Opinion
96 Civ. 9721 (PKL) (THK), 98 Civ. 0123 (PKL) (THK)
May 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
These consolidated actions were referred to me by the Honorable Peter K. Leisure, United States District Judge, for resolution of discovery disputes and settlement. In an Opinion issued on January 10, 2002, the Court granted Plaintiff Gianni Versace S.p.A.'s motion for sanctions against Defendant Alfredo Versace ("Mr. Versace"), based upon his long-term failure to comply with various discovery Orders issued by the Court. The Court ordered, inter alia, that Mr. Versace pay Plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees incurred in attempting to secure compliance with the Court's discovery orders since January 24, 2000. See A.V. by Versace v. Gianni Versace S.p.A., Nos. 96 Civ. 9721 (PKL) (THK), 98 Civ. 0123 (PKL) (THK), 2002 WL 54610, at *8 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2002) This Court's decision was affirmed in all respects after Mr. Versace filed objections with Judge Leisure. See A.V. by Versace v. Gianni Versace S.p.A., 191 F. Supp.2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Consistent with this Court's directive, Plaintiff's counsel submitted an affidavit, with supporting documentation, demonstrating the time and money expended in attempting to secure compliance with the Court's discovery Orders. (Affidavit of David Jacoby, Esq., dated February 1, 2002 ("Jacoby Aff.").) Although Alfredo Versace was given the opportunity to contest the reasonableness of Plaintiff's fee request, he failed to do so. The Court has nevertheless independently reviewed Plaintiff's submission and concludes that its request for $31,669.05 in attorneys' fees and $72 in disbursements is justified and reasonable.
DISCUSSION
I. Law on Attorneys' Fees Applications
Reasonable attorneys' fees are generally determined by the "lodestar" method, in which the court multiplies the number of hours reasonably spent by an attorney or paralegal, by an appropriate hourly rate. See City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2641 (1992);Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148, 1159 (2d Cir. 1994); Cohen v. W. Haven Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 638 F.2d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1980). To determine whether time was reasonably spent, the court must evaluate the tasks and the time documented in counsel's contemporaneous time records in light of its general experience and its experience with the case. See New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146-48 (2d Cir. 1983); Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Spitzer, Nos. 00 Civ. 7274 (LAP), 00 Civ. 7750 (LAP), 2002 WL 498631, at *3 (S.D.N Y Mar. 29, 2002); Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Abir, No. 97 Civ. 8673 (JGK), 1999 WL 61817, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1999). The reasonable hourly rate is ordinarily determined by the prevailing rates in the community for similar services by lawyers with comparable skill, experience, and reputation. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.ll, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 (1984); Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 882 (2d Cir. 1998); Cruz, 34 F.3d at 1159; Cohen, 638 F.2d at 505. In deciding what reasonable rates are in the community, the court may rely upon its own knowledge of private firm hourly rates. See Miele v. New York State Teamsters Conf. Pension Ret. Fund, 831 F.2d 407, 409 (2d Cir. 1987); Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, 2002 WL 498631, at *3.
If the court finds that the fee applicant's claim is excessive or insufficiently documented, or that time spent was wasteful or redundant, the court may decrease the award, either by eliminating compensation for unreasonable hours or by making across-the-board percentage cuts in the total hours for which reimbursement is sought. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939-40 (1983); Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d Cir. 1998); New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, 711 F.2d at 1146; Toys "R" Us, 1999 WL 61817, at *3.
II. Plaintiff's Application
Plaintiff's attorneys have provided a summary description of the work they performed in attempting to secure the discovery in this action during the period from January 24, 2000, to April 20, 2001. (Jacoby Aff. ¶¶ 16-22.) They have also provided contemporaneous time records documenting the time spent and tasks engaged in trying to secure compliance with the Court's Orders. (Id., Exhibit ("Ex.") D.) These records fully satisfy the requirements in this Circuit for properly supporting an application for attorneys' fees. See Kirsch, 148 F.3d at 173; New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, 711 F.2d at 1147-48.
The records and affidavit show that the work performed by Plaintiff's counsel consisted of extensive correspondence with the Court summarizing the fairly complex discovery issues and history, attendance at Court hearings, review and analysis of documentation provided by Alfredo Versace, and preparation of the motion for sanctions. Where entries in the computerized time records involved multiple tasks, counsel made reasoned estimates of time allocations between those tasks that were discovery-related and those that were not. (Jacoby Aff. ¶ 23.) Having reviewed the records, I conclude that the documented time, totaling 155.8 hours, expended over a period of sixteen months, was reasonably spent. The Court was directly involved in discovery-related matters and is aware that they were protracted and unduly time-consuming, in large part because of Defendant's recalcitrance and disingenuousness in the discovery process.
Plaintiff has submitted a description of the background and hourly billing rates of the three attorneys and the paralegal assistant who worked on this action. Plaintiff's attorneys are employed by a large New York firm, Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim Ballon LLP, and they specialize in intellectual property litigation. As another judge in this Court has noted, "trademark litigation is a particularly difficult field of specialization and is recognized as meriting greater than average rates of pay." Toys "R" Us, 1999 WL 61817, at *2. Two of the attorneys who worked on these matters, David Jacoby and Theodore C. Max, were partners in the firm, and each of them has been involved in intellectual property litigation and related professional activity, including authoring publications and serving on bar committees, for over fifteen years. During the period in issue, Mr. Max billed at an hourly rate of between $320 and $355, and Mr. Jacoby billed at an hourly rate of between $315 and $355. The associate who worked on the matters in issue is a 1997 law school graduate who also specializes in intellectual property law. (Jacoby Aff. ¶ 10.) His hourly billing rates during the relevant period ranged from $150 and $195. (Id. ¶ 13.) These rates all fall well within the range of rates charged by attorneys in New York City of comparable skill and experience. See, e.g., Gianni Versace S.P.A. v. Versace, No. 98 Civ. 0123 (PKL) (THK), 2000 WL 739569, at **1, 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2000) (the Court in this action (Leisure, J.) approved rates of between $125 and $375 per hour for attorney work performed in 1998 and 1999); Toys "R" Us, 1999 WL 61817, at *2 (approving a rate of $375 per hour for a partner practicing intellectual property law in New York City in 1999, and finding it comparable to rates charged by other intellectual property firms); Yurman Designs, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 125 F. Supp.2d 54, 57-58 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (approving partner hourly rate of $520.69 and associate rate of $278.50 per hour, in trade dress and copyright litigation); Berlinsky v. Alcatel Alsthom Compagnie Generale d'Electricite, 970 F. Supp. 348, 351 (S.D.N Y 1997) (approving hourly rates of between $495 for a senior partner and $225 for a junior associate).
Mr. Max subsequently left the firm.
Finally, the paralegal assistant who worked on discovery-related matters had hourly billing rates ranging from $80 to $95. (Id.) These rates, as well, are reasonable for legal assistants in large New York City law firms. See e.g., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, 2002 WL 498631, at **7-8 (approving paralegal rates of between $135 and $145 per hour at one law firm, and between $50 and $124 at another firm); Sulkowska v. City of New York, 170 F. Supp. 2 d 359, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (approving $95 hourly rate for paralegal); Toys "R" Us, 1999 WL 61817, at *2 (noting hourly billing rates for legal assistants ranging from $45 to $130).
Applying the hourly rates to the 155.5 hours of total time expended results in a total fee of $38,996.50. (Jacoby Aff. ¶ 25, Ex. E.) As is customary, however, when counsel bills Plaintiff, it makes reductions in the total time charges incurred. In the sixteen-month period in which the relevant work was done, the average reduction from incurred time charges to actually billed charges was 18.79%. This results in actual client billings on the instant matter of $31,669.05 (id. ¶ 5), which, in light of the discussion above, the Court finds eminently reasonable.
In addition, Plaintiff seeks $72 in reimbursement for photocopying costs related to the discovery sanctions motion. These are part of the actual costs incurred by the client (id. ¶¶ 6, 26-28), and they are entirely reasonable.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Gianni Versace S.p.A.'s application for attorneys' fees and costs is hereby granted. Alfredo Versace is ordered to remit $31,741.05 to Gianni Versace S.P.A. within thirty days of this Memorandum Order.
So ordered.