Summary
reducing $700 hourly rate to $650 for "a partner with over 35 years of experience in employment litigation"
Summary of this case from Blake v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.Opinion
12-CV-4221 (LAP) (DF)
12-17-2015
KERETH POWELL Plaintiff, v. METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP (GUARD DIVISION NY), INC. Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION :
Kereth Powell ("Plaintiff") previously moved to recover costs, attorneys' fees, and sanctions from Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group ("Defendant") as a result of Defendant's late production of documents after the close of the discovery period. (See Letter to Judge Freeman, dated Mar. 31, 2014 [dkt. no. 54].) Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman thereafter issued an Order directing Defendant "as a minimum sanction . . . to reimburse Plaintiff for the cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of preparing and filing its letter motion and reply." (Order, dated Aug. 7, 2014 [dkt. no. 59].)
The parties were unable to come to an agreement as to the amount of fees to be paid pursuant to Judge Freeman's Order, leading Plaintiff to make a formal application to the Court. Based on the parties' submissions Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation analyzing the requested fees and supporting billing records and ultimately recommending that Defendant be ordered to pay $16,450 to Plaintiff. (Report and Recommendation, dated Feb. 5, 2015 [dkt. no. 97] (the "Report").) Defendant subsequently filed objections to the Report (Defendant's Objections, dated Feb. 23, 2015 [dkt. no. 107]), and Plaintiff filed a response to those objections (Plaintiff's Memo, of Law in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 115]; Decl. of Debra Raskin in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 116].)
Having reviewed the Report and reexamined the objected-to portions de novo — despite Plaintiff's contention that a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard should be utilized (see Plaintiff's Memo, of Law in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 115], at 5) - the Court finds the Report to be correct and appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Report [dkt. no. 97] is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Conclusion
Plaintiff's objections [dkt. no. 107] are OVERRULED. Pursuant to the reasoning set forth in the Report, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to pay to Plaintiff $16,450 in full satisfaction of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2015 [dkt. no. 59]. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York
December 17, 2015
/s/_________
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Chief U.S. District Judge