Case 6:12-cv-01794-CEH-TBS Document 76 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 382
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TWIN RIVERS ENGINEERING
FIELDPIECE INSTRUMENTS, INC.,
Case No. 6:12-cv-1794-Orl-36TBS
On July 5, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order for
Deposition Scheduled for July 9, 2013. (Doc. 67). In its Order, the Court gave
Defendant 14 days to file its application for legal expenses incurred in connection with
the motion. The case now comes before the Court without oral argument on
Defendant’s Application for Expenses, Including Attorney Fees Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B). (Doc. 70). Defendant’s application is due to be
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) provides that when a motion for
protective order is denied, “the court . . . must, after giving an opportunity to be heard,
require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent
who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion,
including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this payment if the motion was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
Case 6:12-cv-01794-CEH-TBS Document 76 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 383
Federal courts have adopted the lodestar method to determine the amount of
attorney’s fees to be awarded. Schafler v. Fairway Park Condo. Ass’n, 147 Fed.
Appx. 113, 114 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying
the number of hours reasonably expended by a professional by the reasonable hourly
rate for the services provided by that person. Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781
(11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). “The starting point in fashioning an award of attorney’s
fees is to multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly
rate” to determine the lodestar amount. Loranger, 10 F.3d at 781. “The fee applicant
bears the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours
and hourly rates.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292,
1303 (11th Cir. 1988). The Court must exclude from its calculation, “excessive,
redundant or otherwise unnecessary” hours. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434
(1983). “A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience
and reputation.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. “Ultimately, the computation of a fee
award is necessarily an exercise of judgment, because ‘[t]here is no precise rule or
formula for making these determinations.’” Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d
1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436).
Defendant requests $4,416 in attorney’s fees based upon “approximately 15.9
hours” of attorney time to prepare and file a 3 page memorandum containing two
citations of law. (Doc. 70-1, ¶ 5). Defendant seeks fees based upon hourly rates
ranging from $100 to $350 per hour. (Id., ¶ 6). The Court finds Defendant’s
Case 6:12-cv-01794-CEH-TBS Document 76 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 384
application for attorney’s fees deficient for many reasons including:
(1) Defendant has not identified all of the attorneys who worked on the matter.
(2) Defendant failed to provide biographical information for its attorneys.
(3) Defendant only provides the hourly rate for one of its attorneys.
(4) There are no itemized time records attached to or incorporated into the
(5) The amount claimed is an approximation.
(6) Defendant failed to provide any expert opinion testimony to support its
(7) The amount claimed is unreasonable on its face.
The Court is “an expert on the question [of attorneys’ fees] and may consider
its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may
form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.”
Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303 (quoting Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143, 144 (5th Cir.
1940)). Still, Defendant’s application is so lacking in information that any fee award
by the Court would be a guess. Accordingly, Defendant’s application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 30, 2013.
Copies to all Counsel