument that JDA chould have reassigned her comparable accounts with the same or substantially equivalent earning potential, and that its failure to do so violated her right to FMLA leave. (See, e.g. , Doc. 5 at 5, ¶ 35). Accordingly, the jury's verdict did not necessarily imply that JDA was required to restore Plaintiff to the pre-leave status quo.
The jury instructions similarly do not compel this Court to accept JDA's characterization of the verdict. The instructions directed the jury to determine whether Plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that "Defendant failed to restore Plaintiff to the same position she held at the time FMLA leave commenced, or to an equivalent position. " (Doc. 170 at 17 (emphasis added)). The instructions went on to define an "equivalent position" as one "that is virtually identical to the employee's former position in terms of pay, benefits and working conditions, including privileges, prerequisites, and status." (Id. at 14). The jury instructions were therefore a correct statement of the law regarding what constitutes an employee's return to an "equivalent" employment position, and did not suggest that Plaintiff was entitled to a return of precisely the same accounts in order to satisfy the FMLA's requirements.
Moreover, Plaintiff presented evidence that the accounts to which she was assigned upon return from leave were not equivalent to Sears Canada in terms of likelihood of success, progression down the sales pipeline, or earning potential. (Tr. 3/1/2016 P.M. at 21:42–24:4; 30:12–24). She also testified that the size of her overall sales pipeline was reduced by several million dollars as a result of the account's reassignment. (Tr. 3/1/2016 A.M. at 89:16–22). Accordingly, the record contains evidence sufficient to support the jury's determination that because the Sears Canada was removed from her sales pipeline, Plaintiff's pre-and post-leave employment positions were not "virtually identical." See 29 C.F.R. § 825.215.
Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and because the jury's verdict was not contrary to law, JDA is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 or to a new trial under Rule 59.
IV. Motion to Alter the Judgment
A. Legal Standard
JDA also asks this Court to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). The Court may alter or amend a judgment if: (1) the Court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the judgment at trial was manifestly unjust, (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, or (4) the motion is "necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based." Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. , 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon , 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) ); see also United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc. , 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). JDA argues the judgment was based on errors of law and fact, and contends that this Court must now correct those errors by amending the judgment in JDA's favor.
B. Maintenance Package
First, JDA takes issue with a $10,000 portion of the jury's lost wages award. JDA argues there is no competent evidence in the record to support the addition of this $10,000 into the calculation of commission lost on the Sears Canada account. Accordingly, JDA contends Plaintiff did not prove this portion of her damages by a preponderance of the evidence. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
At trial, Plaintiff testified as to her calculation the commission she would have earned on the Sears Canada account had she been allowed to see the sale through to completion. As a part of that calculation, Plaintiff included a putative $10,000 commission she estimated she would have received from the inclusion of a "maintenance package" in Sears Canada's sale. (Tr. 3/1/2016 P.M. at 66; see also Trial Exhibit 7 at 6). JDA argues there was no evidence to support the inclusion of the $10,000 because Plaintiff admitted she had no "facts" to support her assumption that Sears Canada had in fact purchased a maintenance package. (See Tr. 3/2/16 A.M. at 23).
Nevertheless, Plaintiff's personal knowledge and experience was sufficient to give credibility to her testimony that the Sears Canada sale likely included the purchase of a maintenance package. See Fed. R. Evid. 701 (an opinion by a non-expert witness is admissible as evidence if it is "rationally based on the witness's perception," helpful to determine a "fact in issue," and not based on "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge"). Plaintiff explained that she included the $10,000 maintenance package commission in her calculations based on: (1) her personal knowledge of the Sears Canada account from working with Sears Canada prior to the reassignment, and (2) her "understanding of prior contracts" from working with other accounts. (Tr. 3/1/2016 P.M. at 59, 66). Plaintiff's prior experience rendered her testimony sufficiently credible to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the damages she requested. Accordingly, the jury did not err by including the $10,000 calculation in its award.
C. Liquidated Damages
Second, JDA asserts the Court erred when it awarded Plaintiff liquidated damages equal to the amount of lost wages awarded by the jury. A plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages "equal to the sum" awarded by the jury for wages lost as a result of an FMLA violation. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii). However, the Court has discretion to decline to award liquidated damages if the employer proves the "act or omission which violated [the FMLA] was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing" its actions did not violate the employee's rights. Id. ; see also Traxler v. Multnomah Cnty. , 596 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010). There is a "strong presumption" in favor of liquidated damages, and it is the employer's burden to overcome this presumption by proving its reasonableness and good faith. Thom v. Am. Std., Inc. , 666 F.3d 968, 977 (6th Cir. 2012) ; Nero v. Ind. Molding Corp. , 167 F.3d 921, 933, n.3 (5th Cir. 1999).
In its March 31, 2016 Order, this Court held that JDA had not met its burden of proving its actions in violation of Plaintiff's rights were taken in good faith. (Doc. 175 at 5). The Court relied on the fact that, despite numerous requests and inquiries from Plaintiff, JDA did not communicate a reasonable, coherent policy regarding the reassignment of accounts until after Plaintiff decided to take FMLA leave. (Doc. 175 at 5–6).
JDA claims that in order to promulgate such a policy prior to Plaintiff's leave period, it would have had to "predict the future and anticipate customer decisions outside the Company's control." (Doc. 183 at 12:5–6). But this argument misreads the Court's holding. In order to communicate a reasonable policy in response to Plaintiff's repeated inquiries, JDA would not have had to predict the precise accounts in need of reassignment or the time at which they would be reassigned. For example, JDA could have outlined its criteria for deciding if and when an account must be reassigned during an salesperson's leave, and its policy for whether such accounts would be given back to the original salesperson upon his or her return. But JDA was remiss on providing any such reasonable guidance for Plaintiff prior to her decision to take leave.
It its motion to amend the judgment, JDA argues it met its burden of showing good faith by pointing to the steps it took before making a final determination as to Plaintiff's accounts: consulting outside counsel, discussing Plaintiff's situation with qualified Human Resources representatives, and analyzing the situation in accordance with "JDA's written FMLA leave policy." But despite these efforts to create a policy compliant with the FMLA, JDA still failed to communicate any of its intentions or expectations to Plaintiff prior to her absence—despite the fact that JDA knew about Plaintiff's pregnancy and impending need for FMLA leave for six months before her leave began. Instead of issuing a cogent, written policy regarding the reassignment of sales opportunities in anticipation of Plaintiff's leave, JDA waited until after it decided to reassign the Sears Canada account to inform Plaintiff that the transfer was "consistent with [JDA] policy" and not subject to negotiation. (Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 41 at 12). This Court cannot conclude that this course of action was reasonably believed to be in compliance with the FMLA's requirements. Accordingly, the liquidated damages award in Plaintiff's favor was not error.
V. Attorneys' Fees
Because the Court denies JDA's motion for new trial, it now considers Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. (Doc. 184). The FMLA directs that the Court "shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff, allow a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid by the defendant." 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3). Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees incurred during the underlying case and for the preparation of post-trial motions and responses, as well as an additional award of non-taxable expenses. (Doc. 184 at 1).
Since the filing of Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees, Plaintiff has voluntarily adjusted her request for both fees and costs as reflected in the exhibit accompanying this Order. Plaintiff's adjustments, including voluntary downward adjustments and additions of the costs of responding to post-trial motions, will be reflected in the Court's award and in the accompanying exhibit.
--------
A. Reasonableness of Attorneys' Fees
JDA does not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to fees under the FMLA, but argues the amount requested is unreasonable. (Doc. 191 at 17). To determine a reasonable attorneys' fee, the Court begins with the "lodestar figure," meaning "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). When deciding the reasonable number of hours expended for the purpose of attorneys' fees, a court may consider, among other things: (1) "the time and labor required of counsel," (2) "the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented," (3) "the preclusion of other employment," (4) "the customary fee charged in matters of the type involved," and (5) "the results obtained." See LRCiv 54.2(3).
1. Results Obtained
The Court will first consider the results obtained in the litigation, because JDA's objections to Plaintiff's fee application are largely based on this Court's grant of summary judgment on five out of the six counts Plaintiff originally pleaded. (See Docs. 114, 191 at 5–8). JDA contends any award of attorneys' fees should be significantly reduced to reflect Plaintiff's partial success.
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, "work which relates only to unsuccessful claims should not be awarded" in a grant of attorneys' fees. Padgett v. Loventhal , 706 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013). But often, work done by an attorney relating to an ultimately unsuccessful claim will also prove material or beneficial in relation to a successful claim. In such a case, "the district court must award fees for the work that contributed to a successful result as if the successful claims were the only ones litigated." Id.
Plaintiff's attorneys' records reflect 1389.4 hours spent on the litigation between Plaintiff and JDA, in addition to 29.7 hours spent on post-trial work. (See Exhibit 1). JDA points out that a significant number of these hours were devoted to work on ultimately unsuccessful claims: JDA obtained judgment in its favor on all of Plaintiff's Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims (Doc. 114), and Plaintiff prevailed on only her FMLA claims at trial, and received only a portion of the recovery she sought. But the Court agrees with Plaintiff that her unsuccessful claims and her successful claims were based on a "common core of facts." See Ambat v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco , 757 F.3d 1017, 1032 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that the court should not attempt to parse out a litigant's request for attorneys' fees on a claim-by-claim basis when the claims are interrelated). To prove discrimination or retaliation in the context of Title VII or the Equal Pay Act, Plaintiff had to prove that the nature of her post-leave employment was appreciably less valuable than the nature of her pre-leave employment. See Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis , 225 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a Title VII plaintiff show she was subject to an adverse employment action); 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (prohibiting discrimination in the form of lesser pay). This was also the basis of Plaintiff's successful FMLA claim, because she was required to prove that her pre-and post-leave employment were not virtually identical in terms of earning potential. See supra Section II(B). Accordingly, the Court disagrees with JDA's contention that Plaintiff's award should be significantly reduced in light of the summary judgment ruling.
2. Remaining Factors
Similarly, the other relevant factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. Upon review of Plaintiff's attorneys' time entries, the Court finds the number of hours expended on the case to be reasonable given its nature and complexity. Although not "unduly complex or unusually novel," the case nonetheless presented unique issues of law as to whether and why the removal of a particular account did not satisfy the FMLA's requirement of restoration to an equivalent position. (See Doc. 184 at 8). Similarly, the rates charged were appropriate given the experience and skill of the attorneys and the customary rates in the local market. In his affidavit, Plaintiff's attorney also indicates that other work was delayed in preparation for this case, and that work on this case precluded the firm from accepting other potentially meritorious cases. (Doc. 184–1 at 16, ¶ 40). Accordingly, with the exception of the reductions noted below, the Court finds Plaintiff's fee request reasonable in terms of hours and rate.
3. Reductions in Cost
Although it rejects JDA's request for a lodestar reduction, the Court does find some of Plaintiff's requested fees to be excessive. JDA identifies certain billing entries as duplicative. The Court agrees with several of JDA's objections in this regard, and in its discretion, will reduce the award as indicated in the attached exhibit. However, the Court disagrees with JDA's objections to time billed by associate attorneys (who were assigned to the case well after its initiation) for the purpose of familiarizing themselves with the details and status of the case. Although this is technically duplicative activity, the Ninth Circuit has described such work as "necessary duplication ... inherent in the process of litigating over time [.]" Moreno v. City of Sacramento , 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the duplicated work was necessary, the Court will not exclude it from its fee award.
JDA also objects to numerous billing entries as time incurred for clerical tasks. Clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal or lawyer's rate. See Davis v. City & Cnty. of S.F. , 976 F.2d 1536, 1543 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds by 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court has reviewed the billing entries JDA identifies as clerical, and finds some to be necessary legal work, and others to be purely clerical, including document formatting, hand-delivery of documents, and routine emails. The Court will reduce the fee award by any attorney or paralegal time billed for tasks of a clerical nature.
B. Non–Taxable Costs
Plaintiff also moves for non-taxable expenses in the amount of $22,679.48. (Doc. 184 at 1). JDA objects to several of Plaintiff's listed costs, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court has adjusted the requested award of non-taxable expenses.
1. Costs Incurred for Electronic Legal Research
JDA challenges Plaintiff's request for cost entries related to $1,268.11 of computerized legal research. (Doc. 191 at 16). JDA argues the entries do not adequately identify the research in violation of Local Rules 54.2(e)(2)(B) and 54.2(e)(3). Under Local Rule 54.2(e)(2)(B), time entries for legal research must identify the specific issue researched: "[t]ime entries simply stating 'research' or 'legal research' are inadequate and the court may reduce the award accordingly." Similarly, Local Rule 54.2(e)(3) states:
Description of Expenses Incurred . In a separate portion of the itemized statement, identify each related nontaxable expense with particularity. Counsel should attach copies of applicable invoices, receipts and/or disbursement instruments. Failure to itemize and verify costs may result in their disallowance by the court.
LRCiv 54.2(e)(3).
Having independently reviewed Plaintiff's attorneys' time entries reflecting legal research, the Court finds several that fail to comply with the specificity requirements of the local rules. Accordingly, the Court has reduced the amount of fees requested by $1,235.69.
2. Third–Party Trial Consulting & Copying Expenses
JDA next argues that Plaintiff's request for costs relating to a third-party trial consulting team are inappropriate for recovery as non-taxable costs. JDA cites no authority to support its claims that these costs are unrecoverable, and the Court disagrees with JDA's argument that meeting with the trial consulting team was a clerical activity. (Doc. 191 at 17).
JDA also objects to Plaintiff's copying fees as exceeding the limit set by the Ninth Circuit rules. See 9th Cir. R. 39–1 (rules for "Costs and Attorneys Fees on Appeal"). However, the rule to which JDA cites is a rule governing costs on appeal in the Circuit Court; those rules do not prohibit the District Court from awarding reasonable copying costs exceeding ten cents per page. As a result, the Court overrules JDA's objections. Because Plaintiff's requested copying costs are not excessive, the Court will award them as requested.
C. Final Fees and Costs Calculation
In accordance with its reasoning above, the Court reduces Plaintiff's fee request by $3,721.00. The Court will award a total of $525,782.75 in attorneys' fees. The Court also reduces Plaintiff's request for non-taxable costs by $1,235.69. The Court will award a total of $16,508.11 in non-taxable costs.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant JDA's Motion for New Trial and/or to Amend the Judgment and Motion for Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 183) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Non–Taxable Costs (Doc. 184) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards $525,782.75 in attorney fees and $16,508.11 in non-taxable costs for a total award of $542,290.86.
Exhibit 1—Detailed Ruling on Motion for Attorneys' Fees
Hours COURT'S Date Rate to Bill Amount Description OBJECTIONS RULING Attorneys' Fees Collected for Trial 12/12/2012 $435.00 3.4 $1,479.00 Research re Dell v. McArdle and other fmla cases (.5) Review JDA objects to the inclusion of 1.7 hours of position statement, etc. and draft complaint (1.7) Emails with time ($739.50) for reviewing the EEOC position client and revise complaint, finalize and file (1.2) statement, as JDA prevailed on summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims. 12/12/2012 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 Conference with Attorney Jennifer Kroll and instructions re: JDA objects to the inclusion of charges (0.5 complaint, etc., Review retainer. hours, or $217.50) for internal firm conferences and reviewing the retainer agreement, as they are administrative charges that should be part of firm overhead. 12/12/2012 $125.00 0.25 $31.25 Per instructions from Attorney Jennifer Kroll, download JDA objects to the inclusion of charges (0.25 corporate commission information from website, prepare civil hours, or $31.25) for non-substantive cover sheet & summons. administrative/clerical matters. 12/14/2012 $435.00 0.1 $43.50 Reviewed email from Ireland & Plaintiff & instructions to Time entry (0.1 hours, or $43.50) lacks Attorney Jennifer Kroll. sufficient detail to determine whether substantive work related to the claim on which Plaintiff prevailed was performed, or whether work is clerical in nature, and thus warrants deduction. 12/14/2012 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Conference call with Ireland and email with client and update Time entry (0.2 hours, or $87) lacks sufficient Attorney Susan Martin on status detail to determine whether substantive work related to the claim on which Plaintiff prevailed was performed, or whether work is clerical in nature, and thus warrants deduction. 01/07/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 conference with Attorney Jennifer Kroll regarding legal and factual issues (.3); preliminary review of complaint (.3) 01/07/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Brief discussion with Attorney Bonnett re status of case and negotiations in preparation for Attorney Bonnett meeting with client
01/09/2013 $435.00 3.8 $1,653.00 Study documents from client, EEOC charge and employer's JDA objects to the 0.7 hours ($304.50) spent position statement (.7); Meeting with client to discuss strategy reviewing the EEOC charge and employer's and formulate handling plan (.8); Email communication with EEOC position statement, as JDA fully client (.3); Begin review documents from client (2.0) prevailed with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims. 01/10/2013 $435.00 3.4 $1,479.00 Email communications with client (.4) continue to review client JDA objects to the 3.0 hours ($1,305) spent documents and review and revise draft of response to EEOC responding to the employer's EEOC position (3.0) statement, as JDA fully prevailed with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims. 01/11/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 conference with Attorney Jennifer Kroll and client to discuss Charge adjusted. EEOC charge and complaint (.3) -0.3 -$130.50 Adjustment — conference with Attorney Jennifer Kroll and client to discuss EEOC charge and complaint (.3) 02/20/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Email communication to and from client regarding status of conversations with attorney for employer (.3) 02/21/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 telephone conference and Email communication with attorney Charge partially adjusted. for JDA (.4); meeting with client to discuss status (.3); Begin drafting amended complaint to include EEOC charges (.6) -0.6 -$261.00 Adjustment — Begin drafting amended complaint to include EEOC charges (.6) 02/27/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 study email from client (.2) 02/28/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Email communications to and from client (.2) 03/06/2013 $435.00 0.8 $348.00 review and revise draft amended complaint and Email Charge adjusted. communication with client regarding same (.8) -0.8 -$348.00 Adjustment — review and revise draft amended complaint and Email communication with client regarding same (.8) 03/11/2013 $435.00 1.1 $478.50 review Email communication from client (.1); review and revise Charge partially adjusted. draft of amended complaint (.8); follow up Email communication to client (.2) -1 -$435.00 Adjustment — review and revise draft of amended complaint (.8); follow up Email communication to client (.2)
03/13/2013 $435.00 0.7 $304.50 Email communications and telephone conferences with client JDA objects to the time counsel spent (duration regarding damages calculations and allegations in amended unclear due to block billing) communicating complaint (.7) with Plaintiff regarding allegations in the Amended Complaint (to address the EEOC charge allegations), as JDA fully prevailed with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII and Equal Pay Act caims. 03/15/2013 $435.00 1.1 $478.50 Email communications to and from client (.2); Revise and Charge partially adjusted. As to the remainder, finalize amended complaint (.5); Email communications to and JDA objects to the inclusion of 0.1 hours from attorney for Defendant regarding status and amended ($43.50) communicating internally with legal complaint (.3); instructions to legal assistant regarding same assistants regarding filing a pleading as this is (.1) administrative/clerical work that should be part of firm overhead. Further, despite the adjustment for revising the amended complaint to include ultimately unsuccessful claims, JDA objects to communications with defense counsel regarding the amended complaint (0.3) for the same reason. -0.5 -$217.50 Adjustment — Revise and finalize amended complaint (.5); 03/25/2013 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Review and approve notice of appearance (.1); review and JDA objects to the entry (0.3 hours, or $88.50), provide instructions to assistant re filing Waiver of Service (.2) which is administrative/clerical in nature and should be part of firm overhead. 03/29/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Email communication to client regarding status and handling plan (.2) 04/01/2013 $435.00 0.1 $43.50 Email communication form client regarding status (.1) 04/05/2013 $435.00 0.7 $304.50 Review Email communications from client and begin outlining JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of discovery requests (.7) discovery requests should have been drafted by paralegals and/or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the partner's rate in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 04/10/2013 $435.00 1.2 $522.00 Continue work up on damages model (1.2)
04/15/2013 $435.00 0.1 $43.50 Email communication to attorney for defendant regarding status JDA objects to the inclusion of 0.1 hours and notice to court (.1) ($43.50) for notifying defense counsel of Plaintiff's plan to file a joint notice of readiness for Rule 16 conference, as the Court was anticipated to set a Rule 16 conference without such pleading, rendering the time spent unnecessary. 04/16/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 Email communications to and from attorney for defendant (.2); JDA objects to the inclusion of 0.6 hours Draft joint notice of readiness for Rule 16 Conference (.4) ($261.00) for discussing and then preparing a joint notice of readiness for Rule 16 conference, as the Court was anticipated to set a Rule 16 conference without such pleading, rendering the time spent unnecessary. 04/17/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 Email communication to and from attorney for defendant (.2); JDA objects to the inclusion of 0.5 hours draft and revise notice to court regarding readiness for Rule 16 ($217.50) for discussing and then revising and Scheduling Conference. (.3) filing a joint notice of readiness for Rule 16 conference, as the Court was anticipated to set a Rule 16 conference without such pleading, rendering the time spent unnecessary. 04/18/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Email communications with attorney for defendant (.1); Revise JDA objects to the inclusion of 0.2 hours and finalize notice to court re: Rule 16 Conference (.1); ($87.00) for discussing and then revising and instructions to legal assistant to incorporate defendant's filing a joint notice of readiness for Rule 16 request in notice (.1) conference, as the Court was anticipated to set a Rule 16 conference without such pleading, rendering the time spent unnecessary. JDA further objects to the inclusion of 0.1 hours ($43.50) for internal discussions with legal assistants regarding the filing of a pleading. 05/20/2013 $135.00 1.5 $202.50 Prepare shell for Joint Proposed Case Management Plan; JDA objects to the inclusion of prepare shell for Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement. administrative/clerical entries (here 1.5 hours, or $202.50), which should be considered part of firm overhead.
05/28/2013 $435.00 2.5 $1,087.50 review pleadings and complete preliminary draft of Joint JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of Proposed Case Management Plan (2.5) pleadings should have been performed by paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 2.5 hours billed by the senior partner for drafting a joint proposed case management plan, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 05/29/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Email communication to attorney for defendant regarding Rule 26(f) meeting with attachment (.2) 05/30/2013 $435.00 0.9 $391.50 Email communication with attorney for defendant regarding rule JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of 26(f) meeting (.2); Begin drafting Initial Disclosures (.7) discovery should have been drafted by paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction of at least 1/3 from the 0.7 hours billed for drafting initial disclosures in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 06/07/2013 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Review emails from opposing counsel and respond; instruct JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries assistant re filing Rule 26 report (here, 0.2 hours, or $59.00) related to giving clerical instructions to administrative staff, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/12/2013 $435.00 1.2 $522.00 Attend Rule 26(f) meeting (.9); review and revise draft of joint proposed case management plan (.3) 06/21/2013 $135.00 1 $135.00 Prepare shell for Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's First Set JDA objects to the inclusion of of Interrogatories. administrative/clerical entries (here 1.0 hours, or $135.00), which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/24/2013 $135.00 1.8 $243.00 Prepare shell for Plaintiff's response to Defendant's First Set of JDA objects to the inclusion of Request for Admissions and Request for Production; prepare administrative/clerical entries (here, 1.8 hours, shell for Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant and or $243.00), which should be considered part of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production. firm overhead.
06/25/2013 $435.00 3 $1,305.00 preparation for and attendance at rule 16 Scheduling JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of Conference (1.5); continue drafting and organizing Initial discovery should have been drafted by Disclosures and related documents (1.2); Email communication paralegals or the associate(s) on the case with attorney for defendant regarding error in Scheduling Order rather than the senior partner, warranting at and instructions to legal assistant to contact court (.3) least a 1/3 deduction from the 1.2 hours billed for drafting initial disclosures, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 06/26/2013 $435.00 2.4 $1,044.00 review Revised Scheduling Order (.1); continue drafting and JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of revising Initial Disclosure and organizing documents for discovery should have been drafted by production (2.3) paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 2.3 hours billed for drafting and revising initial disclosures and organizing documents for production, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 06/27/2013 $435.00 4.2 $1,827.00 review documents from client, organize and assemble for Initial JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of Disclosures (3.0); identify and draft witness list for including in discovery should have been drafted by the Initial Disclosures (1.2) associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction from the 4.2 hours billed (or $1,827.00) for drafting and revising initial disclosures and organizing documents for production in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 06/27/2013 $135.00 0.7 $94.50 Bates label documents and CDs to be produced with Plaintiff's JDA objects to the inclusion of Initial Disclosure Statement; review same for redactions. administrative/clerical entries (here, 0.7 hours, or $94.50), which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/28/2013 $435.00 2.8 $1,218.00 continue drafting, revising and finalizing Initial JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of Disclosure and organizing documents to produce with discovery should have been drafted by disclosure (2.8) paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 2.8 hours billed ($1,218.00) for drafting and revising initial disclosures and organizing documents for production in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment.
06/28/2013 $135.00 2.3 $310.50 Scan and Bates label documents; review same for redactions; JDA objects to the inclusion of prepare Notice of Service of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure administrative/clerical entries (here, 2.3 hours, Statement and file same with the Court. or $310.50), which should be considered part of firm overhead. 07/03/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Email communication to and from attorney for defendants JDA objects to the inclusion of time (0.2 hours, regarding extending time to respond to discovery (.2) or $87.00) for a courtesy request by Plaintiff to extend the deadline for her responses to discovery, as the entry was not for substantive legal work and was to her and her counsel's benefit. 07/12/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 Email communications with attorneys for defendant regarding JDA objects to the inclusion of time (0.5 hours, discovery responses (.2); draft, revise and finalize stipulation or $217.50) for a courtesy request by Plaintiff and form of order for extension of time to respond to discovery to extend the deadline for her responses to (.3) discovery, as the entry was not for substantive legal work and was to her and her counsel's benefit. 07/17/2013 $435.00 2 $870.00 review documents and drafting and revising responses to JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of interrogatories, requests to admit and requests for production discovery should have been drafted by the of documents (2.0) associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction from the 2.0 hours billed for drafting initial respones to written discovery in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 07/22/2013 $435.00 7.8 $3,393.00 continue review of all documents from client and identify those JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of responsive to discovery requests (2.0); telephone conference discovery should have been performed by with client to discuss discovery responses (.8); drafting and paralegals or the associate(s) on the case revising responses to defendant' requests to admit, requests rather than the senior partner, warranting at for production and interrogatories (5.0) least a 1/3 deduction from the 7.0 hours billed ($3,045.00) for drafting initial respones to written discovery, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment.
07/23/2013 $435.00 4.8 $2,088.00 continue review, revise and finalizing responses to defendant' JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of requests to admit, requests for production and interrogatories discovery should have been drafted by and final review of documents for disclosure (4.0); draft, revise paralegals or the associate(s) on the case and finalize privilege log (.5); cover letter to attorney for rather than the senior partner, warranting a defendant (.3) deduction from the 4.5 hours billed ($1,957.50) for drafting initial respones to written discovery and a privilege log, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. JDA further submits that the 0.3 hours (or $130.50) for drafting non-substantive transmittal correspondence should be considered administrative costs that are part of firm overhead. 07/23/2013 $135.00 3.9 $526.50 Scan and Bates label documents to be produced with Plaintiff's JDA objects to the inclusion of discovery responses; work on Plaintiff's Response to administrative/clerical entries (here 3.9 hours, Defendant's First Set of Request for Admissions, Defendant's or $526.50), which should be considered part of First Set of Interrogatories, and Defendant's First Set of firm overhead. Requests for Production; prepare Plaintiff's Privilege Log; prepare Notice of Service and file same with the Court. 07/29/2013 $435.00 0.9 $391.50 Email communications to and from attorney for defendant (.1); telephone conference with client regarding deposition (.3); review defendant's initial disclosures (.5) 07/30/2013 $435.00 4.6 $2,001.00 continue review of documents from client and defendant's initial JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of disclosures (1.1); draft and revise interrogatories and requests discovery should have been drafted by for production of documents (3.5) paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 3.5 hours billed $1,522.50) for drafting written discovery, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 08/02/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Email communications to and from client and attorney for defendant regarding discovery matters (.3) 08/05/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 Email communication to and from client regarding document production (.4) 08/07/2013 $435.00 1 $435.00 Study letter from Defendant regarding discovery dispute and review plaintiff's discovery responses (.8); follow up Email communication to client (.2)
08/08/2013 $435.00 0.8 $348.00 Revise and finalize Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of requests to produce (.3); lengthy telephone conference with discovery should have been drafted by client regarding discovery (.5) paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 0.3 hours billed ($130.50) for drafting written discovery, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 08/08/2013 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare Notice of Service for Plaintiff's First Requests for JDA objects to the inclusion of Production and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories; file same administrative/clerical entries (here, 0.1 hours, with the Clerk of the Court. or $13.50), which should be considered part of firm overhead. 08/13/2013 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Preparation for and meet and confer with Defendants' counsel JDA objects to the duplicate billing of an re Plaintiff's responses to discovery requests associate (1.5 hours, or $42.50) who accompanied a partner to a discovery meetand-confer meeting for observation and/or training purposes. 08/13/2013 $435.00 2.8 $1,218.00 Meet and confer with Attorney for Defendant to discuss JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of plaintiff's objections and responses to discovery responses supplemental discovery responses should have (1.1); follow up Email communication and telephone been drafted by paralegals or the associate(s) conference with client (.3); begin drafting supplemental on the case rather than the senior partner, responses (1.4) warranting at least a 1/3 deduction from the 1.4 hours billed ($609.00) for supplementing written discovery responses, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 08/14/2013 $295.00 1 $295.00 Phone conference with client re responses to discovery requests 08/14/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 Email communication from attorney for defendant regarding JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries discovery of medical information (.1); telephone conference (here, 0.5 hours, or $217.50) related to with client regarding medical and financial discovery (.4) Plaintiff's eventually-abandoned claims for emotional distress damages with respect to which JDA sought medical information, as those categories of damages were not only eventually abandoned but related only to the Title VII claims on which JDA fully prevailed.
08/15/2013 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Discuss protective order with Attorney Bonnett and review The proposed protective order discussed here correspondence re the same related to information regarding Plaintiff's later-abandoned claims for emotional distress damages related to her ultimately unsuccessful Title VII claim. Plaintiff abandoned this claim for damages rather than provide the information, rendering the time spent drafting, reviewing, negotiating, and discussing a protective order moot. Indeed, the Court did not enter a protective order. 08/15/2013 $435.00 1.6 $696.00 Email communications with client (.3); draft and revise The proposed protective order discussed here stipulation for confidentiality and proposed protective order related to information regarding Plaintiff's laterabandoned (1.0); Email communication to attorney for defendant claims for emotional distress responding to prior email and attaching proposed protective damages related to her ultimately unsuccessful order and stipulation (.3) Title VII claim. Plaintiff abandoned this claim for damages rather than provide the information, rendering the time spent drafting, reviewing, negotiating, and discussing a protective order moot. Indeed, the Court did not enter a protective order. 08/16/2013 $435.00 0.7 $304.50 Email communications to and from attorneys for defendant The proposed protective order discussed here regarding proposed protective order and revisions to same (.7) related to information regarding Plaintiff's later-abandoned claims for emotional distress damages related to her ultimately unsuccessful Title VII claim. Plaintiff abandoned this claim for damages rather than provide the information, rendering the time spent drafting, reviewing, negotiating, and discussing a protective order moot. Indeed, the Court did not enter a protective order. 08/17/2013 $435.00 5.1 $2,218.50 review additional documents from client (1.2); meeting with client to prepare for deposition (3.5); Email communication to attorney for defendant (.4)
08/19/2013 $435.00 5 $2,175.00 Email communication and telephone conference with client (.4); JDA respectfully submits that initial document continue review of additional documents and ESI form client on review should have been performed by 8/17/13 (3.8); review and revise draft of revised supplemental paralegals or the associate(s) on the case responses to interrogatories and requests to admit (.8) rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction of at least 1/3 from the 3.8 hours (or $1,653.00) billed for this task, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 08/19/2013 $295.00 3 $885.00 Review and revise client's narrative for disclosure with JDA objects to the inclusion of Interrogatories (1.5); review and revise supplemental administrative/clerical entries, which should be Interrogatories (.5); review and revise notice of service (.2); considered part of firm overhead, such as the review and revise supplemental disclosure (.3); coordinate with 0.5 hours billed for coordinating finalization of Attorney Bonnett and Assistant re finalizing documents and documents and responses with a legal response for disclosure to Defendants (.5) assistant and the 0.2 hours billed for reviewing a notice of service. 08/19/2013 $135.00 1.8 $243.00 Work on Plaintiff's Revised and Supplemental Responses to JDA objects to the inclusion of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of administrative/clerical entries, which should be Requests for Admission; prepare Notice of Service regarding considered part of firm overhead. same and file with the Clerk of the Court; Bates label documents to be produced; prepare Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement; prepare Notice of Service re same and file with the Clerk of the Court. 08/20/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 draft supplemental disclosure statement and coordinate JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of disclosure of additional information from client (.9); Email supplemental discovery should have been communications with client and attorney for defendant drafted by paralegals or the associate(s) on the regarding same (.4) case rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction of at least 1/3 from the 0.9 hours billed ($391.50) for drafting a supplemental disclosure statement, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 08/20/2013 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Review supplemental response to Requests for Production 08/20/2013 $135.00 1 $135.00 Prepare Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement; JDA objects to the inclusion of Bates label and prepare documents to be produced; prepare administrative/clerical entries, which should be Notice of Service re same and file with the Clerk of the Court. considered part of firm overhead.
08/21/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 telephone conference with client to discuss deposition and related discovery matters (.5); Emails communication with attorney for defendant to discuss discovery issues relating to Plaintiff's deposition (.4); further review and revise supplemental answers to interrogatories and requests to produce (.4) 08/22/2013 $435.00 1 $435.00 lengthy telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding plaintiff's deposition (.4); Email communication and telephone conference with client (.4); follow up Email communication with attorney for defendant (.2) 08/29/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding document production (.4); Email communication and telephone conference with client (.2) 08/30/2013 $435.00 1.2 $522.00 study letter from Defendant's attorney and related Email communication and telephone conference with client (.5); draft letter in response (.5); telephone call to attorney for defendant (.2) 09/03/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 review and revise draft of letter to attorney for defendant regarding issues raised by 8/30/13 letter (.5); lengthy telephone conference with client regarding document production, 8/30 letter and deposition preparation (.8) 09/04/2013 $435.00 2.6 $1,131.00 telephone conference with client to discuss status and final deposition preparation (1.0); further review and revise draft letter to attorney for defendant (.6); study documents from client (1.0) 09/05/2013 $435.00 2.4 $1,044.00 complete review of additional documents hand delivered by JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of client (1.5); draft, revise and finalize supplemental disclosure supplemental discovery should have been statement (.5); telephone conference with client (.4) drafted by paralegals or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting a deduction of at least 1/3 from the 0.5 hours billed ($217.50) for drafting a supplemental disclosure statement, in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 09/05/2013 $135.00 0.8 $108.00 Scan and Bates label documents to be produced; prepare draft JDA objects to the inclusion of of Plaintiff's Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement; prepare administrative/clerical entries, which should be Notice of Service re same and file with the Court. considered part of firm overhead.
09/06/2013 $435.00 9 $3,915.00 Meeting with client (1.0); attend Plaintiff's deposition (8.0) Charge partially adjusted. -3 $1,305.00 Adjust to 6.0 hours Please note correction to original (Doc 184-3, page 5) submitted minus $870.00 (representing 2 hour, when it should have been minus 3 hours — $1305.00) 09/06/2013 $135.00 0.2 $27.00 Stan and Elates label documents to be produced; prepare draft JDA objects he inclusion of of Plaintiff's Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement, administrative/clerical entries, which should be prepare Notice of Service regarding same and file with the considered part of firm overhead. Court 09/09/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 Email communications to and from attorney for defendant JDA objects to the inclusion of charges related regarding Plaintiff's deposition (.2); review joint case to Plaintiff's refusal to agree to a brief, management plan (.1); telephone conference with client (.1) reasonable extension on the 7-hour presumptive deposition time limit when hers was the principal deposition taken by JDA (one of only two), thereby necessitating motion practice and a resumption of her deposition on a subsequent day. 09/10/2013 $435.00 0.7 $304.50 telephonic meet and confer with attorney for defendant JDA objects to the inclusion of charges related concerning discovery depute and follow up call to court to to Plaintiff's refusal to agree to a brief, schedule hearing ( 5), Email communication to client (.2) reasonable extension on the 7-haur presumptive deposition timelimit when hers was the principal deposition taken by JDA (one of only two), thereby necessitating motion practice and a resumption of her deposition on a subsequent day. 09/11/2013 $435.00 1.7 $739.50 review deposition notes amended complaint and written JDA objects to the inclusion of charges related discovery responses in preparation for telephonic hearing with to Plaintiff's refusal to agree to a brief, court on discovery (.9); telephone conference with court on reasonable extension on the 7-hour discovery/deposition dispute (.4); telephone conference with deposition limit when hers was attorney for defendant (.1); Email communications to and from the principal deposition taken by JDA, thereby client with status update (.3) necessitating motion practice and a resumption of her deposition on a subsequent clay. 09/17/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 review plaintiff's deposition transcript and exhibits (.8), begin review of documents produced to date from Defendant ( 5) 09/19/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 draft revise and finalize letter to attorney for defendant with additional disclosure of information (.4)
09/24/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 review documents produced by defendants (1.0) Email communication to client (.3) 09/26/2013 $435.00 2.7 $1,174.50 travel to and front and attendance at continued deposition of JDA objects to the inclusion of charges related Plaintiff (2.5). Emil communication to client (.2) to Plaintiff's refusal to agree to a beef. reasonable extension on the 7-hour presumptive deposition limit when hers was the principal deposition taken by JDA (one of only two), necessitating motion practice and a resumption of her deposition on a subsequent day As the Court permitted an additional 90 minutes of deposition lore, the charges should be reduced by 1.2 hours, or $522 10/03/2013 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Review and revise email to client re review of deposition transcript 10/14/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 Study 10/10 letter from attorney for defendant (.4); Email communications to and from client regarding same (.2) 10/15/2013 $435.00 1 $435.00 telephone conferences with client and attorney far defendant As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation regarding passible mediaton (.5); Email communications with shortly attar d began without participating in the possible mediator, demand attorney far defendant (.5) process in good faith JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 10/16/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 study Email communication from client (.1); follow up Email As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated ewe mediation communications and telephone conference with client and shortly after d began without participating in the attorney for defendant regarding possible mediation (.3) process in good faith JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 10/31/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 review errata sheet from client on deposition #2 (.1), JDA objects to the inclusion of instructions to legal assistant (.1) administrative/clerical entries winch should be considered part of Inn overhead, such as 0.1 laded ($43.50) for internal communications with administrative staff. 11/04/2013 $295.00 1 $0.00 Review and OCR all of Defendants' discovery responses, so JDA objects to he inclusion of they are in searchable format administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead, At a minimum, the charge should be reduced to a paralegal rate, and nut charged at an associate's rate.
11/04/2013 $295.00 2 $590.00 Review and analyze Defendants' responses to discovery requests 11/04/2013 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Send emails to client re discovery responses; draft letter re the same 11/04/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Draft additional discovery requests based upon Defendants' discovery responses 11/04/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Draft letter to Defendants' counsel re Defendants' responses to discovery requests 11/04/2013 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Review and annotate and highlight documents produced by JDA objects to the inclusion of Defendants administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. At a minimum, the charge should be reduced to a paralegal rate, and not charged at an associate's rate. 11/04/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 conference with Atty M. Bracken regarding documents produced by defendant and related discovery responses (.5) 11/05/2013 $295.00 3 $885.00 Review Defendants' responses to discovery requests, draft additional discovery requests and letter re the same 11/05/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 continue documents from defendant (.6) Charge adjusted. -0.6 -$261.00 Adjustment — continue documents from defendant (.6) 11/06/2013 $295.00 7 $2,065.00 Review documents produced by Defendants; highlight and JDA objects to the inclusion of annotate relevant documents; create timeline of events with administrative/clerical entries, which should be references to relevant documents considered part of firm overhead. At a minimum, the charge should be reduced to a paralegal rate, and not charged at an associate's rate. 11/06/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Draft letter to Defendants' counsel re discovery responses 11/06/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 conference with Atty M. Bracken to review select documents produced by Defendant (.5) 11/07/2013 $295.00 1 $295.00 Review and revise letter to Defendants' attorneys re discovery responses; requests for admission and requests for production and print for Attorney Bonnett's review 11/07/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 conference with Atty M. Bracken to discuss defendant's discovery responses (.4)
1/07/2013 $135.00 0.8 $108.00 Work on Plaintiff's Second Request for Production and JDA objects to the inclusion of Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions; prepare Notice of administrative/clerical entries, which should be Service regarding discovery requests. considered part of firm overhead. 11/08/2013 $435.00 1.2 $522.00 telephone call to attorney for defendant and leave message (.1); review and revise draft letter to attorney for defendant (.4); review and revise draft of first set of requests for admissions and second set of requests for production (.7) 11/11/2013 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Follow up with client re review of documents and access to ADP salary info 11/11/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 Email communications with attorney for defendant and client As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation regarding scheduling mediation and related issues (.4) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/13/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 follow up communications with client to schedule mediation (.4) As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/14/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 Email communication to client regarding scheduling As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation mediation(.1); begin formulating issues for Rule 30(b)(6) shortly after it began without participating in the deposition to send notice pre-mediation (1.2) process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation (here, 0.1, or $43.50) should be substantially discounted.
11/15/2013 $435.00 1.2 $522.00 Email communications follow up with client and attorney for As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation defendant to set explore alternate mediation dates (.2); shortly after it began without participating in the telephone contacts for possible expert witness on software process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits account sales (.6); legal research on recent 7th Circuit decision that the fees and costs associated with on similarly situated employees(.4) mediation (here, 0.2, or $87.00) should be substantially discounted. JDA further objects to charges related to an expert witness that was never designated (0.6, or $261), and to legal research apparently related to Plaintiff's unsuccessful Title VII and/or Equal Pay Act claims (.4, or $174). 11/18/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Email communications with attorney for defendant and As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation mediator regarding scheduling (.3) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/19/2013 $435.00 0.9 $391.50 telephone conference and Email communications with mediator As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation and attorney for defendant regarding scheduling of mediation shortly after it began without participating in the (.2); Begin formulating outline for use in drafting mediation process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits position statement (.7) that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/21/2013 $435.00 1.5 $652.50 continue formulating issues for mediation position statement As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation and related legal research (1.5) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/25/2013 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Review correspondence re mediation As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted.
11/26/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Phone conference re mediation As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 11/26/2013 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Follow up call to Rosenfeld; review 11/8 email re discovery JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries issues related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format with its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 12/02/2013 $435.00 0.6 $261.00 conference with Attorney Mark Bracken regarding mediation As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation and discuss strategy (.5); telephone conference and follow up shortly after it began without participating in the Email communication with attorney for defendant regarding process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits same (.1) that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/03/2013 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 review mail communication from client regarding settlement As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation strategy and update handling plan (.2) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/05/2013 $435.00 0.5 $217.50 study additional documents produced by defendant (.5) 12/07/2013 $435.00 1.3 $565.50 lengthy telephone conference with client regarding damages As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation calculations and mediation strategy (.8); rework calculations shortly after it began without participating in the (.5) process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/08/2013 $435.00 0.4 $174.00 Email communication to client regarding mediation strategy (.4) As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted.
12/09/2013 $435.00 2 $870.00 study Email communication from client regarding damages As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation recalculations on economic loss number and cross-check shortly after it began without participating in the same (.3); telephone conference with attorney for defendant process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits regarding mediation issues (.2); draft, revise and finalize Email that the fees and costs associated with communication to attorney for defendant with current mediation (here, 0.2, or $87.00) should be settlement demand (.5); review 12/5/13 letter from defendant substantially discounted. Furthermore JDA responding to discovery issues (.3); beginning drafting objects to the inclusion of time entries related to response letter (.7) Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata (here, 1.0, or $435), as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 12/11/2013 $435.00 3.4 $1,479.00 continue drafting lengthy letter to attorney for defendant JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries regarding open discovery disputes and related legal research related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive regarding supporting authority (3.4) categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 12/11/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Search disclosed documents for correspondence showing JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries Defendants' aware of poss ble litigation well in advance of filing related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive EEOC charge categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata (here, a claim related to Plaintiff's ultimately-abandoned claim of evidence spoliation), as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests, and as Plaintiff never pursued her spoliation theory.
12/11/2013 $295.00 2 $590.00 Begin initial draft of Mediation Memorandum and Confidential As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation Mediation Memorandum; review Complaint and Isom's shortly after it began without participating in the response to Company's position statement and timeline of process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits events that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/12/2013 $435.00 4.5 $1,957.50 Continue drafting and revising lengthy letter responding to JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries Defendant's 12/5/13 letter regarding ongoing discovery dispute related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive or ESI production (3.5); update related legal research for categories of electronically stored information in supporting statements in letter (1.0) native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 12/12/2013 $295.00 2 $590.00 Search for and review relevant documents and legal research As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation to support client's position for mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/12/2013 $295.00 1 $295.00 Draft mediation memorandum As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/13/2013 $295.00 0.4 $118.00 Review, revise and finalize Confidential Mediation Memo As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted.
12/13/2013 $295.00 2 $590.00 Search for, identify and print supporting documents for As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation mediation review and update timeline accordingly shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. Additionally, JDA respectfully submits that administrative work should be billed at a paralegal's time at most, and not charge at an associate's rate. 12/13/2013 $295.00 1 $295.00 Draft and revise mediation memorandum finalize memoranda As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation and provide instructions to assistant re emailing to mediator shortly after it began without participating in the and Defendants' counsel process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/13/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Legal research re equal pay act claims for similar cases and cases discussing inequitable assignment of duties or allocation of sales accounts affecting wages (.5) -0.5 -$147.50 Adjustment — Legal research re equal pay act claims for similar cases and cases discussing inequitable assignment of duties or allocation of sales accounts affecting wages (.5) 12/13/2013 $435.00 5 $2,175.00 draft revise and finalize mediation memorandum and Charge adjusted. confidential mediation statements, related research and assemble exhibits (5.0) -5 -$2,175.00 Adjustment — draft revise and finalize mediation memorandum and confidential mediation statements, related research and assemble exhibits (5.0) 12/16/2013 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Email communications with client regarding mediation issues As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation (.3) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/17/2013 $435.00 0.1 $435.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant (.1)
12/18/2013 $435.00 4.5 $1,957.50 review mediations statements, exhibits and related document As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation production in preparation for mediation (3.5); conference with shortly after it began without participating in the Attorney Mark Bracken regarding mediation strategy (.7); study process in good faith JDA respectfully submits Email communications from client regarding mediation issues that the fees and costs associated with and strategy (.3) mediation should be substantially discounted. 12/18/2013 $295.00 5.5 $1,622.50 Prepare to mediation: review and revise timeline of events, Charge adjusted. insert Defendants' ex numbers and identify print and highlight communications that Defendants excluded; review and analyze Defendants' mediation memo (5.5) -5.5 -$1,622.50 Adjustment — Prepare to mediation review and revise timeline of events, insert Defendants' ex numbers and identify, print and highlight communications that Defendants excluded review and analyze Defendants' mediation memo (5.5) 12/18/2013 $135.00 1 $135.00 Work on preparation of mediation notebook. As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. In addition, JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical tasks that should be part of firm overhead. 12/19/2013 $435.00 5 $2,175.00 Meeting with client (.5); attend mediation with client and As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation Attorney Mark Bracken (4.5) shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted.
12/19/2013 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Prepare for mediation with JDA As Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the mediation shortly after it began without participating in the process in good faith, JDA respectfully submits that the fees and costs associated with mediation should be substantially discounted. Moreover, this entry represents duplicate billing by an associate for mediation conducted almost exclusively by the senior partner which the associate observed for training purposes. 12/19/2013 $295.00 4.5 $1,327.50 Participate in mediation; review and analyze relevant legal Charge adjusted. authority; legal research re similar cases and review relevant emails 4.5 $1,327.50 Adjustment — Participate in mediation; review and analyze relevant legal authority; legal research re similar cases and review relevant emails 12/19/2013 $295.00 1 $295.00 Discuss and plan additional discovery with client and Attorney Bonnett 12/26/2013 $135.00 0.3 $40.50 Prepare shell for Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 12/31/2013 $295.00 2 $590.00 Draft, review and revise 2nd Requests for Production (1.2); review mediation notes, outline and documents to help draft requests (.3); discuss with Attorney Bonnett (.2); draft and send email to client with draft of RFP (.3);
01/07/2014 $475.00 3.5 $1,662.50 extensive legal research on discovery issues relating to undue JDA respectfully submits that legal research burden, confidentiality and production of ESI (3.0); drafting and memorandum should have been performed research memo (.5) by a paralegal or the associate(s) on the case rather than the senior partner, warranting at least a 1/3 discount, in the exercise of billing judgment. Moreover, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 01/07/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review emails from client re revisions to requests for JDA objects to duplicate billing by the production; review and revise requests for production; call and attendance of two attorneys at a discovery email client re questions re revisions meet-and-confer meeting (see row 163). 01/09/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Meeting with Defendants' counsel re discovery issues Moreover, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 01/09/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Preparation for meeting with Defendants' counsel, review JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries correspondence re issues to be discussed and discuss related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive strategy with Attorney Bonnett categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests.
01/09/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Email with client re discussion re discovery requests JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 01/09/2014 $475.00 2 $950.00 Attend meeting with Attorney Mark Bracken and attorney for JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries defendant to discuss discovery issues and ESI production related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive (1.0); follow up email to attorney for defendant (.3); lengthy categories of electronically stored information in telephone conference with consulting expert (.7) native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 01/10/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 Email communications to and from attorney for defendant JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries regarding meet and confer on defendants' responses to related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive plaintiff's discovery requests (.4) categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 01/13/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Phone call with client re revisions to 2nd request for production; email latest draft to client to review 01/13/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 review preliminary draft of second set of discovery requests to defendant (.3) 01/30/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 further review and revise draft of plaintiff's second set of requests for production (.4); conference with Attorney Mark Bracken regarding same (.1) 02/03/2014 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Review and revise and finalize Pltf's 2nd Set of Requests for JDA objects to the inclusion of Production; review and approve filing of Notice of service of administrative/clerical entries, which should be the same considered part of firm overhead, such as the portion of time spent approving the filing of a notice of service (duration unknown, due to block billing).
02/03/2014 $475.00 0.8 $380.00 conference with Attorney Mark Bracken to discuss additional discovery (.3); review and revise draft of second request for production (.5) 02/03/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare Notice of Service for Plaintiff's Second Request for JDA objects to the inclusion of Production and file same with the Court. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 02/07/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Review email from Defendants' counsel re service of subpoena on employer; discuss with D Bonnett and send email in response asking to wait to serve until have an opportunity to discuss 02/07/2014 $295.00 0.1 $0.00 Email copy of subpoena to client to review JDA objects to the inclusion of Clerical administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 02/07/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 study subpoena duces tecum to SAP and follow up discussion with Attorney Mark Bracken regarding same (.3) 02/10/2014 $475.00 1.4 $665.00 Email communications and telephone conferences with client regarding subpoena directed to SAP (.5); lengthy telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding subpoena directed to SAP and followup related Email communications(.9) 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Review emails re subpoena to current employer and discuss with Attorney Bonnett 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Email to Defendants' attorney re meet and confer re objections to subpoena to employer 02/10/2014 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Legal research regarding Rule 45, Rule 26 and Court's orders JDA objects to time entries related to re discovery and subpoenas to third parties fundamental legal issues, such as this one related to the scope of third-party discovery, as such basic information is presumed to be held by attorneys and not required by any unique issue presented in this case. 02/10/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Draft motion to quash and for protective order to prevent JDA objects to a time entry spent preparing two service of subpoena on current employer motions that were never filed. 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Review email from Mr. Rosenfeld notifying that Defendants have already served employer and discuss with Attorney Bonnett
02/10/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Legal research regarding Rule 45 and Defendants failure to JDA objects to time entries related to meet and confer prior to service, after receiving email from fundamental legal issues, such as this one Defendants counsel re "early morning" service related to the scope of third-party discovery, as such basic information is presumed to be held by attorneys and not required by any unique issue presented in this case. 02/10/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Review and revise motion for protective order and to quash JDA objects to a time entry spent preparing or subpoena revising two motions that were never filed. 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.4 $118.00 Phone conference with Defendants' counsel re service of subpoena on client's current employer 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Phone call with client re service on current employer 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Follow up phone call to client notifying her that service has already been made 02/10/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Legal research regarding Arizona district court and 9th Circuit JDA objects to time entries related to cases involving Rule 45 fundamental legal issues, such as this one related to the scope of third-party discovery, as such basic information is presumed to be held by attorneys and not required by any unique issue presented in this case. 02/11/2014 $475.00 0.8 $380.00 review and revise draft letter/emails to SAP's attorney regarding subpoena duces tecum (.4); review and revise draft email to attorney for defendant regarding SAP subpoena issues (.3); study Email communication from SAP's general counsel (.1) 02/12/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 Email communications with client and asst' gen counsel at SAP regarding defendants' subpoena duces tecum (.4) 02/13/2014 $475.00 1.6 $760.00 further review of nonparty subpoena to SAP America (.2); draft and revise letter setting forth objections to subpoena (1.0); conference with Attorney Mark Bracken regarding same (.2); further Revise and finalize letter (.2) 02/13/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review letter to Defendants' counsel re objections to subpoena and email copy to client to review 02/14/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 telephone conference with Attorney Mark Bracken and client to discuss SAP subpoena (.3); Revise and finalize letter to attorneys for defendant (.1)
02/18/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 Email communication from ass't general counsel at SAP regarding subpoena (.1); respond to same (.1) 02/19/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Email to client re leaving firm Charge adjusted. -0.1 -$29.50 Adjustment — Email to client re leaving firm 02/20/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 Email communications to and from ass't general counsel at SAP regarding subpoena (.2) 02/21/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Review letter re subpoena to employer and forward to client to review 02/21/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 study lengthy letter from attorney for defendant regarding objections to SAP subpoena (.4) 02/22/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 REDACTED Charge adjusted. -0.3 -$142.50 Adjustment 02/24/2014 $475.00 1.3 $617.50 telephone conference with asst general counsel regarding SAP subpoena and response (.1); further study of letter from attorney for defendant regarding SAP subpoena and plaintiff's objections (.5); legal research and begin formulating response (.7) 02/25/2014 $475.00 0.9 $427.50 further study and analysis of letter from attorney for defendants dated 2/21/14 and related follow up Email communications (.7); Email communication with client regarding status (.2) 02/26/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Review and approve filing of notice of withdrawal Charge adjusted. -0.1 -$29.50 Adjustment — Review and approve filing of notice of withdrawal 02/27/2014 $475.00 3.8 $1,805.00 Email communication to and from client (.2); conference with JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries Attorney Mark Bracken regarding SAP subpoena and related (here, 2.2, or $1,045) related to Plaintiff's issues (.4); lengthy telephone conference with attorneys for demand for extensive categories of defendant regarding SAP subpoena (.8); review and revise electronically stored information in native draft email to SAP attorney regarding subpoena (.2); continue format and its accompanying metadata, as the drafting and revising lengthy letter to attorneys for defendant Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and regarding outstanding discovery disputes over responses to sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth plaintiff's written discovery requests (1.0); related legal and undue burden of such requests. research on issues regarding ESI production (1.2)
02/28/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Identify emails that Plaintiff needs metadata from and create JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries list to send to Attorney Bonnett related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 02/28/2014 $475.00 0.8 $380.00 continue review and revise draft letter to attorney for defendant JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries regarding discovery dispute issues (.8) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 03/02/2014 $475.00 3.1 $1,472.50 continue drafting and revising letter to attorney for defendant As Plaintiff adjusted charges below (see Rows regarding open discovery disputes on plaintiff's interrogatories 209-213) for her preparation of subpoenae and requests to produce (1.3); review documents produced to duces tecum to third parties, and did not date by defendant and formulate subjects and topics for third introduce as trial exhibits any documents party subpoenas and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions (1.8) responsive to such requests, JDA objects to the 1.8 hours billed ($855.00) for preparation of those subpoenae. JDA further objects to the inclusion of time entries (here, 1.3, or $617.50) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests.
03/03/2014 $475.00 2.5 $1,187.50 complete drafting and further review, revise and finalize lengthy JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries letter to attorney for defendant regarding pending discovery (here, 1.2 hours, or $570.00) related to issues regarding defendant's responses to plaintiff's written Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of discovery requests (1.2); continue analysis and outlining topics electronically stored information in native for 30b6 deposition (.8); formulating document requests for format and its accompanying metadata, as the subpoenas to non-parties (.5) Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. Furthermore, as Plaintiff adjusted charges below (see Rows 209-213) for her preparation of subpoenae duces tecum to third parties, and did not introduce as trial exhibits any documents responsive to such requests, JDA objects to the 1.3 hours billed ($617.50) for preparation of those subpoenae. 03/06/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries pending discovery issues (.3); follow up Email communication (here, 0.3, or $142.50) related to Plaintiff's from attorney for defendant and instruction to legal assistant demand for extensive categories of for calendaring (.1) electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. JDA further objects to 0.1 hours billed ($47.50) for internal communications with administrative staff. 03/17/2014 $125.00 1.3 $162.50 Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, Charge adjusted. affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Sears Holding Corporation. -1.3 -$162.50 Adjustment-Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Sears Holding Corporation. 03/17/2014 $125.00 0.8 $100.00 Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, Charge adjusted. affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Discount Tire.
-0.8 -$100.00 Adjustment-Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Discount Tire. 03/17/2014 $125.00 0.9 $112.50 Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, Charge adjusted. affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Restoration Hardware. -0.9 -$112.50 Adjustment-Prepare subpoena duces tecum, request for production, affidavit of custodian of records, and correspondence to obtain records from Restoration Hardware. 03/18/2014 $295.00 2.2 $649.00 receipt and review of Defendant's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement; Review of discovery from SAP referenced therein; 03/19/2014 $125.00 0.3 $37.50 Update notice of 30(b)(6) deposition for JDA Software, Inc. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 03/20/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Revise notice of 30(b)(6) deposition for JDA Software, Inc. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 03/21/2014 $295.00 2.5 $737.50 Revise subpoena duces tecum for Sears Holding Company; Charge adjusted. research corporate structure of Sears entities; review of authorities to whether service of Sears Canada, Inc., is feasible. -2.5 -$737.50 Adjustment-Revise subpoena duces tecum for Sears Holding Company; research corporate structure of Sears entities; review of authorities to whether service of Sears Canada, Inc., is feasible. 03/24/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare Notice of Appearance of Ravi Patel. Charge adjusted. -0.2 -$25.00 Adjustment-Prepare Notice of Appearance of Ravi Patel. 03/25/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 File Notice of Appearance of Ravi Patel. Charge adjusted. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment-File Notice of Appearance of Ravi Patel. 03/25/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review and revise draft 30(b)(6) deposition notice for JDA. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
04/02/2014 $295.00 0.7 $206.50 Review of authorities on subpoenas to out of state non-parties Charge adjusted. under revised Rule 45 (.5), Verify agent for service of process for Sears Holding Company in Illinois (.2); -0.7 -$206.50 Adjustment-Review of authorities on subpoenas to out of state non-parties under revised Rule 45 (.5); Verify agent for service of process for Sears Holding Company in Illinois (.2); 04/02/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 conference with Atty Patel and legal assistant update handling JDA objects to this charge related to the plan for remaining discovery (.2) transition of a new associate onto the case to replace a departing associate. Such transition costs should be borne as part of firm overhead expenses. 04/07/2014 $475.00 1.1 $522.50 review and revise draft of subpoena duces tecum to Sears (.5); Charge adjusted. review and revise draft of Rule 30b6 notice to JDA (.5); conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.1) -1.1 -$522.50 Adjustment-review and revise draft of subpoena duces tecum to Sears (.5); review and revise draft of Rule 30b6 notice to JDA (.5); conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.1) 04/08/2014 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Revise JDA 30(b)(6) notice and Sears third party subpoena Charge adjusted. duces tecum (0.5); review JDA discovery/Isom depos for additional key players to be identified in subpoena and notice (1.0); -1.5 -$442.50 Adjustment-Revise JDA 30(b)(6) notice and Sears third party subpoena duces tecum (0.5); review JDA discovery/Isom depos for additional key players to be identified in subpoena and notice (1.0); 04/09/2014 $295.00 3.8 $1,121.00 Perform addition revision to subpoena duces tecum for Sears As Plaintiff adjusted charges above (see Rows and continue to review written discovery for additional 209-213) for her preparation of subpoenae participants in JDA/Sears sales and negotiations (3.8); duces tecum to third parties, none of which she introduced as trial exhibits, JDA objects to the 3.8 hours billed ($1,121.00) for preparation of those subpoenae. 04/10/2014 $475.00 1.6 $760.00 review and revise draft of Rule 30b6 notice (.7); review and Charge adjusted. revise draft of subpoena duces tecum and request for production of documents to Sears (.6); conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.3)
-1.6 -$760.00 Adjustment-review and revise draft of Rule 30b6 notice (.7); review and revise draft of subpoena duces tecum and request for production of documents to Sears (.6); conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.3) 04/10/2014 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Review attorney Mark Bracken's notes re: JDA matter for JDA objects to this charge related to the Duplicative additional matters to be included in 30(b)(6) notice (1.5); transition of a new associate onto the case to replace a departing associate. Such transition costs should be borne as part of firm overhead expenses. 04/14/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare for and telephone conference with client Kim Isom re Charge adjusted. discovery responses. -0.2 -$25.00 Adjustment-Prepare for and telephone conference with client Kim Isom re discovery responses. 04/15/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Revise subpoena duces tecum and correspondence to Sears Charge adjusted. Holdings Corporation. -0.2 -$25.00 Adjustment-Revise subpoena duces tecum and correspondence to Sears Holdings Corporation. 04/16/2014 $475.00 0.8 $380.00 conference with Atty Patel and review and revise letter from JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries defendant regarding attempt to resolve discovery disputes over (here, 0.5, or $237.50) related to Plaintiff's remaining ESI production (.5); Revise and finalize subpoena demand for extensive categories of duces tecum to third parties for production of documents (.3) electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. Furthermore, as Plaintiff adjusted charges above (see Rows 209-213) for her preparation of subpoenae duces tecum to third parties, none of which she introduced as trial exhibits, JDA objects to the 0.3 hours billed ($142.50) for preparation of those subpoenae.
04/16/2014 $295.00 4.9 $1,445.50 Prepared email correspondence with Kim Isom enclosing SAP Charge partially adjusted. documents in anticipation of discovery conference; Prepared for telephone conference with Kim Isom to respond to discovery requests (0.5); Telephone conference with Kim Isom re: responses to discovery requests (1.0); Review transcript of deposition of Isom to determine whether additional she identified addition key JDA players or additional custodians within Restoration Hardware and Discount Tire for use in subpoena duces tecum (2.8); Revise subpoena duces tecum to Discount Tire (0.5); -3.3 -$973.50 Adjustment-Review transcript of deposition of Isom to Please note correction to original (Doc. 184-3, determine whether additional she identified addition key JDA page 10) submitted minus $957.00, when it players or additional custodians within Restoration Hardware should have been minus 3.3 hours for a total of and Discount Tire for use in subpoena duces tecum (2.8); $973.50) Revise subpoena duces tecum to Discount Tire (0.5); 04/17/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 Revise and finalize subpoenas duces tecum to Sears, Discount Charge adjusted. Tire and Restoration Hardware (.5) -0.5 -$237.50 Adjustment-Revise and finalize subpoenas duces tecum to Sears, Discount Tire and Restoration Hardware (.5) 04/17/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Telephone conference with attorney Jennifer Tomlin at Morgan For the same reason as the charge was Lewis re: whether certain documents in SAP's subpoena adjusted in Row 251 below, the charge should response inadvertently disclosed confidential information be omitted here. about pending deals; 04/17/2014 $295.00 1.2 $354.00 Prepare written responses and objections to Plaintiff's response to JDA's Second Request for Admissions; 04/18/2014 $295.00 3.5 $1,032.50 REDACTED Charge adjusted. -3.5 -$1,032.50 Adjustment 04/18/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Finalize and approve subpoena duces tecum and exhibits for Charge adjusted. Sears, Discount Tire, and Restoration Hardware; -0.3 -$88.50 Adjustment-Finalize and approve subpoena duces tecum and exhibits for Sears, Discount Tire, and Restoration Hardware; 04/21/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Telephone conference with Jennifer Tomlin, attorney for SAP, Charge adjusted. regarding whether SAP disclosed confidential information in SAP00033-34;
-0.3 -$88.50 Adjustment — Telephone conference with Jennifer Tomlin, attorney for SAP, regarding whether SAP disclosed confidential information in SAPD0033-34; 04/21/2014 $295.00 1.2 $354.00 Telephone conference with Kim Isom to complete her review and responses to Defendants 2nd RFA's, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (0.7); prepare draft responses (0.5); 04/21/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare shell for Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Second JDA objects to the inclusion of Set of Requests for Admission, Second Set of Requests for administrative/clerical entries, which should be Production, and Second Set of Interrogatories and file same considered part of firm overhead. with the Court. 04/22/2014 $295.00 2 $590.00 Begin preparation of draft response to discovery letter from the JDA objects to the inclusion of time attorneys for JDA; entriesrelated to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 04/25/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 exchange of emails with Kim Isom re verification page, telephone conference to finalize responses; 04/28/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Final review and approve Responses and Objections to Second Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Requests for Production; 04/29/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare Notice of Service for Plaintiff's Discovery Responses JDA objects to the inclusion of and file same with the Court. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 04/29/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Conference with Marvin Gittler's assistant re objection Charge adjusted. response to subpoena received from Sears Holdings Corporation. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment — Conference with Marvin Gittler's assistant re objection response to subpoena received from Sears Holdings Corporation. 04/30/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Revise Notice of 30(b)(6) representative Deposition. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
05/05/2014 $295.00 0.4 $118.00 Telephone conference and exchange of emails with Eva Charge adjusted. Muserelli at Discount Tire re: our subpoena and request for extension of time; -0.4 -$118.00 Adjustment — Telephone conference and exchange of emails with Eva Muserelli at Discount Tire re: our subpoena and request for extension of time; 05/05/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 conference with Atty Patel to discuss request by Discount Tire Charge adjusted. to respond to subpoena duces tecum and review related follow up communication with third party (.3) -0.3 -$142.50 Adjustment — conference with Atty Patel to discuss request by Discount Tire to respond to subpoena duces tecum and review related follow up communication with third party (.3) 05/06/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review of deposition notice, subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for David Sterenfeld and Corporate Dynamix (0.3); reviewed and approved correspondence forwarding to client (0.1); 05/06/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 conferences with Atty Patel and paralegal regarding status of JDA objects to the inclusion of internal various third party subpoenas for documents/ESI and conferences regarding case status, which supplemental disclosures/document production (.5) should be considered part of firm overhead. 05/09/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 study Defendant's Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement and conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.5) 05/16/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare correspondence to opposing counsel re depositions of current and former employees of JDA Software Inc. 05/16/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare correspondence to client Kim Isom re depositions of JDA objects to this entry, which appears to be a nine current and former employees of JDA Software Inc. duplicate of Row 269. 05/16/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare correspondence to Restoration Hardware Inc. re Charge adjusted. overdue response to subpoena duces tecum. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment — Prepare correspondence to Restoration Hardware Inc. re overdue response to subpoena duces tecum. 05/16/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare correspondence to Sears Holdings Corporation re Charge adjusted. overdue response to subpoena duces tecum.
-0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment — Prepare correspondence to Sears Holdings Corporation re overdue response to subpoena duces tecum. 05/21/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Receipt and review of correspondence from Sears re: our third Charge adjusted. party subpoena; -0.3 -$88.50 Adjustment — Receipt and review of correspondence from Sears re: our third party subpoena; 05/21/2014 $135.00 0.5 $67.50 Research — FRCP/Comments concerning whether a party is Charge adjusted. obligated to pay for the cost of search and production of documents and ESI produced by third parties. (JB) -0.5 $67.50 Adjustment — Research — FRCP/Comments concerning whether a party is obligated to pay for the cost of search and production of documents and ESI produced by third parties. (JB) 05/22/2014 $295.00 0.1 $29.50 Exchange of emails with Kim Isom to follow up re: potential testimony of David Sterenfeld and verify search terms for Sears SDT; 05/22/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 Email communications with client and Atty Patel regarding Hamish Brewer (.3) 05/23/2014 $125.00 2.1 $262.50 Prepare notice of deposition for current and former JDA JDA objects to the inclusion of employees Debbie Baker, Brad Bell, Bill Wortham, Michael administrative/clerical entries, which should be Bridge, Tim Mahoney, Tom Dziersk, Dawn Ross, Jennifer considered part of firm overhead. Jaeger, Kevin Bandokaitis, and John Rector. 05/23/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Receipt and review of correspondence from JDA re: JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries outstanding matters pertaining to our discovery (0.5); related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 05/27/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare for and multiple conferences with defense counsel regarding depositions and discovery. 05/27/2014 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Receipt and review of correspondence from Discount Tire re: Charge adjusted. Subpoena (0.1); Telephone conference with Kim Isom re: subpoenas, departure of Hamish Brewer from JDA, potential testimony of Sterenfeld (0.5)
-0.1 -$29.50 Adjustment — Receipt and review of correspondence from Discount Tire re: Subpoena (0.1); Telephone conference with Kim Isom re: subpoenas, departure of Hamish Brewer from JDA, potential testimony of Sterenfeld (0.5) 05/27/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 receipt and review of correspondence from Discount Tire re: Charge adjusted. their response to our subpoena; -0.2 -$59.00 Adjustment — receipt and review of correspondence from Discount Tire re: their response to our subpoena; 05/27/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 review and revise draft of revised stipulation and proposed As the Court did not enter a protective order in protective order (.4) this matter, nor did Plaintiff seek to protect any information by a protective order, and indeed objected to treatment of certain trial exhibits as confidential on the eve of trial (see Doc. 145-147), JDA objects to entries regarding Plaintiff's revisions to a proposed protective order. 05/28/2014 $125.00 0.3 $37.50 Analyze defendant's disclosure statements and compare Charge adjusted. witness names to correspondence received today for purposes of identifying discrepancies prior to discovery conference call tomorrow. -0.3 -$37.50 Adjustment — Analyze defendant's disclosure statements and compare witness names to correspondence received today for purposes of identifying discrepancies prior to discovery conference call tomorrow.
05/29/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Generate redline and reviewed proposed revisions to protective As the Court did not enter a protective order in order (0.5); prepared outline of topics to be covered in this matter, nor did Plaintiff seek to protect any telephone conference regarding outstanding discovery issues information by a protective order, and indeed (0.5); objected to treatment of certain trial exhibits as confidential on the eve of trial (see Doc. 145-147), JDA objects to entries (here, 0.5, or $147.50) regarding a potential protective order. Further, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries (here, 0.5, or $147.50) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 05/29/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Exchange of emails re: conference with counsel re: discovery JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries disputes; related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 05/29/2014 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Telephone conference with Brenda Meissler at Sears Holding Charge adjusted. Company re: their correspondence and our subpoena (0.3); Telephone conference with discount Tire in response to their letter regarding Third Party Subpoenas (0.3); -0.6 -$177.00 Adjustment — Telephone conference with Brenda Meissler at Sears Holding Company re: their correspondence and our subpoena (0.3); Telephone conference with discount Tire in response to their letter regarding Third Party Subpoenas (0.3); 05/30/2014 $125.00 4.8 $600.00 Analyze discovery, disclosure, correspondence, and pleadings Charge adjusted. and prepare timeline for purposes of filing possible emotion to compel on Monday.
-4.8 -$600.00 Adjustment — Analyze discovery, disclosure, correspondence, and pleadings and prepare timeline for purposes of filing possible emotion to compel on Monday. 05/30/2014 $295.00 1.9 $560.50 Prepare for and attend meet and confer telephone conference JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries with Laura Robertson (0.7); Preparation of correspondence to related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive follow up on meet and confer (1.2). categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 05/30/2014 $475.00 2 $950.00 telephone conference with Atty Patel preliminary to discussion JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries with attorney for defendant on discovery issues (.5); review related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive related prior correspondence (.5); lengthy meet and confer categories of electronically stored information in telephone conference with Atty Patel and attorney for native format and its accompanying metadata, defendant, L. Roberts (1.0) as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/02/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare for and telephone conference with defense counsel JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries regarding discovery dispute conference call with Judicial related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive Assistant. categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/02/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 Email communication with paralegal and Atty Patel to discuss JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries discovery issues to bring to court and related instructions (.4) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests.
06/02/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare Notice of Service of Adjournment of Rule 30(b)(6) JDA objects to the inclusion of Deposition and file same with the court administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/03/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 communications with Atty Patel, paralegal and attorneys for JDA objects to the inclusion of internal defendant regarding ongoing scheduling issues for depositions conferences regarding case status and (.5) scheduling, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/03/2014 $295.00 1.6 $472.00 Receipt and review of correspondence from opposing counsel JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries regarding our meet and confer (0.3); Preparation of letter in (here, 1.5 hours, or $442.50) related to response (1.0); Follow up telephone conference to attempt to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of address discovery issues (0.3); Approve amended notice of electronically stored information in native Adjournment (0.1): format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiffs demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. JDA further objects to the inclusion of 0.1 hours, or $29.50, for approval of an administrative filing, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/03/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Prepare Amended Adjournment Notice for Rule 30(b)(6) JDA objects to the inclusion of Deposition and file same with the Court administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/04/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 conference with Atty Patel regarding discovery matters and JDA objects to the inclusion of internal contacting court to schedule hearing on ESI production (.3) conferences regarding case status and scheduling, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/04/2014 $125.00 1.9 $237.50 Revise notices of deposition for current and former JDA JDA objects to the inclusion of Software employees Debbie Baker. Dawn Ross, Kevin administrative/clerical entries, which should be Bandokaitis, Jennifer Jaeger, John Rector, and the 30(b)(6) considered pert of firm overhead. representative, and prepare correspondence to send with revised notices. 06/04/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Prepare for and attend telephone conference with JDA attorney Robertson and Court's Judicial Assistant to schedule a hearing to resolve discovery dispute;
06/04/2014 $135.00 0.2 $27.00 File Notices of Deposition with the Court for J. Rector, JDA objects to the inclusion of Contract Bandokailis, J. Jaeger, D. Baker, D. Ross and First administrative/clerical entries, which should be Amended Rule (3)(b)(6) considered part of firm overhead 06/05/2014 $475.00 0.9 $427.50 study letter from attorneys for defendant regarding discovery JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries issues and conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.5); related to Plaintiffs demand for extensive review and revisa draft of 2 page memorandum on discovery categories of electronically stored information in matter to be fled with court (.4) native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiffs demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests 06/06/2014 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Review of authorities and preparation of brief re production of JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries ESI in native format with associated metadata, related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiffs demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. JDA further objects to a 4.0 hour entry related to preparation of a 2-page memorandum as excessive, and respectfully submits the entry should, at a minimum, be substantially reduced in the exercise of billing judgment. 06/06/2014 $135.00 1 $135.00 Prepare shell for Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's Third Set JDA objects to the inclusion of of Request for Production, Request for Admissions, and administrative/clerical entries, which should be Interrogatories. considered part of firm overhead. 06/06/2014 $135.00 0.8 $108.00 Review discovery and Bates labeled documents; search and JDA objects to the inclusion of retrieval including Plaintiffs and Defendants Bates labeled administrative/clerical entries, which should be documents and EEOC documents (.8) (JB) considered part of firm overhead.
06/09/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 Revise and finalize memorandum of law on discovery matter JDA objects to the Inclusion of time entries for June 17 hearing (4) related to Plaintiffs demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/09/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Revise brief re Defendant's ESI due to the Court JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata. as the Court denied Plaintiffs demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/09/2014 $125.00 2.1 $262.50 Analyze documents produced by both parties and prepare possible exhibits for upcoming depositions of JDA witnesses. 06/09/2014 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Prepare final revisions to brief re: ESI and meta data; JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. JDA further objects to an additional 1.5 hour entry (on top of foregoing time entries in excess of 4 hours) related to preparation of a 2-page memorandum as excessive, and respectfully submits the entry should, at a minimum, be substantially reduced in the exercise of billing judgment.
06/10/2014 $125.00 0.9 $112.50 Locate and obtain documents for deposition of Red Prairie JDA objects to the inclusion of recruiter tomorrow. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. Moreover, Plaintiff did not designate any additional documents for the Christine Homak deposition, rendering the exercise fruitless. 06/10/2014 $125.00 1.5 $187.50 Analyze disclosure statements, deposition notices, and JDA objects to the inclusion of comespondence and prepare summary chart of all witnesses administrative/clerical entries, which should be disclosed by both parties, including whether depositions have considered part of firm overhead been noticed 06/10/2014 $125.00 1.7 $212.50 Continue preparing possible exh bits for upcoming depositions of JDA witnesses. 06/10/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Prepared for deposition of Christina Homak, 06/10/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 receipt and review of correspondence from JDA attorney Robertson regarding deposition scheduling, 06/11/2014 $475.00 0.9 $427.50 conferences with Atty Patel to discuss deposition scheduling JDA objects to the inclusion of internal and open discovery matters (.5); Revise and finalize conferences (here, 0.5 or S237.50) regarding memorandum on discovery matters (.4) case status and scheduling, which should be considered part of firm overhead. Further, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries (here, 0.4 hours, or $190.00) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/11/2014 $295.00 2 $590.00 Attended deposition of Christine Homak; 06/11/2014 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 exchange of lengthy emails with JDA attorney Robertson re schedule of depositions; 06/12/2014 $125.00 0.3 $37.50 Analyze multiple correspondence from defense counsel for purposes of noticing depositions of JDA witnesses located out of state. 06/12/2014 $125.00 0.6 $75.00 Continue preparing possible exhibits for upcoming depositions of JDA witnesses.
06/12/2014 $475.00 1.5 $712.50 review email communications and correspondence regarding JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries discovery matters in preparation for 6/17/14 hearing (1.5) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/12/2014 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Telephone conference with Ms. Meissler at Sears re subpoena Charge adjusted. (0.3); Telephone conference with Eva Muserelli at Discount Tire re: subpoena (0.3) -0.6 -$177.00 Adjustment - Telephone conference with Ms. Meissler at Sears re subpoena (0.3). Telephone conference with Eva Muserelli at Discount Tire re subpoena (0.3) 06/13/2014 $125.00 1.7 $212.50 Analyze teleconference deposition location information JDA objects to the inclusion of received from Driver and Nix and prepare notices of deposition administrative/clerical entries, which should be for Brad Bell, Bill Wortham, and Tim Mahoney, and a first considered part of firm overhead amended notice for John Rector. 06/13/2014 $125.00 0.3 $37.50 Prepare subpoena for appearance at deposition for Bill JDA objects to the inclusion of wortham. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/13/2014 $125.00 3.3 $412.50 Complete preparing possible exhibits for upcoming depositions of JDA witnesses 06/13/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Exchange of additional emails with Laura Robertson regarding deposition scheduling; 06/13/2014 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 REDACTED Charge adjusted. 06/13/2014 $295.00 1.8 $531.00 Telephone conference with Brenda Meissler at Sears re: JDA submits that the charge should be subpoena (0.3); Review of subpoena and file and preparation adjusted for the same reason it was in Row of correspondence as follow up to subpoena detailing search 328. [The entry appears to have been adjusted terms and documents requested (1.8); by 0.3 although the adjustment is not noted JDA submits the balance of the entry should likewise be adjusted]
06/15/2014 $475.00 3 $1,425.00 continue review of at communications and discovery JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries responses in preparation for 6/17 heating (2.0); prepare related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive detailed outline for use at hearing (1.0) categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/16/2014 $475.00 2.5 $1,187.50 complete review of discovery documents, communications and JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries finalized outline for 6/17 discovery hearing (1.0); conference (here, 1.4 hours, or $665.00) related to with Atty Patel regarding same (.4), begin preparation for Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of Wortham deposition (1.1) electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court dented Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/17/2014 $475.00 5 $2,375.00 final review and preparation for discovery oral argument (1.0); JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries travel to and from court for attendance at argument on (here, 2.3) related to Plaintiff's demand for discovery dispute (.5); attend oral argument (5); study courts extensive categories of electronically stored minute entry following hearing (.1); telephone conference with information in native format and its client to update (.2); begin preparation for Bill Wortham accompanying metadata, as the Court denied deposition by reviewing documents and beginning outline (2.4) Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. 06/17/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Travel to and from the court and attend hearing on discovery JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries and ESI issues (2 trips), (here, 2.3 hours, or $678.50) related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. JDA further objects to the duplicative time entry of a second attorney who appears to have attended solely for observation/training purposes.
06/18/2014 $475.00 7.2 $3,420.00 telephone conference with client and Atty Patel to discuss topics for depositions of Wortham and Bandokaitis (.5); continue review of documents in preparation for depositions (2.5); prepare deposition outlines (3.5); telephone conference with attorney for defendants regarding email production (.7) 06/18/2014 $125.00 0.7 $87.50 Prepare subpoenas for appearance at deposition for Tom JDA objects to the inclusion of Dziersk, John Rector, Brad Bell, Tim Mahoney, and Michael administrative/clerical entries, which should be Bridge. considered part of firm overhead. 06/18/2014 $125.00 1.4 $175.00 Prepare and revise notices of deposition for Jennifer Jaeger, JDA objects to the inclusion of Michael Bridge, Tom Dziersk, Brad Bell, Tom Mahoney, John administrative/clerical entries, which should be Rector, and Rule 30(b)(6) representative of JDA Software Inc. considered part of firm overhead. 06/18/2014 $295.00 2 $590.00 Review of authorities to determine whether a single interrogatory requiring individualized responses pertaining to a large number of multiple requests for admission is objectionable as compound, when the responses would individually exceed 25 interrogatories; 06/18/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 review and approve notices of depositions; Charge adjusted. -0.5 -$147.50 Adjustment — review and approve notices of depositions; 06/18/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Telephone conference with opposing counsel re depositions and discovery in the light of the June 17 hearing; 06/18/2014 $295.00 3.5 $1,032.50 Review file for potential exhibits for JDA depositions; 06/18/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Telephone conference with client to discuss and prepare for upcoming depositions. 06/19/2014 $475.00 8.7 $4,132.50 Final preparation for and attendance at video-conference objects to time entries related to the deposition of Bill Wortham (6.5); conference with Atty Patel and deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis (2.0 hours, or preparation for deposition of Kevin Bandokaitis (2.0); Email $950.00), who was disclosed as a witness with communication to attorneys for defendant regarding possible knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, time changes for Ball and Mahoney depositions (.2) on which JDA fully prevailed. Mr. Bendokaitis deposition transcript read into evidence, was not called as a witness at trial, nor was his confirming his knowledge only related to ultimately-dismissed claims. 06/19/2014 $125.00 1.1 $137.50 Revise notices of deposition and subpoenas for appearance of Charge adjusted. JDA witnesses.
-1.1 -$137.50 Adjustment — Revise notices of deposition and subpoenas for appearance of JDA witnesses. 06/19/2014 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 Attended deposition of Bill Wortham; JDA objects to the duplicative time entry of a second attorney who attended the deposition apparently only for observation/training purposes. 06/20/2014 $475.00 5.8 $2,755.00 continue review of exhibits, updating and finalizing outline for JDA objects to time entries related to the Bandokaitis deposition (3.5); Attend Bandokaitis deposition deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis (5.3 hours, or (1.8); conference with Atty Patel to discuss matters relating to $2,517.50), who was disclosed as a witness topics and date for 30b6 deposition (.3); related follow up Email with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII communications (.2) claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Mr. Bendokaitis was not called as a witness at trial, nor was his deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming his knowledge only related to dismissed claims. 06/20/2014 $125.00 0.8 $100.00 Revise notices of deposition and subpoenas for appearance of JDA objects to the inclusion of JDA Software Inc.'s witnesses. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/20/2014 $295.00 1.8 $531.00 Attended deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis; JDA objects to time entries related to the deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis (1.8 hours, or $531.00), who was disclosed as a witness with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Mr. Bendokaitis was not called as a witness at trial, nor was his deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming his knowledge only related to dismissed claims. Furthermore, JDA objects to the duplicative time entry of a second attorney who attended the deposition for observation/training purposes. 06/22/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review of authorities regarding spoliation claims in the 9th Charge adjusted. circuit in preparation for the IT 30(b)(6) for failing to impose a litigation hold; -0.5 -$147.50 Adjustment — Review of authorities regarding spoliation claims in the 9th circuit in preparation for the IT 30(b)(6) for failing to impose a litigation hold;
06/23/2014 $125.00 0.4 $50.00 Revise additional notices of deposition and subpoenas for Charge adjusted. appearance of JDA Software Inc's witnesses. -0.4 -$50.00 Adjustment — Revise additional notices of deposition and subpoenas for appearance of JDA Software Inc's witnesses. 06/23/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 conference with Atty Patel regarding scheduling of remaining JDA objects to the inclusion of internal depositions (.4); Email communications with attorney for conferences regarding case status and defendant regarding deposition scheduling (.1) scheduling (here, 0.4 hours, or $190), which should be considered part of firm overhead. 06/23/2014 $295.00 0.2 $59.00 Preparation of email to counsel for JDA re: necessity of IT JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries 30(b)(6) topics; related to Plaintiff's deposition of JDA's information technology representative, related to her eventually-abandoned claim of spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff did not file any related motions or introduce any evidence on this point at trial. 06/23/2014 $295.00 0.4 $118.00 Preparation of correspondence to counsel for JDA re: depositions notices, including Bridge, Rector and the 30(b)(6); 06/23/2014 $295.00 1 $295.00 Review of file and potential Jennifer Jaeger deposition exhibits Charge adjusted. to determine whether her deposition is necessary. -1 -$295.00 Adjustment — Review of file and potential Jennifer Jaeger deposition exhibits to determine whether her deposition is necessary. 06/24/2014 $475.00 4.4 $2,090.00 review all deposition exhibits marked to date and documents JDA objects to the inclusion of internal produced by defendant and EEOC in preparation for Brad Bell communications with administrative assistants deposition (3.0); begin outline for Bell Deposition (.5); study regarding clerical matters (here, 0.5 or letter from attorney for defendant regarding objections to 30b6 $237.50). topics (.4); instructions to legal assistant to begin locating exhibits for 30b6 deposition and related follow up (.5) 06/24/2014 $125.00 0.4 $50.00 Revise notice of deposition and subpoena for appearance for JDA objects to the inclusion of JDA Software Inc witness Tim Mahoney. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
06/24/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Extended telephone conference with Kim Isom re: additional JDA objects to time entries related to the topics to address in depositions of Dawn Ross, or Brad Bell deposition of Dawn Ross (duration unknown, (0.5); due to block billing), who was disclosed as a witness with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Ms. Ross was not called as a witness at trial, nor was her deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming her knowledge only related to ultimately-dismissed claims. 06/24/2014 $295.00 4.5 $1,327.50 Prepared for deposition of Dawn Ross (3.0); Preparation for JDA objects to time entries related to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of JDA's IT representative (1.5); deposition of Dawn Ross (3.0 hours, or $885.00), who was disclosed as a witness with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Ms. Ross was not called as a witness at trial, nor was her deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming her knowledge only related to dismissed claims. JDA further objects to time entries related to JDA's information technology processes and Plaintiff's ultimately-abandoned spoliation theory (1.5 hours, or $442.50), as those issues were never raised at trial or via pretrial motion. 06/25/2014 $125.00 0.7 $87.50 Prepare deposition exhibits for deposition of Brad Bell in Dallas JDA objects to the inclusion of on Friday. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
06/25/2014 $475.00 5.5 $2,612.50 conferences with Atty Patel regarding 30b6 IT topics and JDA objects to time entries related to the depositions of Dawn Ross and Jennifer Jeager (.5); review deposition of Dawn Ross (0.5 hours, or notes from Bandokaitis and Wortham depositions in $237.50), who was disclosed as a witness with preparation for Brad Bell deposition (.5); conference with client knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, to discuss issues related to Brad Bell and Tim Mahoney(.5); on which JDA fully prevailed. Ms. Ross was listen to audio recordings of conversations with Bell and Rector not called as a witness at trial, nor was her and incorporate relevant comments into Bell deposition outline deposition transcript read into evidence, (4.0) confirming her knowledge only related to dismissed claims. JDA further objects to time entries related to the deposition of Jennifer Jaeger, which Plaintiff cancelled without explanation. JDA further objects to time entries related to JDA's information technology processes, as those issues were never raised at trial or via pretrial motion. 06/25/2014 $295.00 6.2 $1,829.00 Attended deposition of Dawn Ross (3.0); Office Conference JDA objects to time entries related to the with Kim Isom and attorney Bonnett (1.0); Attended deposition deposition of Dawn Ross (3.0 hours, or $885), of Bill Owen, JDA' IT 30(b)(6) designee (2.2); who was disclosed as a witness with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Ms. Ross was not called as a witness at trial, nor was her deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming her knowledge only related to ultimately-dismissed claims. JDA further objects to time entries (2.2 hours, or $649) related to JDA's information technology processes and Plaintiff's ultimately-abandoned spoliation theory, as those issues were never raised at trial or via pretrial motion.
06/26/2014 $475.00 7 $3,325.00 complete identification and organization of exhibits for use in JDA objects to time entries related to counsel's Brad Bell deposition (1.5); complete Bell deposition outline travel time (2.5 hours, or $1187.50), as JDA (1.0); travel from Phoenix to Dallas (2.5); review outline and agreed to videoconference depositions deposition exhibits in preparation for deposition (2.0) (including, for example, Bill Wortham's deposition), rendering out-of-state travel unnecessary. See Rows 375-376 for Plaintiff's counsel's adjustment to return travel on this basis. 06/26/2014 $295.00 1.2 $354.00 Review potential exhibits and prepare draft outline for the JDA objects to time entries related to the deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis; deposition of Kevin Bendokaitis, who was disclosed as a witness with knowledge only as to Plaintiff's Title VII claim, on which JDA fully prevailed. Mr. Bendokaitis was not called as a witness at trial, nor was his deposition transcript read into evidence, confirming his knowledge only related to ultaimtely-dismissed claims. 06/27/2014 $475.00 9.4 $4,465.00 Final preparation for and attendance at deposition of Brad Bell Charge partially adjusted. (7.0); travel from Dallas to Phoenix (2.4) -2.4 -$1,140.00 Adjustment — travel from Dallas to Phoenix (2.4) *Please note correction to original (Doc. 184-3, page 14) to reflect -2.4 hours (not -2.0) 06/27/2014 $295.00 1.7 $501.50 Prepared for telephone conference with JDA attorney Rosenfeld to discuss JDA's 30(b)(6) objections (0.3); Attended extended telephone conference with Larry Rosenfeld to discuss JDA's 30(b)(6) objections (0.9); Preparation of email to Attorney Bonnett to summarize outcome of conference (0.5); 06/28/2014 $475.00 3.4 $1,615.00 review notes from deposition of Brad Bell (.4); document review and begin organizing deposition exhibits for second part of Rule 30b6 deposition and deposition of Tim Mahoney (3.0) 06/29/2014 $475.00 4.5 $2,137.50 continue document review, organization of exhibits and preparation of outlines for second portion of Rule 30b6 and Baker depositions (4.5) 06/30/2014 $475.00 6.6 $3,135.00 final preparation for and attendance at Rule 30b6 deposition (4.0); attendance at D. Baker deposition (.4); review documents and organize exhibits for use in Mahoney and Rector depositions (2.0); study Email communication from client regarding Mahoney (.2)
JDA objects to time entries related to counsel's continue organizing documents for use in Tim Mahoney travel time (3.5 hours, or $1,662.50), as JDA 07/01/2014 $475.00 7.5 $3,562.50 deposition (1.5); study email from client, revise and finalize agreed to videoconference depositions Mahoney deposition outline (2.5); travel to Chicago for (including, for example, Bill Wortham's Mahoney deposition (3.5) deposition), rendering out-of-state travel unnecessary. See Rows 375-376 for adjustment to travel on this basis. As the Court did not enter a protective order in this matter, nor did Plaintiff seek to protect any information by a protective order, and indeed objected to treatment of certain trial exhibits as confidential on the eve of trial, JDA objects to entries regarding a potential protective order. 07/01/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Exchange of emails with opposing counsel regarding protective Further, JDA objects to the inclusion of time order and the production of ESI records; entries related to Plaintiff's demand for extensive categories of electronically stored information in native format and its accompanying metadata, as the Court denied Plaintiff's demand therefor and sustained JDA's objections to the overbreadth and undue burden of such requests. Prepare Second Amended Notice of Deposition and Amended Subpoena for John Rector; prepare correspondence to JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/02/2014 $135.00 0.3 $40.50 Attorney Robertson regarding same; file Second Amended administrative/clerical entries, which should be Notice of Deposition with the Court and forward to the Court considered part of firm overhead. Reporter. 07/02/2014 $475.00 5.5 $2,612.50 Final preparation for and attendance at Mahoney deposition (5.5) Preparation of Answers and Objections to Interrogatories, As the Court did not enter a protective order in Requests for Production and RFA's. (4.2); Preparation of email this matter, nor did Plaintiff seek to protect any correspondence to Kim Isom re: verification of responses (0.3); information by a protective order, and indeed 07/02/2014 $295.00 5.3 $1,563.50 exchange of emails with opposing counsel re: agreeing to objected to treatment of certain trial exhibits as abide by terms of protective order, without adoption by the confidential on the eve of trial, JDA objects to court (0.3), analyze Fox v. Primary Financial Services LLC, for entries (here, 0.3, or $88.50) regarding a later use in support of an Motion for Summary Judgment (0.5); potential protective order. Charge partially adjusted.
Adjustment-analyze Fox v. Primary Financial Services LLC, -0.5 -$147.50 for later use in support of an Motion for Summary Judgment - (0.5); 07/03/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare for and conferences with Brenda Meissler at Sears Holding Corporation re response to subpoena. Charge adjusted. Adjustment-Prepare for and conferences with Brenda -0.1 -$12.50 Meissler at Sears Holding Corporation re response to subpoena. Prepare correspondence to Restoration Hardware re overdue 07/03/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 response to subpoena. Charge adjusted. Adjustment-Prepare correspondence to Restoration Hardware -0.1 -$12.50 re overdue response to subpoena. Prepare Notice of Service for Plaintiff's Response to 07/03/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Defendant's Third Set of Request for Production of Documents, JDA objects to the inclusion of Third Set of Request for Admissions, and Third Set of administrative/clerical entries, which should be Interrogatories; file same with the Court. considered part of firm overhead. 07/03/2014 $295.00 0 $0.00 Finalize Isom's Responses to Third Set of RFAs, Interrogatories and Requests for Production (0.5); 07/07/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare for and telephone call with Sears Holding Corporation Charge adjusted. re overdue response to subpoena. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment-Prepare for and telephone call with Sears Holding Corporation re overdue response to subpoena. JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/07/2014 $125.00 0.5 $62.50 Prepare correspondence to client Kim Isom and send with administrative/clerical entries, which should be multiple JDA witness deposition transcripts and exhibits. considered part of firm overhead. 07/07/2014 $475.00 2.8 $1,330.00 reviewing documents and organizing exhibits for John Rector deposition (2.5); conference with Atty Patel on status of email production by defendant (.3) JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/07/2014 $135.00 1.2 $162.00 Prepare shell for Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Set administrative/clerical entries, which should be of Requests for Production and Interrogatories. considered part of firm overhead Review draft transcript of Brad Bell Deposition in preparation for upcoming depositions (1.5); Receipt and review of ESI 07/07/2014 $295.00 2.6 $767.00 discovery produced by JDA (-100 pages) (0.8); Review and Charge partially adjusted. approve correspondence to Restoration Hardware, to follow up on our subpoena (0.1);
-0.1 -$29.50 Adjustment-Review and approve correspondence to Restoration Hardware, to follow up on our subpoena (0.1); JDA objects to time entries related to counsel's continue review and organization of documents and exhibits for travel time (2.5 hours, or $1,187.00), as JDA 07/08/2014 $475.00 8.1 $3,847.50 John Rector deposition (2.6); complete outline for use in Rector agreed to videoconference depositions deposition (2.0); travel to Dallas for deposition (2.5); Final (including, for example, Bill Wortham's preparation for Rector deposition (1.0) deposition), rendering out of state travel unnecessary. See Rows 375-376 and 406 for adjustment to travel on this basis. Review of supplemental ESI production by JDA (2.8); email 07/08/2014 $295.00 3.1 $914.50 correspondence with opposing counsel as to whether documents can be received prior to Dan's departure for Rector deposition in Dallas (0.3); 07/09/2014 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Conference with Brenda Meissler at Sears Holding Corporation Charge adjusted. re overdue response to subpoena. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment-Conference with Brenda Meissler at Sears Holding Corporation re overdue response to subpoena. JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/09/2014 $125.00 0.2 $0.00 Email additional deposition transcripts to client Kim Isom. administrative/clerical entries, which should be Clerical considered part of firm overhead. 07/09/2014 $475.00 7.5 $3,562.50 Attend deposition of John Rector (5.0); Travel from DFW-PHX Charge partially adjusted. (2.5) -2.5 -$1,187.50 Adjustment-Travel from DFW-PHX (2.5) review documents and organize exhibits for use in Tom Dziersk 07/10/2014 $475.00 4.5 $2,137.50 deposition (2.0); prepare outline for use in Dziersk deposition (2.5) 07/10/2014 $125.00 0.5 $62.50 Analyze supplemental discovery responses and documents produced by JDA Software. Analyze deposition exhibits and documents produced to 07/11/2014 $125.00 1.8 $225.00 location documents for responding to defendant's allegations that requests for admission 50-55 were not properly answered. Final preparation for and attendance at deposition of Tom 07/11/2014 $475.00 4.1 $1,947.50 Dziersk (4.0); study Defendant's Sixth Supplemental Disclosure Statement (.1)
Telephone conference with Kim Isom re: her evaluation of Brad Bell's deposition (0.5); review discovery responses to 07/11/2014 $295.00 1.1 $324.50 determine if further supplementation is required before close of discovery period (0.4); Receipt and review of JDA's supplemental disclosure statement (0.2); Email communications with attorneys for defendant regarding JDA objects to the inclusion of internal 07/14/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 Michael Bridge deposition (.2); instructions to legal assistant conferences with administrative staff regarding regarding amended deposition notice (.1) clerical matter (0.1 hours, or $47.50). 07/14/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Telephone conference with David Kolek with Restoration Charge adjusted. Hardware re: responding to our subpoena; -0.3 -$88.50 Adjustment-Telephone conference with David Kolek with Restoration Hardware re: responding to our subpoena; 07/15/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare first amended notice of deposition and subpoena for JDA objects to the inclusion of appearance for JDA Software witness Michael Bridge. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 07/18/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare correspondence to plaintiff Kim Isom and send with JDA objects to the inclusion of additional deposition transcripts of JDA Software witnesses. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/18/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Analyze documents produced by JDA Software. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 07/24/2014 $135.00 0.2 $27.00 Bates label and redact documents to be produced; prepare JDA objects to the inclusion of Notice of Service of Discovery and file same with the Court. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. Prepare correspondence to client Kim Isom and send with JDA objects to the inclusion of 07/28/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 additional deposition transcripts of JDA Software Inc administrative/clerical entries, which should be witnesses. considered part of firm overhead. 08/08/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 Email communications with attorney for Defendant regarding M. Bridge deposition (.2)
Review of documents produced by Restoration Hardware (1.0); Review of authorities for cases discussing an employer's 08/12/2014 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 obligation to engage in an interactive process or inform an Charge adjusted. employee of changes in compensation resulting from approved FMLA leave (3.0); Adjustment-Review of documents produced by Restoration Hardware (1.0); Review of authorities for cases discussing an -4 -$1,180.00 employer's obligation to engage in an interactive process or inform an employee of changes in compensation resulting from approved FMLA leave (3.0); 08/13/2014 $135.00 0.6 $81.00 Prepare Plaintiff's Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement; JDA objects to the inclusion of scan and Bates label documents to be produced; prepare administrative/clerical entries, which should be Notice of Service regarding same and file with the Court. considered part of firm overhead. 08/19/2014 $475.00 3.4 $1,615.00 continue preparation for M. Bridge deposition (3.0); telephone conference with client (.4) 08/20/2014 $475.00 2.5 $1,187.50 final preparation for and attendance at deposition of M. Bridge (2.5) 08/25/2014 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Review of supplemental disclosure documents produced by JDA; 08/25/2014 $475.00 1.4 $665.00 Begin reviewing supplemental discovery responses and document received from Defendant (1.4) 08/26/2014 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 continue reviewing emails produced by JDA; Email communication from attorney for defendant regarding 08/28/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 request to exceed presumptive page limit and conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.2) 08/29/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 Email communications with attorney for defendant regarding request to exceed page limit (.2) Email communications and follow up telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding increase in page limitation for 09/02/2014 $475.00 4.2 $1,995.00 dispositive motions and response (.5); begin reviewing and Charge partially adjusted. outlining deposition transcripts of Brad Bell and Tim Mahoney preliminary to preparing controverting statement of facts (3.5); Conference with Atty Patel regarding same (.2) Adjustment-begin reviewing and outlining deposition -3.5 -$1,662.50 transcripts of Brad Bell and Tim Mahoney preliminary to preparing controverting statement of facts (3.5);
JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be 09/03/2014 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare Notice of Readiness for Final Pretrial Conference. considered part of firm overhead. JDA further objects, as the notice was not filed due to the filing of JDA's motion for summary judgment, and thus was unnecessary. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state 09/05/2014 $475.00 1.4 $665.00 conference with Atty Patel regarding Defendant's motion for Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only summary judgment (.2); begin reviewing statement of facts to finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference identify any documents relied on by Defendant that were claim, JDA respectfully submits that time disclosed after discovery cutoff date (1.2) entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference conference with paralegal to outline response and instructions claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 09/09/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 for comparing documents relied on by Defendant in motion for entries related to the summary judgment motion summary judgment with belated disclosures (.5) and argument should be discounted substantially. JDA further respectfully requests that internal conferences and instructions to staff should be considered part of firm overhead.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time review and analysis of defendants separate statement of facts entries related to the summary judgment motion 09/24/2014 $475.00 3.5 $1,662.50 in support of motion for summary judgment and review and argument should be discounted discovery for controverting facts (3.5) substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 09/25/2014 475.00 1.2 $570.00 study and analysis of issues raised by Defendant's motion for entries related to the summary judgment motion summary judgment (1.2) and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference telephone call to and Email communications with attorneys for claim, JDA respectfully submits that time defendant regarding request for extension of time to respond to entries related to the summary judgment motion 10/01/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 motion for summary judgment (.2); conference with Atty Patel and argument should be discounted regarding preparation of joint motion and proposed order (.2); substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully review and revise joint motion (.1) submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion 10/02/2014 $475.00 1.5 $712.50 continue analyzing and outlining issues for response in and argument should be discounted opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment (1.5) substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Review of Defendant's Statement of Facts to identify disputed retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state facts and objections for Plaintiff's controverting statement of Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/03/2014 $295.00 4.2 $1,239.00 facts (2.2); Study JDA's 30(b)(6) deposition (1.5); review of finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference authorities regarding propriety and effect of Defendant's "scope claim, JDA respectfully submits that time of 30(b)(6)" objections (0.5) entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 10/03/2014 $475.00 0.2 $95.00 conference with Atty Patel and Email communication to client entries related to the summary judgment motion regarding status on motion for summary judgment (.2) and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/06/2014 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 Analyze depositions and begin outline for Plaintiff's finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference Controverting and Supplemental statement of Facts claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference continue outline of issues for opposition to motion for summary claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 10/07/2014 $475.00 6 $2,850.00 judgment (1.5); additional legal research on FMLA, equal pay entries related to the summary judgment motion and pregnancy discrimination issues (2.5); begin drafting and argument should be discounted response memorandum (2.0) substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. Adjustment - continue outline of issues for opposition to motion 2.5 $1,187.50 for summary judgment (1.5); begin drafting response memorandum (2.0) As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Analyze JDA's statement of facts (1.0); Begin reviewing Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/07/2014 $295.00 7.2 $2,124.00 deposition testimony for use in Plaintiffs' controverting finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference statement of facts (6.2); claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Analyze Defendant's Statement of Facts (1.5); Begin outline of Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/08/2014 $295.00 7.5 $2,212.50 controverting facts (3.0); begin review of deposition testimony finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference for facts cited (3.0) claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
legal research on FMLA, Equal Pay and Pregnancy 10/08/2014 $475.00 5.5 $2,612.50 Discrimination issues (2.5); drafting opposition to Defendants' Charge adjusted. motion for summary judgment (3.0) Adjustment - legal research on FMLA, Equal Pay and -5.5 -$2,612.50 Pregnancy Discrimination issues (2.5); drafting opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (3.0) 10/09/2014 $475.00 1 $475.00 continue legal research on Equal Pay Act claim (1.0) Charge adjusted. -1 -$475.00 Adjustment - continue legal research on Equal Pay Act claim (1.0) As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state 10/09/2014 $295.00 8.4 $2,478.00 Prepare objections and responses to Defendant's Statement of equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only facts; finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. continue legal research on Equal Pay and drafting related 10/10/2014 $475.00 6.5 3,087.50 section of opposition to motion for summary judgment (3.5); continue legal research on Pregnancy Discrimination section of Charge adjusted. opposition to motion for summary judgment (3.0) Adjustment continue legal research on Equal Pay and drafting related section of opposition to motion for summary judgment -6.5 -$3,087.50 (3.5); continue legal research on Pregnancy Discrimination section of opposition to motion for summary judgment (3.0) As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/10/2014 $295.00 5.5 $1,622.50 Continue Preparation of objections and responses to DSOF finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference (2.5); Preparation of controverting statements of fact (3.0) claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/11/2014 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 Continue preparation of Defendants' statement of facts; finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 10/13/2014 $475.00 3.5 $1,662.50 continue drafting opposition to motion for summary judgment entries related to the summary judgment motion (3.5) and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Continue drafting Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state (8.5); Revise Response to Motion for summary judgment (0.5); Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 10/13/2014 $295.00 9.5 $2,802.50 Prepare proposed redactions to Deposition Exhibit 67 (0.2); finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference email correspondence with opposing counsel regarding claim, JDA respectfully submits that time proposed redactions (0.3); entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
10/14/2014 $475.00 12.9 $6,127.50 additional legal research on Equal Pay Act and FLSA related As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA analysis (2.5) legal research on issues relating to Rule 30(b)(6) retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII depositions objections (.7); continue drafting and revising retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state opposition to motion for summary judgment and beginning Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only inserting references to controverting statement of facts (8.5); finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference multiple conferences with and instructions to Atty Patel claim, JDA respectfully submits that time regarding additions and corrections to controverting statement entries related to the summary judgment motion of facts (1.2) and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that initial drafts of the response to motion for summary judgment and statement of controverting facts should have been prepared by an associate, rather than senior counsel, and that fees should be reduced by at least 1/3 as a result, in the exercise of billing discretion. Further, JDA respectfully submits that extensive legal research (2.5 hours, or $1,187.00) should have been conducted by an associate at a lower billing rate, rather than senior counsel, warranting a discount at least as to that portion of the time entry, if not the entry in its entirety.
10/14/2014 $295.00 20 $5,900.00 Continue drafting and prepare additional revisions to Plaintiff's Charge partially adjusted. With respect to the Controverting Statement of Facts and Response in Opposition balance, as JDA prevailed with respect to the to Motion for Summary Judgment (19.5); Preparation of Motion FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title to exceed page limit (0.3); correspondence with opposing VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state counsel regarding the same (0.2); Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. JDA also respectfully requests that the time related to Plaintiff's courtesy request for additional pages beyond the presumptive page limit (0.5 hours, or $147.00) be excluded as non-substantive legal work brought about by Plaintiff's failure to adhere to the page limit. Furthermore, JDA respectfully submits that even an adjusted 10 hours, or $2,950.00, related to further prepration of a statement of controverting facts, in excess of the hours already billed above for this work. -10 -$2,980.00 Adjustment Continue drafting and prepare additional revisions to Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts and Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (9.5)
10/14/2014 $135.00 11 $1,485.00 File Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limit Re As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Responses to Summary Judgment to Motion and proposed retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Order with Court; prepare Exhibit Index for Plaintiff's retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Responses to Defendant's Statement of Facts; prepare exhibits Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only to be attached and scan same. finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. JDA further objects to the inclusion of entries related to clerical/administrative work, which should be included in firm overhead, particularly an 11-hour entry related to preparing an index and filing documents. Finally, JDA respectfully requests that time related to Plaintiff's courtesy request for additional pages beyond the presumptive page limit be excluded as nonsubstantive legal work brought about by Plaintiff's failure to adhere to the page limit. 10/15/2014 $295.00 2 $590.00 Finalize and prepare for filing Plaintiff's Response in Opposition As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA to JDA's Motion for Summary Judgment; retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 10/15/2014 $475.00 2.5 $1,187.50 further Revise and finalize opposition to Defendant's motion for As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA summary judgment (1.5); telephone conference with Atty Patel retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII regarding same and motion for leave to file certain exhibits retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state under seal (.5) Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
10/15/2014 $135.00 4.5 $607.50 Work on Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Statement of As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Facts and index; work on preparation of documents to be retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII attached to same; file documents with the Court. retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries for administrative/clerical work, which should be included in firm overhead. Additionally, a 4.5 hour entry for preparing the document, in addition to 11 hours billed above in Row 461, is excessive. 10/24/2014 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review and analyze Court's order regarding Plaintiff's motion to As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA seal; retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 10/28/2014 $295.00 0.8 $236.00 Telephone conference with JDA attorney Laura Robertson re: As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA proposal for Joint Stipulation regarding Motion to Seal (0.3); retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Review prior correspondence regarding redaction of Dep. Exh. retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state 67, and preparation of redacted version of Dep. Exh. 67. (0.5); Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
10/28/2014 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 review Email communications and follow up conferences with As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Atty Patel regarding open issues on document to be filed under retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII seal, possible need for stipulation or joint motion and content of retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state same(.5) Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 10/29/2014 $295.00 1.8 $531.00 Review authorities and Court's order and prepare draft Motion As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA to Seal (1.5); prepared correspondence with opposing counsel retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII regarding the same (0.3); retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 10/30/2014 $295.00 0.6 $177.00 Exchange of emails with Laura Robertson re: proposed As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA redactions to Dep. Exh. 67, and JDA's request for an extension retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII of page limitations regarding JDA's reply (0.2); Preparation of retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state draft Addendum to Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only (0.2); Review ECF policies regarding filing of supplemental finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference documents to PSCOF (0.2); claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. JDA further objects to the inclusion of time entries (here, 0.4 hours, or $118.00) related to the preparation of prohibited addition to controverting statements of facts and review of related ECF filing rules.
10/30/2014 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 review and revise draft of proposed order and motion for As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA defendant to exceed page limit, related Email communication to retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII attorney for JDA (.3) retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 10/31/2014 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Finalize Addendum to Plaintiff's statement of facts re: Dep. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Exh. 67; retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. JDA further objects to the inclusion of time entries related to the preparation of prohibited addeda to controverting statements of facts 11/13/2014 $295.00 3 $885.00 Receipt and review of Reply in support of JDA's Motion for As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Summary Judgment and Responses to Plaintiff's Supplemental retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Statement of Facts (1.5); Review of authorities regarding retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state whether a response to a supplemental statement of facts is Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only permitted under the FRCP and Local Rules (1.5); finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, end state 11/20/2014 $295.00 25 $737.50 Preparation of Motion to Strike JDA's Response to Plaintiff's Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only Supplemental Statement of Facts and exhibits; finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference clam, JDA respectfully submits that time entnes related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act and state Equal Pay Ad claims, with the Court only File Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference 11/20/2014 $135.00 0.1 $13.50 Supplemental Statement of Facts and attached Exhtirts claim, JDA respectfully submits that time (Documents. 104 & 104-1) and proposed Order with the Court entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. Further, JDA objects to the inclusion of time entries for administrative/clerical work that should be included as part of firm overhead. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding draft of Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 11/20/2014 $475.00 0.6 $285.00 response to defendant's motion to supplement record (.2); finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference Revise and finalize same (4) claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state 12/15/2014 $475.00 0.4 $190.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss reply Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only memorandum on motion to strike (.4) finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 02/02/2015 $500.00 0.2 $100.00 study email from client and respond to same (.2) finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state study and analyze recent USSCt decision in Young v UPS and Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only Ninth Circuit decision in Nigro v. Sears to see if possible finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference 04/09/2015 $500.00 1 $500.00 application and basis to cite as supplemental authority in claim, JDA respectfully submits that time opposition to pending MJS (.8); Email communication to entries related to the summary judgment motion Attorney Ravi Patel, Attorney Susan Martin and Attorney and argument should be discounted Jennifer Kroll regarding same (.2) substantially. Indeed, as the Young v. UPS decision is only related to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act on which JDA fully prevailed, the entire entry should be stricken.
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time 04/20/2015 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Review recent authorities and pleadings re: filing notice of entries related to the summary judgment motion supplemental authorities; and argument should be discounted substantially. Indeed, as the supplemental authorities notice regarding the Young v. UPS decision was only related to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act on which JDA fully prevailed, the entire entry should be stricken. Charge partially adjusted. As to the balance, as JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only study decision in Young v. UPS (.5); review plaintiff's finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference 05/04/2015 $500.00 1.3 $650.00 opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment and claim, JDA respectfully submits that time plaintiff's controverting statement of facts (.5); draft notice of entries related to the summary judgment motion supplemental authority (.3) and argument should be discounted substantially. Further, as the supplemental authority notice related only to the Young v. UPS decision and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim, on which JDA fully prevailed, the entire entry should be stricken. -0.5 -$250.00 Adjustment — study decision in Young v. UPS (.5);
As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference 05/07/2015 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Review Defendant's statement re: notice of supplemental claim, JDA respectfully submits that time authority; entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. Further, as the supplemental authority notice related only to the Young v. UPS decision and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim, on which JDA fully prevailed, the entire entry should be stricken. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference 05/12/2015 $500.00 0.1 $50.00 study defendants response to citation to supplemental authority claim, JDA respectfully submits that time (.1) entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. Further, as the supplemental authority notice related only to the Young v. UPS decision and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim, on which JDA fully prevailed, the entire entry should be stricken. As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Email communications with client regarding oral argument on Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only 06/18/2015 $500.00 1.9 $950.00 motion for summary judgment (.4); begin preparing for oral finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference argument (1.5) claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
06/22/2016 $500.00 3.5 $1,750.00 continue review of all motion for summary judgment related As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA pleadings in preparation for oral argument (3.5) retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fad issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 06/23/2015 $500.00 7.7 $3,850.00 continue review of all motion for summary judgment related As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA filings and supporting exhibits (5.5); update legal research for retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII current case law or change in law (1.0); continue drafting and retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state revising outline for use at oral argument (1.2) Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 06/24/2015 $500.00 5 $2,500.00 continue reviewing outline and oases cited by all parties in final As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA preparation for oral argument (2 5); Revise and finalize outline retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII (1.0); travel to and from court and appearance at oral argument retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state (1.5) Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim. JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. 06/30/2015 $500.00 1 $500.00 study court's order granting, in part, and denying, in part, As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA defendants' motion for summary judgment (.6); conference with retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII Attorney Ravi Patel regarding same (.2); Email communication retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state to client regarding same (2) Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issues as to the FMLA interference claim. JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially.
07/02/2015 $125.00 1.5 $187.50 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's document log and master As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA deposition exhibit list With hyperlinks. retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially. Furthermore, JDA objects to time entries related to administrative/clerical duties, which should be part of firm overhead. 07/06/2015 $125.00 1.5 $187.50 Work on Plaintiff's Bates labeled document log and As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Defendant's Bates labeled document log. retalation Title VII discrimination, Title VII retalation, federal Equal Pay Act and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a tact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument should be discounted substantially Furthermore, JDA objects to time entries related to administrative/clerical duties which should be part of firm overhead. 07/06/2015 $500.00 0.1 $50.00 Email communication to attorneys for defendant re: possible settlement talks (.1) 07/07/2015 $500.00 0.1 Email communication from attorney for defendant re: possible. This entry appears to duplicate the time entry at Duplicative settlement talks (.1) Row 491 and should thus be excluded 07/09/2015 $125.00 1 $125.00 Prepare shell for Proposed Final Pretrial Order JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
07/10/2015 $500.00 0.6 $300.00 review court's ruling on defendant's motion for summary As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA judgment and conference with Attorney Susan Martin regarding retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII issues that may require clarification and/or reconsideration (.6) retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument, and Plaintiff's unsuccessful motion for reconsideration should be discounted substantially. 07/13/2015 $500.00 3.5 $1,750.00 draft, review, revise and finalize Motion for Clarification and to As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA Reconsider (3.5) retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim. JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument, and Plaintiff's unsuccessful motion for reconsideration should be discounted substantially. 07/13/2015 $125.00 1 $125.00 Work on Defendants Bates labeled documents log; file JDA objects to the inclusion of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of administrative/clerical entries, which should be Court's June 29, 2015 Order with the Court. considered part of firm overhead. 07/13/2015 $295.00 2 $590.00 Review draft Motion for Reconsideration (1.0); review As JDA prevailed with respect to the FMLA authorities re application of Nasser decision to FMLA retaliation, Title VII discrimination, Title VII interference and retaliation claims (1.0); retaliation, federal Equal Pay Act, and state Equal Pay Act claims, with the Court only finding a fact issue as to the FMLA interference claim, JDA respectfully submits that time entries related to the summary judgment motion and argument, and Plaintiff's unsuccessful motion for reconsideration (here, 1.0 hours, or $295.00), should be discounted substantially.
07/14/2015 $125.00 2 $250.00 Work on Defendants Bates labeled documents log. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 07/20/2015 $500.00 1.5 $750.00 begin reviewing tile preliminary to drafting pretrial filings (1.5) JDA respectfully submits that a generalized file review without performing substantive legal work, requires discounting, particularly in light of the apparent preparation of the pretrial order by the associate on the case. See Row 503, for example. 07/29/2015 $500.00 3.5 $1,750.00 continue reviewing entire file in preparation for drafting required JDA respectfully submits that a generalized file pretrial filings and submissions (3.5) review, without performing substantive legal work, requires discounting, particularly in light of the apparent preparation of the pretrial order by the associate on the case. See Row 503, for example. 08/11/2015 $500.00 4.3 $2,150.00 reviewing deposition transcripts preliminary to designating portions for joint proposed final pretrial order (3.0); review deposition exhibits and begin identifying trial exhibits (1.3) 08/11/2015 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 review of pleadings, summary judgment filings and order, and order regarding pretrial submissions and begin preparing joint pretrial statement; 08/12/2015 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 begin drafting proposed stipulated facts for use in Jt Pretrial The stipulated facts section of the Joint Pretrial Adjusted via Order; Order (Doc. 142) is less than one double-spaced, Row 511 typed page, two pages if uncontested but not stipulated facts are included, rendering a 5.0 hour entry (or $1,475.00) excessive and subject to discounting in the exercise of billing discretion. 08/14/2015 $500.00 4 $2,000.00 continue review of all discovery and outlining issues, facts and law for use in pretrial filings (4.0) 08/17/2015 $500.00 2.2 $1,100.00 review deposition exhibits and document production to identify trial exhibits (2.2) 08/18/2015 $500.00 2.4 $1,200.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel about pretrial filings (.2); continue review of all discovery as part of pretrial preparations (2.2)
08/19/2015 $500.00 1.5 $750.00 Begin reviewing, highlighting and designating deposition JDA objects to this time entry, as Mr. Wortham transcript of W. Wortham (1.5) appeared in person to testify, thereby rendering deposition designations of his testimony unnecessary. 08/19/2015 $500.00 0.2 $100.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding contacting JDA objects to the inclusion of internal attorneys for defendant about draft pretrial order and exchange conferences regarding case status, which of exhibits (.2) should be considered part of firm overhead. 08/21/2015 $500.00 2.4 $1,200.00 continue review of all discovery and identification of trial exhibits (2.4) 08/24/2015 $500.00 2.5 $1,250.00 continue review of all discovery to draft and review pretrial filings (2.5) 08/24/2015 $295.00 6 $295.00 continue drafting stipulated facts for joint pretrial order; The stipulated fads section of the Joint Pretrial Excessive; Order (Doc. 142) is less than one double-spaced, duplicative of typed page, two pages if uncontested row 503. but not stipulated facts am included, rendering an additional 6.0 hour entry (or $1,770.00), in excess of the 5.0 hour entry in Row 503, excessive and subject to discounting in the exercise of billing discretion. 08/25/2015 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 Review authorities re: 9th circuit caselaw re: jury instructions for FMLA claims (2.0); continue drafting Jt. Pretrial order, 08/26/2015 $500.00 3.8 $1,900.00 continue reviewing deposition exhibits and identification of trial JDA objects to the 2.5 hours billed ($1,250.00) exhibits (1.3); continue review and analysis of deposition for highlighting deposition designations, as testimony and highlighting relevant sections for deposition Plaintiff designated testimony from multiple designations (2.5) witnesses who ultimately testified in person or were subject to the subpoena power, rendering deposition designations of their testimony unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly redesignated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial.
08/26/2015 $295.00 3 $885.00 Review authorities re: relevant issues of law, begin drafting Plaintiff's contribution to the contested issues of issues of law. law in the joint pretrial order take up roughly 2 pages of the order (Doc 142), and do not cite to any relevant case law or complex issues, rendering a 3.0 hours time entry ($885.00) excessive. 08/27/2015 $125.00 1.2 $150.00 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's trial exhibits. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 08/27/2015 $500.00 2 $1,000.00 continue deposition designations (2.0) JDA objects to the 2.0 hours billed for highlighting deposition designations as Plaintiff designated testimony from multiple witnesses who ultimately testified in person or were subject to the subpoena power, rendering deposition designations of their testimony unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly redesignated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 08/28/2015 $500.00 2.7 $1,350.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel on status of joint proposed JDA objects to the 2.2 tours billed for pretrial order (.2); Begin reviewing, highlighting and designating highlighting deposition designations, as Plaintiff 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant and of Brad Bell (2.2); update designated multiple witnesses, including Brad exhibit list (.3) Bell and JDA's 30(b)(6) designee, both of whom testified in person and whom JDA confirmed prior to submission of the joint pretrial report would testify in person, rendering deposition designations of their testimony unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly redesignated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 08/28/2015 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 revise joint pretrial statement; The lack of clarity as to what portion of the joint Adjusted via pretrial statement was "revised" makes it Row 527 impossible to judge the reasonableness of this time entry, particularly if it relates to the fact or law sections for which Plaintiff already billed 1.4 hours (see above).
08/29/2015 $500.00 1 $500.00 continue highlighting and designating portions of depositor JDA objects to this time entry, as Mr. Wortham transcript of Bill Worthem (1.0) appeared in person to testify thereby rendering deposition designations of his testimony unnecessary. 08/30/2015 $500.00 3.5 $1,750.00 Highlighting and designating portions of deposition transcript of JDA objects to the 3.5 hours billed for D. Baker (individually arid as 30(b)(6) designee) (3.5) highlighting deposition designations, as Plaintiff designated multiple witnesses, including Ms Baker/JDA's 30(b)(6) designee, who testified in person and whom JDA confirmed prior to submitting the joint pretrial report would testify in person, rendering deposition designations of her testimony unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 08/31/2015 $500,00 4 $32,00.00 highlighting and designating of Rule 130(b)(6)] and Brad Bell JDA objects to the 4.0 hours billed for depositions(4.0) highlighting deposition designations, as Plaintiff designated multiple witnesses, including Mr. Bell and JDA's 313(b)(6) designee, who testified in person rid whom JDA confirmed prior to submitting the joint pretrial report would testify in person, rendering deposition designations of their testimony unnecessary and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 08/31/2015 $295.00 2.5 $737.50 study model jury instructions: Charge adjusted. -2.5 -$737.50 Adjustment — study model jury instructions;
08/31/2015 $125.00 1.2 $150.00 Work on Plaintiffs deposition designations for the Baker and JDA objects to the 12 hours billed for Baker Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. highlighting deposition designations, as Plaintiff designated multiple witnesses, including Ms. Baker/JDA's 30(b)(6) designee, who testified in person and whom JDA confirmed prior to submitting the joint pretrial report would testify in person, rendering deposition designations of they testimony unnecessary and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 09/01/2015 $125.00 2.1 $262.50 Work an Plaintiffs deposition designations for Wortham and JDA objects to the 2.1 hours bulled for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. highlighting deposition designations, as Plaintiff designated multiple witnesses, including Mr. Wartham and JDA's 30(b)(6) designee, who testified in person and whom JDA confirmed poor to submitting the joint pretrial report would testify in person, rendering deposition designations of their testimony unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 09/02/2015 $500.00 7 $3,500.00 continue review, analysis, outlining and highlighting deposition JDA objects to the portion of tho 7.0 hours designations for Bell, Mahoney & Rector (7.0) (portion unclear due to block billing) attributed to highlighting Mr. Bell's deposition, as he testified in person and JDA confirmed prior to submitting the joint pretrial report that he would testify in person, rendering his deposition designations unnecessary and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial.
09/02/2015 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Revise joint pretrial statement; The lack of clarity as to what portion of the joint pretrial statement was "revised" makes it impossible to judge the reasonableness of this time entry, particularly if it relates to the fact or law sections for which Plaintiff already billed 14 hours (see above). 09/03/2015 $500.00 3 $1,500.00 continue review, designating and highlighting Rector and JDA objects to the portion of the 2.5 hours Bridge deposition transcripts (2.5); conference with Attorney attributed to highlighting Mr. Bridge's deposition Ravi Patel regarding pretrial filings, witness and exhibit lists (amount unclear, due to block billing), as he is and possible motion in limine (.5) local, subject to the Court's subpoena power, and as Plaintiff did not ultimately read any portion of Mr. Bridge's testimony during trial, rendering the designation unnecessary. 09/03/2015 $125.00 0.9 $112.50 Work on Plaintiff's deposition designations (Bell). JDA objects to the 0.9 hours attributed to highlighting Mr. Bell's deposition, as he testified in person and JDA confirmed that he would be testifying in person, rendering his deposition designations unnecessary, and as Plaintiff repeatedly re-designated portions of deposition testimony up to and even during trial. 09/04/2015 $500.00 4 $2,000.00 complete review and highlighting of deposition designations for JDA objects to the 3.0 hours ($1,500) attributed Bridge and Dziersk (3.0); lengthy trial planning conference with to highlighting Messrs. Bridge and Dziersk's Attorney Ravi Patel on exhibits and issues to include in draft of deposition transcripts, as Mr. Dziersk testified final pretrial order (1.0) in person, rendering his deposition transcript unnecessary, and Mr. Bridge is local and subject to the Court's subpoena power, I rewise rendering his deposition transcript unnecessary, and as Plaintiff did not ultimately read any portion of Mr. Bridge's testimony during trial, rendering the designation unnecessary. 09/04/2015 $125.00 1.8 $225.00 Work on Plaintiff's deposition designations (Mahoney and Rector). 09/13/2015 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 review documents produced in discovery to identify potential trial exhibits; 09/14/2015 $125.00 4 $500.00 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's potential list of trial exhibits and building of trial exhibits.
09/14/2015 $295.00 12 $3,540.00 Review discovery documents to identify additional exhibits for Charge adjusted. inclusion in plaintiff's exhibit list; -12 -$3,540.00 Adjustment — Review discovery documents to identify additional exhibits for inclusion in plaintiff's exhibit list; 09/15/2015 $125.00 3 $375.00 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's potential list of trial exhibits JDA objects to the inclusion of and building of trial exhibits. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 09/15/2015 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 Continue revising exhibit list and reviewing potential exhibits (4.0); Office conference with opposing counsel to de-duplicate exhibits (1.0); 09/16/2015 $125.00 3 $375.00 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's list of trial exhibits and JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete building of trial exhibits. list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. Furthermore, JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 09/16/2015 $295.00 8 $2,360.00 Review exhibit list and revise to eliminate exhibits referring to JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete prior FMLA requests and medical history; to identify additional list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to duplicates with varying Bates Nos.; and to eliminate additional the meeting with opposing counsel to eliminate duplicate exhibits and unnecessary exhibits (6.0); revise exhibit duplicates, yet Plaintiff's counsel spent at least descriptions in exhibit list (0.5); review defendants proposed 6.0 hours after that meeting continuing to exhibits (1.5); eliminate duplicate and unnecessary exhibits, which is unreasonable and unnecessary. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. 09/17/2015 $500.00 2.6 $1,300.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss exhibit list and JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete items on joint final pretrial order (2.0); conference call with list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to Attorney Ravi Patel and attorneys for defendants regarding the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA same (.6) should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order.
09/17/2015 $295.00 8.5 $2,507.50 Conference with atty Dan Bonnett re: trial exhibits (1.0); Revise JDA objects to the time spent revising the trial exhibit list (3.0); Revise Draft Joint Pretrial Order (4.0); exhibit list and discusisng the same (4.0 hours, Telephone conference with atty Bonnett, opposing counsel or $1,180), as the complete list of trial exhibits Rosenfeld and Robertson (0.5); was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. 09/18/2015 $125.00 7 $875.00 Work on assembling and marking of Plaintiff's trial exhibits. JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. Further, JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 09/19/2015 $500.00 0.6 $300.00 Email communications from attorney for defendant regarding exhibits and motions in limine (.2); conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding same (.4) 09/19/2015 $125.00 2 $250.00 Work on assembling and marking Plaintiff's trial exhibits JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. 09/20/2015 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 Legal research and begin drafting motions in limine re prior JDA objects to these time entries, as JDA FMLA, Short term disability, and medical history, and regarding would have stipulated to these matters had trade secrets allegations; Plaintiff met-and-conferred prior to filing motions in limine, as is reflected in JDA's responses thereto.
09/21/2015 $125.00 1.7 $212.50 Further work on Plaintiff's trial exhibits (1.6); file Plaintiff's JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete Motions in Limine NOs. 1 and 2 with proposed Orders with the list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to Court. the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. JDA further objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical tasks that should be part of firm overhead. 09/21/2015 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 Continue drafting and revising Plaintiff's Motion In Limine (3.0); JDA objects to this time entry, as JDA would additional legal research in support of Plaintiff's Motion In have stipulated to these matters had Plaintiff Limine #1 (1.0); revise Plaintiff's Motion In Limine #2 (1.5); met-and-conferred prior to filing motions in prepare proposed Orders regarding Motions In Limine #1 and limine, as is reflected in JDA's responses #2 (0.5); thereto. 09/23/2015 $295.00 4.2 $1,239.00 Review correspondence from opposing counsel re: exhibits JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete (0.2); review exhibits in light of proposed objections and other list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to issues presented (4.0) the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. 09/25/2015 $500.00 2.5 $1,250.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss trial exhibits and JDA objects to the 1.5 hours billed ($750) defendant's objections (1.5); review and suggest further related to further revisions to Plaintiff's trial revisions to draft of proposed final pretrial statement (1.0) exhibit list, as the complete list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. 09/25/2015 $295.00 7 $2,065.00 Office conference with Dan Bonnett to review exhibits and JDA objects to 3.5 hours of this time entry JDA's potential objections (1.5); Review and revise exhibit list ($1,032.50) related to revising the exhibit list and objections (3.0); continue preparation of draft jury and e-mailing defense counsel regarding the instructions and verdict form (2.0); Preparation of email to same, as the complete list of trial exhibits was opposing counsel re exhibit list revisions and pretrial to be completed prior to the meeting to submissions (0.5); eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order.
09/27/2015 $295.00 6 $1,770.00 Revise proposed Jury Instructions (4.0); review audio recordings to identify which may be used at trial (2.0); 09/28/2015 $500.00 2.3 $1,150.00 review and revise drafts of jury instructions (1.3); research Eighth and Sixth Circuits model jury instructions for FMLA instructions (.7); conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding same (.3) 09/28/2015 $295.00 8 $2,360.00 Continue drafting and revising Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Joint Statement of case (7.5); Conference with atty Bonnett re: jury instructions and recorded conversation exhibits (0.3); preparation of email to opposing counsel re: jury instructions (0.2); 09/29/2015 $295.00 3.2 $944.00 draft proposed voir dire questions; 09/29/2015 $500.00 0.5 $250.00 review and revise draft of proposed voir dire questions (.5) 09/30/2015 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 revise voir dire questions; 09/30/2015 $500.00 0.8 $400.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding revisions to proposed final pretrial order, jury instructions and voir dire (.8) 10/01/2015 $125.00 2 $250.00 Work on preparation of Plaintiff's trial exhibits to be used at JDA objects to this time entry, as the complete trial. list of trial exhibits was to be completed prior to the meeting to eliminate duplicates. JDA should not be responsible for Plaintiff's failure to timely complete pretrial obligations or to follow the pretrial order. JDA further objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical tasks, which should be part of firm overhead. 10/02/2015 $500.00 1.4 $700.00 brief research on issue of whether jury or court decides good faith defense in FMLA action (.4);review and revise draft of select jury instructions and statement of the case (.5); conferences with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding jury instruction, voir dire and statement of the case (.5) 10/02/2015 $295.00 9.5 $2,802.50 Review redline draft jury instructions and joint master list of witnesses from opposing counsel (0.5); Revise draft jury instructions (4.0); Review changes from opposing counsel to voir dire and revise draft jury voir dire (3.0); Prepare objections to Defendants' exhibits (2.0);
10/04/2015 $500.00 1.7 $850.00 further review and revise draft of statement of case and objections to instructions (1.2); conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding content of trial brief (.5) 10/04/2015 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Begin preparing trial briefs; 10/05/2015 $500.00 4.4 $2,200.00 review and revise draft of trial brief (.9); multiple conferences with Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss and finalize joint proposed final pretrial order and all related final pretrial filings (3.5) 10/05/2015 $125.00 0.7 $87.50 File Proposed Joint Statement of Case, Joint Master List of JDA objects to the inclusion of Witnesses, Proposed Joint Set of Voir Dire Questions, Joint administrative/clerical entries, which should be Proposed Jury Instructions, Plaintiff's Proposed Verdict Form, considered part of firm overhead. Proposed Final Pretrial Order; and Plaintiff's Trial Brief with the Court. 10/05/2015 $295.00 8 $2,360.00 Continue revising and proposed Joint Pretrial order and related Charge partially adjusted. submissions, and exchanging with opposing counsel (6.0); continue preparing and revising trial briefs Trial Briefs (4.0); -2 -$590.00 Continue revising and proposed Joint Pretrial order and related submissions, and exchanging with opposing counsel (4.0); 10/06/2015 $500.00 0.7 $350.00 study defendants motions in limine and conference with Attorney Ravi Patel to formulate responses (.7) 10/07/2015 $500.00 0.2 $100.00 conference with Attorney Ravi Patel and legal assistant of JDA objects to the inclusion of issues relating to copying and delivery of trial exhibits to court administrative/clerical entries, which should be (.2) considered part of firm overhead. 10/09/2015 $295.00 0.9 $265.50 Exchange of emails with opposing counsel re: exhibit exchange JDA objects to the inclusion of (0.2); review defendant's exhibits (0.5); conference with legal administrative/clerical entries (0.2 hours, or assistant re: production of marked exhibits (0.2); $59.00), which should be considered part of firm overhead. JDA further objects to inclusion of time entries (here, 0.2 hours, or $59.00) for e-mails regarding the exchange of trial exhibits, which was to occur, according to the Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference, on the day of the in-person meeting with opposing counsel but for which Plaintiff was not prepared. 10/19/2015 $295.00 3.5 $1,032.50 Review defendants motions in limine and supporting authorities (2.0); Begin outlining responses to Motions in limine (1.5);
10/20/2015 $295.00 6.8 $2,006.00 Continue drafting responses to motions in limine; 10/20/2015 $295.00 0.5 $147.50 Telephone conference with plaintiff re preparation for trial (0.4); exchange of emails with plaintiff (0.1) 10/21/2015 $125.00 1.1 $137.50 Reviewing Def's Motions in Limine and our Draft Responses JDA objects to this entry by a non-lawyer reviewing motions in limine without apparently providing substantive feedback. 10/21/2015 $125.00 0.5 $62.50 File Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motions JDA objects to the inclusion of in Limine Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the Court. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 10/21/2015 $295.00 9 $2,655.00 Revise responses to Defendant's Motions in Limine (8.0); Charge partially adjusted. Balance of charge Finalize and file motions (1.0); should be substantially discounted in light of total time responding to four very brief motions in limine with narrow page limitations; charges excessive in light of entries in rows 570, 571, and 573. Further, Plaintiff did not file motions on this date, rendering the 1.0 entry (or $295.00) for finalizing and filing motions an error. -4.5 -$1,327.50 Adjustment — Revise responses to Defendant's Motions in Limine (3.5); Changed 8.0 to 3.5 11/10/2015 $500.00 3.4 $1,700.00 lengthy telephone conference with client and Attorney Ravi JDA notes that the same telephone conference Patel regarding settlement authority and prospects (.5); is listed as lasting 0.3 hours in Row 578, telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding immediately below, warranting a deduction of same (.2); review all motions in limine and responses together 0.2 hours, or $100. with cited authority in preparation for final pretrial conference (2.2); begin drafting outline for use in oral argument (.5) 11/10/2015 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Telephone conference with atty Bonnett and client to discuss pretrial hearing and settlement prospects; 11/11/2015 $500.00 6.4 $3,200.00 review proposed final pretrial order, exhibit lists, voir dire and jury instructions in preparation for final pretrial conference (2.8); follow up legal research on jury instructions and motions in limine (2.5); continue drafting and revising outline for use at final pretrial conference (1.0); telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding settlement prospects and pretrial matters (.1)
11/11/2015 $295.00 1 $295.00 Review additional authorities regarding authenticity of JDA objects to generalized research unrelated documents produced by opposing parties; to the specific subject matter of the lawsuit. Authentication of exhibits is presumed to be a generalized trial skill not requiring additional research. 11/12/2015 $500.00 2.5 $1,250.00 final preparation for and attendance at Final Pretrial Conference (2.0); debriefing session with client (.5) 11/12/2015 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Prepare and file Request for Transcript form with the Court. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 11/12/2015 $295.00 0.8 $236.00 Attend final pretrial conference; JDA objects to charges related to a second attorney's attendance at the final pretrial hearing, apparently only for observation/training purposes. 12/22/2015 $500.00 3.5 $1,750.00 Meeting with trial consultant and Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss trial issues and strategy (2.0); begin outlining issues and points for opening statement and direct examination of plaintiff (1.5) 12/22/2015 $295.00 3.5 $1,032.50 Office conference with trial consultant Andy Klein and atty Dan JDA objects to charges related to a second Bonnett; attorney's attendance at this meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes. 01/10/2016 $525.00 0.1 $52.50 draft letter to attorney for defendants regarding service of trial subpoenas on defendants' witnesses (.1) 01/11/2016 $525.00 0.1 $52.50 Revise and finalize letter to attorney for defendants regarding service of trial subpoenas on defendants' witnesses (.1) 01/11/2016 $125.00 1.2 $150.00 Prepare shell for trial subpoenas and letter to witnesses JDA objects to the inclusion of regarding same (.1); mark Defendant's deposition counter-designations administrative/clerical entries, which should be for D. Baker, D. Baker 30(b)(6), B. Bell, and M. considered part of firm overhead. Bridges (1.1). 01/12/2016 $525.00 1 $525.00 telephone conference with trial consultant (.3); Email communication from client (.1); study plaintiff's deposition transcript (1.0) 01/12/2016 $125.00 1.6 $200.00 Mark Defendant's deposition counter-designations for T. JDA objects to the inclusion of Dziersk, T. Mahoney, J. Rector, and B. Wortham. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 01/17/2016 $525.00 3 $1,575.00 study plaintiff's transcript and portion of trial exhibits in preparation for meeting with client (3.0)
01/18/2016 $525.00 4.5 $2,362.50 Meeting with Attorney Ravi Patel, trial consultant and client to begin trial preparation (3.5); begin study of deposition of Tim Mahoney (1.0) 01/18/2016 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Attend trial prep meeting with Plaintiff Kim Isom, attorney Dan According to Row 592, this meeting lasted only Bonnett and consultant Andy Klein; 3.5 hours, not 4.0 hours, suggesting at least a 0.5 hour (or $147.50) reduction is appropriate. Moreover, JDA objects to charges related to a second attorney's attendance at this meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes. 01/19/2016 $525.00 3.5 $1,837.50 continue study, analysis and annotation of plaintiff's and defendant's trial exh bits (3.5) 01/21/2016 $525.00 3 $1,575.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding subpoenas, deposition designations and other pretrial matters (.4); Email communications with trial consultant (.1); organizing and annotating select trial exhibits for use in trial prep session with plaintiff (2.5) 01/25/2016 $525.00 2.5 $1,312.50 continue review and analysis deposition transcripts of Plaintiff and Tom Dziersk (2.5) 01/26/2016 $525.00 7.4 $3,885.00 review and further organize trial exhibits for trial prep session According to Row 599, the meeting with the (2.2); communications with client (.4); lengthy meeting with trial consultant lasted only 2.0 hours, not 2.8 Attorney Ravi Patel and trial consultant to strategize (2.8); hours, suggesting at least a 0.8 hour reduction continue review of deposition transcripts of Brad Bell and Tim (or $420) is appropriate. Mahoney (2.0) 01/26/2016 $125.00 0.8 $100.00 Work on preparation of witness trial notebook for Isom. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 01/26/2016 $295.00 2 $590.00 Attend conference with Dan Bonnett and Andy Klein to discuss JDA objects to charges related to a second trial strategy; attorney's attendance at this meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes. 01/28/2016 $525.00 4.5 $2,362.50 continue analysis and annotation of defendants' trial exhibits (4.5)
01/29/2016 $525.00 2.8 $1,470.00 continue reviewing and annotating trial exhibits in preparation with trial prep meeting with client (2.0); Prepare outline for use in meeting with client (.4); Email communication to attorney for defendant (.1); review draft proposed jury instructions in preparation for meeting with client (.3) 02/01/2016 $525.00 6.6 $3,465.00 continue review of trial exhibits and deposition transcripts According to Row 603, the meeting with the preliminary to trial prep sessions with client and trial team (3.6); Plaintiff and trial team lasted only 1.0 hour, not Prep session with client and trial team (3.0) 3.0 hours, suggesting at least a 2-hour reduction (or $1,050) is appropriate. 02/01/2016 $295.00 1 $295.00 attend trial prep session with client and atty Dan Bonnett; JDA objects to charges related to a second attorney's attendance at this meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes. 02/03/2016 $525.00 2 $1,050.00 continue review and analysis of deposition transcripts of Mahoney and Rector (2.0) 02/04/2016 $525.00 4.3 $2,257.50 prepare of meeting with trial team (1.1); meeting with Attorney According to Row 606, the meeting with Ravi Patel and client for trial preparation (3.0); telephone Plaintiff lasted only 1.0 hour, not 3.0 hours, conference with attorney for defendant regarding trial suggesting at least a 2-hour reduction (or procedural issue and explore settlement prospect (.2) $1,050) is appropriate. 02/04/2016 $295.00 2.3 $678.50 Begin preparation of timeline of relevant events and JDA objects to charges related to a second corresponding exhibits (1.3); Attend trial prep session with attorney's attendance at the trial prep meeting client and atty Dan Bonnett (1.0); apparently only for observation/training purposes. 02/05/2016 $295.00 3.2 $944.00 continue reviewing exhibit to prepare timeline of relevant According to Rows 134, 139, and 145, Plaintiff events; already prepared a timeline of relevant events, rendering this entry duplicative and thus excessive. 02/05/2016 $525.00 0.6 $315.00 telephone call to attorney for defendant (.1); outlining order of trial and witnesses (.5)
02/08/2016 $525.00 4.3 $2,257.50 telephone conferences with attorney for defendant regarding JDA objects to charges related to Plaintiff's "de-designation" deposition designations (.2); conference call to court regarding of portions of witness depositions same (.3); review deposition transcript of John Rector for (here, 1.8 hours, or $945), as complete and possible de-designations (1.7); Email communication to final selections were due at the time the pretrial attorney for defendant regarding same (.1); continue reviewing order was submitted. JDA should not be defendant's trial exh bits and outlining topics for next trial prep penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of session with plaintiff (2.0) testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. 02/09/2016 $295.00 3 $885.00 Continue analyzing trial exhibits for use at trial in and timeline; According to Rows 134, 139, and 145, Plaintiff already prepared a timeline of relevant events, rendering this entry duplicative and thus excessive. 02/10/2016 $525.00 2.4 $1,260.00 lengthy telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding settlement prospects, acceptance of service or Baker, Bell and Dziersk subpoenas and presentation of deposition testimony at trial (.5); telephone conference with Attorney Ravi Patel and client to update (.2); draft letter to attorney for defendant outlining historical and current settlement position (.8); drafting outline of key points and related memorandum for review with client (.9) 02/10/2016 $295.00 7.5 $2,212.50 Continue reviewing trial exhibits and preparing draft timeline of According to Rows 134, 139, and 145, Plaintiff events and relevant exhibits; already prepared a timeline of relevant events, rendering this entry duplicative and thus excessive. 02/11/2016 $525.00 9.3 $4,882.50 review, analyze and annotate deposition transcript of B. JDA objects to charges related to Plaintiff's "dedesignation" Wortham and cross-reference trial exh bits (5.8); prepare list of of portions of witness depositions proposed de-designated portions of Wortham deposition (.5); (here, 0.5 hours, or $262.50), as complete and Begin drafting outline for use in examination of Brad Bell (3.0) final selections were due at the time the pretrial order was submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin.
02/11/2016 $125.00 0.8 $100.00 Work on further preparations for trial; prepare witness JDA objects to the inclusion of notebooks for D. Baker, B. Bell, T. Dziersk, and B. Wortham. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. 02/11/2016 $295.00 8.8 $2,596.00 Continue to analyze trial exhibits and prepare timeline of According to Rows 134, 139, and 145, Plaintiff relevant events and corresponding exhibits; already prepared a timeline of relevant events, rendering this entry duplicative and thus excessive. 02/12/2016 $295.00 7 $2,065.00 continue analyzing exhibits and preparing timeline of events According to Rows 134, 139, and 145, Plaintiff and relevant exhibits; already prepared a timeline of relevant events, rendering this entry duplicative and thus excessive. 02/13/2016 $525.00 5 $2,625.00 trial strategy and prep session with client and Attorney Ravi According to Row 618, this meeting lasted 4.0 Patel (5.0) hours, not 5.0 hours, suggesting that a 1.0 hour reduction ($525.00) is appropriate. 02/13/2016 $295.00 4 $1,180.00 Attend trial prep session with Kim Isom and atty Dan Bonnett; JDA objects to charges related to a second attorney's attendance at the trial prep meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes. 02/15/2016 $525.00 5.8 $3,045.00 continue study and annotating deposition transcript of Brad Bell and cross referencing trial exhibits; (2.0); trial strategy and preparation session with client and Attorney Ravi Patel (3.8) 02/15/2016 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 trial Prep with client and atty Bonnett According to Row 619, this meeting lasted only 3.8 hours, not 5.0 hours, suggesting that a reduction of 1.2 hours (or $354) is appropriate. Furthermore ,JDA objects to charges related to a second attorney's attendance at the trial prep meeting apparently only for observation/training purposes.
02/16/2016 $295.00 3 $885.00 Review of proposed de-designations and redesignations by JDA objects to charges necessitated by defendants of designated testimony for John Rector and Tim Plaintiff's "de-designation" of portions of Mahoney, and compare with plaintiff's proposals; witness depositions, as complete and final selections were due at the time the pretrial order was submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. 02/16/2016 $525.00 6.5 $3,412.50 further review of deposition testimony or Brad Bell, Bill Wortham and Tim Mahoney for inconsistencies and contradictions (1.5); drafting summary of comparative testimony and cross-reference related trial exhibits (2.5); prepare preliminary draft of witness outline for plaintiff's direct and anticipated cross-examination (2.5) 02/17/2016 $295.00 3.8 $1,121.00 Continue review of proposed modifications to deposition JDA objects to charges necessitated by designations for Mahoney and Rector deposition; Plaintiff's "de-designation" of portions of witness depositions, as complete and final selections were due at the time the pretrial order was submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. 02/17/2016 $525.00 6.1 $3,202.50 continue drafting witness outlines for Bell, Wortham and Dziersk and annotate with relevant exhibits and deposition testimony (4.7); revise and update timeline of relevant events to track anticipated cross-examination of witnesses (1.0); telephone conferences and Email communication with client (.4) 02/18/2016 $525.00 3.7 $1,942.50 meeting with client for trial and strategy prep session (3.5); Email communication to attorney for defendants (.2)
02/18/2016 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Prepare witness notebook for C. Hornak for use at trial. JDA objects to the inclusion of administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead. Indeed, as Defendant's witness, Defendant prepared the witness notebook for the Court and the person playing the role of C. Hornak, rendering the time entry unnecessary in its entirety. 02/19/2016 $525.00 3 $1,575.00 drafting and revising outline for use in direct examination of plaintiff (1.0); review and revise timeline and cross-referencing trial exhibits (2.0) 02/20/2016 $525.00 5 $2,625.00 Conference with Attorney Ravi Patel and client for strategy and trial prep (4.0); Begin organizing notes for opening statement outline (1.0) 02/20/2016 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 Attend trial prep session with client; 02/21/2016 $525.00 4.2 $2,205.00 drafting and revising outline for opening statement (1.7); study 30(b)(6) deposition transcript and begin preparing witness outlines for Debbie Baker and Tom Dziersk (2.5) 02/22/2016 $525.00 9.2 $4,830.00 continue drafting, updating and revising outline for use in direct and cross-examination of Brad Bell (5.0); complete initial draft of opening statement (1.4); meeting with trial team to discuss and revise strategy (2.0); review exhibits defendants marked "confidential" and prepare related summary (.8) 02/22/2016 $295.00 12.6 $3,717.00 Continue revisions to opening statement powerpoint (7.6); Charges partially adusted. Cross reference exhibits for Isom witness outline (5.0); -10 -$2,950.00 Continue revisions to opening statement powerpoint (1.6); Cross reference exhibits for Isom witness outline (1.0); 02/23/2016 $525.00 7.5 $3,937.50 complete and update witness outlines for Brad Bell and Debbie Baker (4.0); begin outline for Bill Wortham cross-examination (2.5); telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding trial protocols (.2); communications with trial team, revise and finalize opening statement Powerpoint slides (.8) 02/23/2016 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 Attend deposition of William Tela; Charges adjusted. -5 -$1,475.00 Adjustment - Billed to wrong file number 02/23/2016 $295.00 4.5 $1,327.50 Revise opening statement powerpoint (4.0); Review list of Charges partially adjusted. exhibits marked confidential (0.5)
-3 -$885.00 Adjustment — Revise opening statement powerpoint (1.0); Changed 4.0 to 1.0 02/24/2016 $525.00 8.3 $4,357.50 telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding exhibits and powerpoint slides (.3); continue reviewing deposition transcript and drafting and revising outline with cross-reference to trial exhibits to use in cross-examination of B. Wortham (4.5); reviewing deposition transcript and drafting and revising outline with cross-reference to trial exhibits to use in direct and cross-examination of T. Dziersk (3.5) 02/24/2016 $295.00 3.1 $914.50 Review proposed changes to Rector Deposition designations JDA objects to charges necessitated by (1.8); Telephone conference with defendant's counsel Laura Plaintiff's "de-designation" of portions of Robertson to discuss changes to designations (0.3); Review witness depositions (here, 2.1 hours, or and revise draft witness outlines for witnesses Bell and Baker $619.50), as complete and final selections were (0.8); revise opening statement powerpoint and forward to due at the time the pretrial order was opposing counsel(0.2); submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. 02/24/2016 $295.00 0.3 $88.50 Telephone conference with Laura Robertson re: deposition JDA objects to charges necessitated by designations; Plaintiff's "de-designation" of portions of witness depositions, as complete and final selections were due at the time the pretrial order was submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. 02/25/2016 $525.00 10.3 $5,407.50 reviewing trial exhibits and further annotating for use in direct and cross examination of witnesses (5.5); continue drafting and revising opening statement outline (2.0): revise and update Baker witness outline (.8); continue drafting and revising Dziersk witness outline and annotate with related trial exhibits (2.0) 02/25/2016 $125.00 1.5 $187.50 Update witness notebooks in preparation for trial; prepare trial JDA objects to the inclusion of notebook for D. Bonnett's use at trial; prepare draft of Plaintiff's administrative/clerical entries, which should be witness schedule for the Court; prepare labels and seal 26 trail considered part of firm overhead. exhibits.
02/25/2016 $295.00 9 $2,655.00 Revise witness outlines and deposition testimony and cross Charges partially adjusted. As to the remainder, reference exhibits for Bell outline (4.0); Review and revise JDA objects to charges necessitated by defendants' proposed joint motion for protective order (0.5); Plaintiff's "de-designation" of portions of continue revising redesignated deposition testimony (2.0); witness depositions (here, 2.0 hours, or $590), continue trial preparations (2.5) as complete and final selections were due at the time the pretrial order was submitted. JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's overinclusion of testimony early in the case and duplicate time entries for more careful analysis shortly before trial was to begin. -5.5 -$1,622.50 Revise witness outlines and deposition testimony and cross reference exhibits for Bell outline (1.0); continue trial preparations (2.5) 02/26/2016 $525.00 7.5 $3,937.50 Continue trial strategy prepossessions with Attorney Ravi Patel including flagging key trial exhibits and preparing responses to anticipated evidentiary objections (3.5); further revise opening statement outline and powerpoint (.9); travel to and from court for hearing on joint motion for protective order and attend same (.8); create backup list of essential trial exhibits with cross-reference for possible impeachment relevance (1.2); review court's order on summary judgment and motion to reconsider and transcript from final pretrial conference (1.1) 02/26/2016 $125.00 5 $625.00 Work on preparation of and highlighting of trial exhibits to be JDA objects to the inclusion of used in witness notebooks. administrative/clerical entries, which should be considered part of firm overhead.
02/26/2016 $295.00 7.7 $2,065.00 Deliver trial exhibits and court copies of deposition transcripts Charges partially adjusted. As to the Delivery of to court (0.7); Attend hearing for Joint Motion for protective remainder, JDA objects to the inclusion of materials is order (1.0); Telephone conference with opposing counsel re Jt. administrative/clerical entries, such as clerical; Motion for Protective order (0.5); Revise civil exhibit list, delivering materials to the court, which could reduced by Witness list, notice to court reporter and proposed calendar have been done by a messenger (0.7 hours, or $206.50. (1.5); continue preparations for trial (4.0) $206.50). JDA further objects to the duplicative attendance of a second non-participating attorney at a hearing on the joint motion for protective order, apparently for observation or training purposes only (1.0 hours, or $295). JDA further objects to revisions to the civil exhibits list and witness list, as both were to be completed as of the time the joint pretrial order was submitted, and JDA should not be penalized for Plaintiff's failure to adhere to court deadlines (1.5 hours, or $442.50). -4 -$1,180.00 Adjustment — continue preparations for trial (4.0) 02/27/2016 $125.00 4.25 $531.25 Work on preparations for trial; work on preparation of witness JDA objects to the inclusion of notebooks for D. Baker, C. Hornak, and B. Wortham; prepare administrative/clerical entries, which should be notebooks with deposition transcripts and deposition transcripts considered part of firm overhead. with Plaintiff's designations and Defendant's counter-designations for use at trial. 02/27/2016 $295.00 8 $2,360.00 Trial prepossession with client; continue preparations for trial Charges partially adjusted. (8.0) -4 -$1,180.00 Adjustment — Trial prepossession with client; continue preparations for trial (4.0) 02/28/2016 $125.00 0.9 $112.50 Reviewing deposition designations from transcript (Tim It is unclear how this time entry, by someone Mahoney) to be read at trial not on the trial team, relates substantively to the case. As no substantive work was performed, the entry should be discounted in the exercise of reasonable billing discretion. 02/28/2016 $125.00 7.25 $906.25 Work on preparations for trial; review of Isom's witness JDA objects to the inclusion of notebook and update trial exhibits pre outline; work on administrative/clerical entries, which should be preparation of witness notebooks for T. Dziersk, T. Mahoney, considered part of firm overhead. and J. Rector; prepare trial exhibit lists for all witness notebooks to be given to the Clerk;
02/28/2016 $295.00 8 $2,360.00 trial prepossession with client; continue preparing for trial (8) -4 -$1,180.00 Adjustment — trial prepossession with client; continue preparing for trial (4) 02/29/2016 $125.00 0.8 $100.00 Reviewing transcript of John Rector and Gary Bridge It is unclear how this time entry, by someone (deposition designations) not on the trial team, relates substantively to the case. As no substantive work was performed, the entry should be discounted in the exercise of reasonable billing discretion. 02/29/2016 $125.00 5 $625.00 Work on preparations for trial; work on preparation of witness JDA objects to the inclusion of notebooks for T. Mahoney and J. Rector; review of witness administrative/clerical entries, which should be notebook for J. Bell and update trial exhibits per outline. considered part of firm overhead. 02/29/2016 $435.00 11.2 $4,872.00 Review exhibits and fix for purposes of trial — review Attorney JDA objects to the late addition of yet another Dan Bonnett outline. Attend and assist at trial and meet w client attorney, billing at partner rates, who had not after. Strategy session and outline next day's questioning and previously been engaged in the case and who review exhibits indicated in court she attended trial to assist with the trial exhibits on the computer because a computer consultant was ill. Given the unfamiliarity of the attorney with the case, the attendance of the case's associate at trial the entire day, and the clerical/administrative role she performed managing exhibits despite the attendance of an associate, the time entry should be eliminated. 02/29/2016 $525.00 13.5 $7,087.50 Jury Trial Day 1 (8.0); debriefing and preparation for Day 2 of trial (5.5) 02/29/2016 $295.00 14 $4,130.00 Trial Day 1; debrief client and additional preparation for trial;
03/01/2016 $435.00 0.3 $130.50 Review voicemail and discussions with Attorney Dan Bonnett JDA objects to the late addition of yet another and Attorney Ravi Patel re assistance needed for Isom trial attorney, billing at partner rates, who had not previously been engaged in the case and who indicated in court she attended trial to assist with the trial exhibits on the computer because a computer consultant was ill. This entry, apparently an intrafirm conference on whether her continued clerical/administrative assistance at trial was required, should be eliminated in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 03/01/2016 $125.00 5.5 $687.50 Work on preparations for trial; work on updating index for T. JDA objects to the inclusion of Mahoney notebook, update list for court clerk, and mark and administrative/clerical entries, which should be highlight additional trial exhibits for witness notebook; prepare considered part of firm overhead. redacted Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 26, 35, 52, 56, 62, and 73. 03/01/2016 $525.00 13.5 $7,087.50 Jury Trial Day 2 (8.0); debriefing and preparation for Day 3 of trial (5.5) 03/01/2016 $295.00 15 $4,425.00 Trial day 2; debrief client and prepare for following day; 03/02/2016 $125.00 2 $250.00 Work on preparations for trial; work on updating index for J. JDA objects to the inclusion of Rector notebook, update list for court clerk, and mark and administrative/clerical entries, which should be highlight additional trial exhibits for witness notebook; work on considered part of firm overhead. preparation of outlines for topics to be used for cross-examination of B. Bell and direct examination of T. Dziersk. 03/02/2016 $525.00 13.5 $7,087.50 Jury Trial Day 3 (8.0); debriefing and preparation for Day 4 of trial (5.5) 03/02/2016 $295.00 16 $4,720.00 Trial Day 3; revise Bell outline and Dziersk outline; 03/03/2016 $525.00 13.5 $7,087.50 Jury Trial Day 4 (8.0); debriefing and preparation for Day 5 of trial (5.5) 03/03/2016 $295.00 17.5 $5,162.50 Trial Day 4; prepare for Trial day 5, prepare powerpoint presentation for closing statements; 03/04/2016 $125.00 2.5 $312.50 Trial — waiting/standby to read testimony of Tim Mahoney into Charges adjusted. record -2.5 -$312.50 Adjustment — Trial — waiting/standby to read testimony of Tim Mahoney into record 03/04/2016 $525.00 9 $4,725.00 Jury Trial Day 5 (8.0); debriefing (1.0) 03/04/2016 $295.00 9 $2,655.00 Trial day 5 (8.0); debrief with client (1.0); 03/05/2016 $125.00 2.5 $312.50 Research re FMLA/FLSA good faith showing for liquidated damages awards
03/05/2016 $295.00 2 $590.00 preparation for closing arguments and trial day 6; 03/06/2016 $125.00 6 $750.00 Work on preparations for trial; prepare draft short outline for D. JDA objects to the inclusion of Baker witness notebook; update D. Baker witness notebook administrative/clerical entries, which should be regarding same; update other trial notebooks for use at trial; considered part of firm overhead. redact Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 15, 41, and 119 and prepare copies for use at trial. 03/07/2016 $125.00 2.6 $325.00 Trial — standby/reading transcript testimony from deposition of The 0.5 hours ($62.50) billed for "standby" Tim Mahoney into evidence (2.1) (.5 standby) should be reduced for the same reason as it was in Rows 671-672. The remainder (2.1 hours, or $262.50) should I kewise be discounted, as the attorney merely played the role of an unavailable witness to read testimony, work that could have been done by a non-lawyer, and that did not substantively advance the case. 03/07/2016 $525.00 14 $7,350.00 Jury Trial Day 6 (8.0); debriefing and preparation for Day 7 (6.0) 03/07/2016 $295.00 15 $4,425.00 Trial Day 6 (8.0); debrief and preparation for Day 7, review defendant's Motion for JMOL, and review authorities and rough transcripts to outline response (7.0); 03/07/2016 $125.00 1 $125.00 Work on preparations for trial; redact Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 69 JDA objects to the inclusion of and prepare copies for the Court; prepare additional exhibits for administrative/clerical entries, which should be use at trial. considered part of firm overhead. 03/08/2016 $525.00 7 $3,675.00 Jury Trial Day 7 (6.0); debriefing with client (1.0) 03/08/2016 $295.00 7 $2,065.00 Trial Day 7 (6.0) debrief with client (1.0); 3/9/2016 $525.00 4.5 $1,312.50 meeting with client at courthouse and awaiting and receiving Time spent waiting for verdict (approximately Reduced by jury verdict (3.5); debriefing with client (1.0) 2.0 hours, or $1,050) during which no $1.050 substantive legal work was performed should be discounted. 03/09/2016 $295.00 4.5 $737.50 meet client at courthouse to wait for and receive verdict (3.5); Time spent waiting for verdict (approximately Reduced by debrief with client (1.0); 2.0 hours, or $590) during which no substantive $590 legal work was performed should be discounted. 03/14/2016 $125.00 0.2 $25.00 Research re FMLA retaliation Charge adjusted. -0.2 -$25.00 Adjustment — Research re FMLA retaliation 03/14/2016 $295.00 2 $590.00 Begin reviewing testimony for proposed findings of fact; 03/15/2016 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 continue reviewing trial testimony and exhibits for proposed findings of fact;
03/16/2016 $125.00 0.5 $62.50 good faith liquidated damages research Charge adjusted. -0.5 -$62.50 Adjustment - good faith liquidated damages research 03/16/2016 $525.00 1 $525.00 review and revise draft of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on issue of liquidated damages (.7); telephone conference with Attorney Ravi Patel regarding same (.3) 03/16/2016 $295.00 5 $1,475.00 begin preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 03/17/2016 $125.00 0.4 $50.00 Proofing proposed findings of fact Charge adjusted. -0.4 -$50.00 Adjustment - Proofing proposed findings of fact 03/17/2016 $125.00 0.1 $12.50 Research for local case recognizing FLSA application to FMLA Charge adjusted. -0.1 -$12.50 Adjustment - Research for local case recognizing FLSA application to FMLA 03/17/2016 $525.00 0.7 $367.50 further review and revise draft of proposed findings (.3); legal research on court's discretion on question of liquidated damages (.4) 03/17/2016 $525.00 0.5 $262.50 telephone conference with Attorney Ravi Patel to discuss additional revisions (.3); Revise and finalize draft of proposed findings (.2) 03/17/2016 $295.00 13 $3,835.00 Revise proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (12.5); Charge partially adjusted. As to the remainder, telephone conference with atty Dan Bonnett re: revisions to the conference call between plaintiff's counsel proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (0.5); was only 0.3 hours, not 0.5 hours (see Row 699), suggesting that a reduction of 0.2 hours, or $59, is appropriate. -12.5 -$3,687.50 Adjustment - Revise proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (12.5); 03/18/2016 $295.00 4.5 $1,327.50 Revise proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (3.5); finalize propose findings of fact and conclusions of law, declaration of Ravi Patel, and supporting exhibits (1.0); 03/21/2016 $125.00 2 $250.00 Work on preparation of Bill of Costs. 03/25/2016 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding possible need to stipulate for extension of time and follow up related email (.2) 03/29/2016 $435.00 0.1 $43.50 Email communications with client regarding status (.1)
03/31/2016 $435.00 0.2 $87.00 Review court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and As Ms. Kroll did not perform any substantive email to Attorney Ravi Patel and Attorney Bonnett re deadlines work in the case (only attending one day of trial for filing motion for fees and costs to assist with the computerized trial exhibits), her review of the court's order was unnecessary and should be discounted in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 03/31/2016 $295.00 2.1 $619.50 Review of findings of fact and conclusions of law re: liquidated damages (0.8); telephone conference with client re: judgment and liquidated damages (0.3); further exchange of emails with client (0.2); prepare motion for extension of time to submit attorneys fees, litigation expenses, bill of costs, and to file post-judgment motions (0.8) BILLABLE 1389.35 $511,846.25 Attorneys' Fees Accrued Post-Trial 4/8/2016 $295.00 1.3 $383.50 Review draft bill of costs and supporting invoices (1.0) *Exh. 14 to Bonnett Declaration (Doc. 184-4, conference with legal assistant re: items to be included pg. 52-53), time entries 4/8/16 - 4/27/16. in bill of costs (0.3) Please note Bonnett's rate change from $435.00 to $525.00 (per Bonnett's declaration - Doc. 184-1, ¶¶ 21, 27). -1.3 -$383.50 Adjustment - Review draft bill of costs and supporting invoices (1.0) conference with legal assistant re: items to be included in bill of costs (0.3) 4/18/2016 $525.00 2.2 $1,155.00 review time and billing entries and make adjustments Reductions of time entries to eliminate preliminary to discussion with attorney for defendant duplicative or unreasonable billing, while regarding fees and costs as required by local rule (2.2) appreciate, is not substantive legal work that should be reimbursed by JDA. 4/18/2016 $295.00 1.5 $442.50 Study Local Rule 54.1 and 1920 and related cases Charge adjusted. (0.5); review trial exhibits to determine pages associated with admitted exhibits (1.0); -1.5 -$442.50 Adjustment - Study Local Rule 541 and 1920 and related cases (0.5); review trial exhibits to determine pages associated with admitted exhibits (1.0);
4/19/2016 $525.00 0.4 $210.00 telephone conference with attorney for defendant Charge adjusted. regarding attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to local rule (.3); follow up email with attachments (.1) -0.4 -$210.00 Adjustment - telephone conference with attorney for defendant regarding attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to local rule (.3); follow up email with attachments (.1) 4/20/2016 $525.00 1.7 $892.50 telephone calls and email communications to plaintiff Charge adjusted. attorneys for possible declarations in support of fee applications (.7); REDACTED (1.0) -1.7 -$892.50 Adjustment - telephone calls and email communications to plaintiff attorneys for possible declarations in support of fee applications (.7); 4/21/2016 $525.00 1.9 $997.50 telephone conferences and Email communications with attorneys who will be providing declarations in support of fee application (.4); drafting and revising DB declaration in support of fee application (1.5) 4/22/2016 $525.00 2.5 $1,312.50 legal research for caselaw in support of attorney fee JDA respectfully submits that a first draft of the motion (1.0); begin drafting motion for attorneys' fees motion for fees should have been completed by and costs (1.5) the associate(s) assigned to the case, warranting at least a 1/3 discount in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 4/23/2016 $525.00 3 $1,575.00 continue drafting and revising motion for attorneys' fees JDA respectfully submits that a first draft of the and DLB declaration in support (3.0) motion for fees should have been completed by the associate(s) assigned to the case, warranting at least a 1/3 discount in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 4/24/2016 $525.00 3.5 $1,837.50 continue drafting and revising motion for attorneys' fees JDA respectfully submits that a first draft of the and supporting declaration (3.5) motion for fees should have been completed by the associate(s) assigned to the case, warranting at least a 1/3 discount in the exercise of reasonable billing judgment.
4/25/2016 $295.00 2 $590.00 Review and revise declaration of Dan Bonnett (0.5); Charge partially adjusted. review correspondence for examples to attach to motion for attorney's fees (0.5); review authorities regarding claims for attorneys fees under the FMLA when other claims were dismissed(1.0); -1 -$295.00 Adjustment - review authorities regarding claims for attorneys fees under the FMLA when other claims were dismissed(1.0); 4/26/2016 $295.00 3.2 $944.00 Review of authorities and revise draft Bill of Costs and Patel Declaration in support (2.5); Review billing records and invoices and itemize non-taxable costs and begin drafting Patel declaration in support of non-taxable costs (0.7); 4/26/2016 $525.00 5 $2,625.00 continue drafting and revising motion for attorneys' fees JDA respectfully submits that a first draft of the and non-taxable costs (2.2); continue drafting and motion for fees should have been completed by revising DB declaration and identifying supporting the associate(s) assigned to the case, exhibits (1.5); additional legal research on issues warranting at least a 1/3 discount in the relating to recoverable attorneys' fees (1.3) exercise of reasonable billing judgment. 4/27/2016 $525.00 4.4 $2,310.00 Email communication with Tom Rogers and Michael Petitti regarding declarations (.5); continue drafting, review and revise of DB declaration (.9) and motion for attorneys fees and non-taxable expenses (3.0) 4/27/2016 $295.00 7 $2,065.00 Prepare Patel Declaration re: non-taxable costs; review Charges partially adjusted. supporting invoices for costs and expenses (4.5), reconcile Declaration, Bill of Costs, and requested nontaxable costs (2.0); Review and begin revising Motion for attorneys fee and declaration of Daniel Bonnett (0.5)
-4 -$1,180.00 Adjustment - Prepare Patel Declaration re: non-taxable costs; review supporting invoices for costs and expenses (2.0 - adjusted from 4.0), reconcile Declaration, Bill of Costs, and requested nontaxable costs (2.0); BILLABLE 29.7 $13,936.50 TOTAL ATTY FEES: $525,782.75 Total Requested $529,503.75 Reduction -$3,721.00
01/08/2014 $2.78 Postage 01/08/2014 Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction. 02/28/2014 $0.15 $3.00 Copy Charges 02/28/2014 $0.00 Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction. 03/31/2014 $0.15 $15.75 Copy Charges 04/17/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Restoration hardware Cost adjusted. -$40.00 Adjustment - Witness Fee Restoration hardware 04/17/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Discount Tire Cost adjusted. -$40.00 Adjustment - Witness Fee Discount Tire 04/17/2014 $56.00 Service of Process CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. Cost adjusted. -$56.00 Adjustment - Service of Process CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. 04/17/2014 $93.50 Service of Process CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. Cost adjusted. -$93.50 Adjustment - Service of Process CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. 04/17/2014 $32.73 Overnight Mail Expense - UPS United Parcel Service 04/30/2014 $0.15 $30.60 Copy Charges 04/30/2014 $0.00 Postage 05/31/2014 $0.15 $36.45 Copy Charges 05/31/2014 $2.61 Postage 06/17/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Bill Wortham 06/18/2014 $230.25 Transcript Brush & Terrell 06/18/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Brad Bell 06/18/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Tom Dziersk 06/24/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Michael Bridge 06/24/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee John Rector 06/24/2014 $40.00 Witness Fee Tim Mahoney 06/24/2014 $31.08 mileage Bill Wortham (Adjustment - reduced by $8.92) Cost partially adjusted.
06/30/2014 $1,046.51 Travel Expenses-Dan Bonnett to Dallas on 6/26-6/27 for JDA agreed to videoconference of depositions, Deposition such as the one of Bill Wortham, rendering travel expenses unnecessary and subject to deduction. 06/30/2014 $0.15 $768.45 Copy Charges 06/30/2014 $11.24 Postage 06/30/2014 On-line Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction. 07/01/2014 $38.85 Mileage reimbursement 07/01/2014 $515.08 Travel Expenses for deposition of Mahoney JDA agreed to videoconference of depositions, such as the one of Bill Wortham, rendering travel expenses unnecessary and subject to deduction. 07/08/2014 $1,063.95 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/08/2014 $555.20 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/08/2014 $2,734.20 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/08/2014 $32.00 Messenger Service CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. 07/08/2014 $1,082.04 Travel Expenses for deposition of Rector JDA agreed to videoconference of depositions, such as the one of Bill Wortham, rendering travel expenses unnecessary and subject to deduction. 07/15/2014 $47.08 Witness Fee John Rector-mileage 07/22/2014 $1,144.55 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/24/2014 $1,157.00 Deposition Transcript #87424 07/28/2014 $1,642.30 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/31/2014 $729.90 Transcript Driver and Nix 07/31/2014 $0.15 $170.25 Copy Charges 07/31/2014 $5.08 Postage 08/06/2014 $1,378.90 Transcript Driver and Nix 09/04/2014 $0.15 $33.75 Copy Charges 09/17/2014 $404.70 Deposition Transcript #87571 09/30/2014 $0.15 $26.70 Copy Charges 10/31/2014 Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction.
11/05/2014 $0.15 $294.30 Copy Charges 12/31/2014 Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction. 07/08/2015 $0.15 $222.60 Copy Charges 09/22/2015 $0.15 $168.83 Copy Charges Evolve Discovery 09/30/2015 Westlaw-Legal Research Lack of specificity as to matter researched Lack of renders it impossible to determine Specificity reasonableness of electronic legal research, warranting a substantial deduction. 09/30/2015 $0.15 $369.90 (In house) Copy Charges 10/07/2015 $8.00 Messenger Service CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. 10/31/2015 $0.15 $1,350.60 (In house) Copy Charges Plaintiff's failure to critically analyze the exhibits it would use at trial resulted in its overinclusion of dozens of extraordinarily lengthy exhibits, none of which Plaintiff referred to at trial. Their inclusion, however, increased the cost of copying substantially, particularly when copied in-house rather than by a vendor. Plaintiff's failure to limit copies to a reasonable amount or to utilize a third party vendor should result in a substantial discount 11/12/2015 $85.00 Transcript Elizabeth Lemke No witness by the name of Elizabeth Lemke was deposed in this case, rendering the entry an error that should be discounted. 12/02/2015 $0.15 $32.70 (In house) Copy Charges 12/30/2015 $100.56 - Copies Evolve Discovery 12/31/2015 $0.15 $21.90 (In house) Copy Charges 01/19/2016 $764.51 - Copies Evolve Discovery
01/31/2016 $0.15 $266.40 (In house) Copy Charges Plaintiff's failure to critically analyze the exhibits it would use at trial resulted in its overinclusion of dozens of extraordinarily lengthy exhibits, none of which Plaintiff referred to at trial. Their inclusion, however, increased the cost of copying substantially, particularly when copied in-house rather than by a vendor. Plaintiff's failure to limit copies to a reasonable amount or to utilize a third party vendor should result in a substantial discount 02/04/2016 $4,950.00 Expert-Third Chair Trial Consulting, LLC 02/10/2016 $71.05 Witness Fee Debble Baker 02/10/2016 $71.05 Witness Fee Brad Bell 02/10/2016 $71.05 Witness Fee Tom Dziersk 02/25/2016 $400.00 Witness Fee Tom Dziersk 02/29/2016 $0.15 $948.60 (In house) Copy Charges Plaintiff's failure to critically analyze the exhibits it would use at trial resulted in its overinclusion of dozens of extraordinarily lengthy exhibits, none of which Plaintiff referred to at trial. Their inclusion, however, increased the cost of copying substantially, particularly when copied in-house rather than by a vendor. Plaintiff's failure to limit copies to a reasonable amount or to utilize a third party vendor should result in a substantial discount 02/29/2016 $3.70 Postage 03/07/2016 $741.30 Transcripts from trial 03/08/2016 $220.50 Transcript Elva Cruz-Lauer from Trial (3/4 and 3/7) 03/08/2016 $632.10 Transcript from Court Reporter Elva Cruz-Lauer 03/15/2016 $172.20 Transcript from court Charlotte Powers - March 7th 03/16/2016 $12.00 Travel Expenses Evan Schlack-JDA trial parking Cost adjusted -$12.00 Adjustment-Travel Expenses Evan Schlack-JDA trial parking 03/16/2016 $129.78 Trial prep meals 3/1-3/7 Cost adjusted -$129.78 Adjustment-Trial prep meals 3/1-3/7 03/18/2016 $12.00 Messenger Service CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC. Cost adjusted. -$12.00 Adjustment-Messenger Service CENTRAL COURIER SERVICE, INC.
03/22/2016 $1,708.28 (Outside) - Copies Evolve Discovery 03/22/2016 $1,125.00 Expert Third Chair Trial Consulting, LLC 03/31/2016 $0.15 $345.15 (In house) Copy Charges Plaintiff's failure to critically analyze the exhibits it would use at trial resulted in its overinclusion of dozens of extraordinarily lengthy exhibits, none of which Plaintiff referred to at trial. Their inclusion, however, increased the cost of copying substantially, particularly when copied in-house rather than by a vendor. Plaintiffs failure to limit copies to a reasonable amount or to utilize a third party vendor should result in a substantial discount 4/7/2016 $266.70 Transcript Charlotte Powers March 2nd $30,624.96 -$14,116.85 Taxable Costs $16,508.11 Non-Taxable Costs Awarded TOTAL COSTS: $16,508.11 Total Requested $17,743.80 Reduction -$1,235.69