Opinion
2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK
02-07-2023
EBONI D. LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER [Docket No. 130]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to calculate fees. Docket No. 130. The motion does not include points and authorities, but see Local Rule 7-2(d), does not include meaningful argument to justify the fees sought, but see Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013), and does not include evidentiary support for the fees sought, but see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984) (explaining that “the burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence” of the prevailing market rate); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (“the fee applicant bears the burden of . . . documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates”). Accordingly, the motion to calculate fees is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion to calculate fees must be filed by February 9, 2023.
The motion indicates that Defendants will provide support for the fee request in camera if ordered by the Court. Docket No. 130 at 2. No showing has been made that such information is properly submitted in camera, as opposed to filing it on the docket. Cf. Garcia v. Service Emps. Int'l Union, 2018 WL 10730805, at *2 n.5 (D. Nev. Sept 21, 2018) (addressing disfavored status of in camera submissions).
IT IS SO ORDERED.