On October 12, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and directing Plaintiffs to supplement their Motion with a categorization and breakdown of attorneys' fees. (Order, October 12, 2016, #311.) The Court further directed Plaintiffs to separate any fees related to its defense against GAT's allegations of spoliation. Plaintiffs' Supplements include an itemization of time spent on the case, including a table listing the hourly rate, time spent, and a description of each task. (Tate & Lyle First and Second Supplements, Exhibits A, #315–1 and #316–1.) Tate & Lyle separately listed all work related to its defense against GAT's allegations of spoliation. (Tate & Lyle First Supplement, Exhibit B, #315–2.)

Plaintiffs request fees in several categories: 1) Attorneys' fees accrued through the end of the trial, not related to defending the allegations of spoliation, amounting to $729,142.50 for Tate & Lyle and $213,313.50 for American Guarantee; 2) attorneys' fees accrued through the end of the trial reasonably related to defending the allegations of spoliation, amounting to $59,310.00; 3) professional fees and expenses accrued through the end of the trial, amounting to $347,439.94; 4) attorneys' fees accrued after the trial, amounting to $56,280.00 for Tate & Lyle; and 5) professional fees and expenses accrued after the trial, amounting to $8,636.02.

GAT argues that Plaintiffs should not be compensated for attorneys' fees related to defending GAT's allegations of spoliation. The Court previously determined that Tate & Lyle failed to preserve electronically stored information and instructed the jury accordingly. While the Court found that the failure to preserve electronically stored information was not done in bad faith, the Court agrees that GAT should not be required to compensate Plaintiffs for work incurred as a result of Tate & Lyle's failure to preserve. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs' request for $59,310.00 in fees related to defending allegations of spoliation.

*2 GAT's response also argues that Tate & Lyle failed to include all fees related to the discovery violations in its separate category of spoliation related fees. GAT lists several items including: Timothy Luallen's May 2014 Deposition; communications with GAT's counsel; GAT's Motion to Compel; court conferences; and supplemental discovery productions. However, GAT's response fails to develop this argument. GAT does not identify specific line item fees that Tate & Lyle failed to separate out as related to its spoliation defense. GAT's failure to develop its argument in a meaningful way waives that argument. See U.S. v. Adams, 625 F.3d 371, 378 (7th Cir. 2010) (“By failing to develop his argument in any meaningful way, he has waived it.”); see also Smith v. United Residential Services & Real Estate, Inc., 837 F. Supp. 2d 818, n.5 (“It is not the job of the court to formulate and develop arguments for the parties.”). The Court will not speculate as to which fees GAT believes were improperly categorized, and GAT's general request to limit Plaintiffs' award on this basis is denied.

GAT's response also asks the Court to deny or reduce Plaintiffs' claimed fees as Plaintiffs failed to include the actual invoices and retainer agreements. GAT cites Fed. R. Evid. 1002, which provides that “an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.” GAT does not cite, and the Court has not found, any case where a court required a party to provide the actual invoices and retainers to collect attorneys' fees. Here, Plaintiffs provided detailed itemizations of all fees claimed. The itemizations include a description of the work, time spent, billed rate, and other details which are easily discernible. Plaintiffs have provided sufficient documentation of the fees.

The Court awarded fees under Section 5.1 of the parties' Contract, which included an indemnity clause allowing for the recovery of “reasonable legal and other professional fees and expenses.” GAT's response does not argue that the fees claimed by Plaintiffs are unreasonable. The Court likewise finds the claimed fees, other than those related to the spoliation defense, to be reasonable. Plaintiff Tate & Lyle is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $785,422.50 (representing $729,142.50 in fees accrued through June 30, 2016, and $56,280.00 in fees accrued post-trial). Plaintiff American Guarantee is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $213,313.50. Plaintiffs are also awarded professional fees and expenses in the amount of $356,075.96 (representing $347,439.94 in fees accrued through June 30, 2016, and $8,636.02 in fees accrued post-trial).

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' First Supplement to its Joint Motion for Contractual Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (#315) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiffs' Second Supplement to its Joint Motion for Contractual Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) Accrued after June 30, 2016 (Post Trial) (#316) is GRANTED. The Court awards Plaintiff Tate & Lyle attorneys' fees in the amount of $785,422.50; Plaintiff American Guarantee attorneys' fees in the amount of $213,313.50; and Plaintiffs are awarded professional fees and expenses in the amount of $356,075.96.