Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-1030, SECTION: "K" (4)
August 18, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed") filed the Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. #36) seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to respond to several questions posed during her deposition. Specifically, Lockheed requested that the plaintiff be required to provide the identity of the person with whom she had a relationship for two years. Lockheed also sought to recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing the motion.
The plaintiff objected to the request contending that the identity of the plaintiffs partner is a "private issue." The plaintiff claimed that because her partner had not made her sexual orientation public, her partner's job and the custody of her partner's child would be placed at risk if such information was disclosed.
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court granted the motion to compel and ordered the plaintiff to reveal the identity of her partner. The court also deferred ruling on Lockheed's request for fees and costs and ordered Lockheed to provide the documentation required by Local Rule 54.2. Lockheed complied. Upon review of the information submitted, however, the Court finds that Lockheed has failed to submit sufficient information for the Court to make a determination of the"reasonable hourly rate."
Rec. Doc. No. 74.
It is the applicant's burden to establish the reasonableness of the number of hours expended. Von Clark v. Butler, 916 F.2d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 1990). In this respect, Local Rule 54.2 provides that all parties who apply to this Court for attorney's fees shall submit contemporaneous billing records, reflecting the date, time involved, and nature of the services performed. See Local Rule 54.2 (emphasis added). The plaintiffs have satisfied this requirement.
Once the number of hours reasonably expended have been established, the Court must then determine a reasonable hourly rate for each of the participating attorneys. Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2002); Stein v. Foamex International Inc., 204 F.R.D. 270, 271-72 (E.D. Penn. 2001); see Ray v. University of Tulsa, 283 B.R. 70, 78 (N.D. Okla. 2002). A reasonable hourly rate is defined as the prevailing market rate, in the relevant legal community, for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation. Tollett, 285 F.3d at 368-69; Stein, 204 F.R.D. at 270. It is the applicant's burden to produce "satisfactory evidence" that the requested rate is in line with the prevailing market. Tollett, 285 F.3d at 368-69.
"Satisfactory evidence" of the reasonableness of the rate necessarily includes an affidavit from each attorney performing the work, detailing his background, experience, and usual billing rate. Id. Satisfactory evidence must speak to the rates actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits. Id. Thus, in addition to the attorney's own affidavit, the applicant must also introduce evidence of the rates charged in similar cases by other attorneys in the same legal community, who possess similar experience, skill and reputation. Id.; see Wheeler v. Mental Health Mental Retardation Auth., 752 F.2d 1063, 1073 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 824 (1985) (fee applicant has burden "to produce satisfactory evidence — in addition to counsel's own affidavits — that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation") (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896, n. 11 (1984)).
Counsel for Lockheed seeks to recover attorney's fees in the amount of S835.00. Lockheed contends that Michael Tusa expended 1.5 hours preparing the motion at an hourly rate of $195. It also submits that Michael Chapman spent 4.7 hours working on the motion at an hourly rate of $125. However, the Court has not been provided with satisfactory proof of counsel's education, background or experience. Nor, has it been provided any evidence of rates charged in similar cases by other attorneys.
Therefore, in order for the Court to conduct a proper review of the pending request, counsel for Lockheed is ORDERED to provide the Court with (1) an affidavit attesting to their education, background, skills and experience and (2) sufficient evidence of rates charged in similar cases by other local attorneys with similar experience, skill and reputation no later than August 21, 2003.