Minerva26

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2019 WL 7500518 (C.D. III. 2019)

February 27, 2019

Schanzle-Haskins, Tom, United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

Electronically Stored Information was not discussed. The Court allowed State Farm's Motion to Compel and awarded fees and expenses in the sum of $2,427.30, reducing the request by 2.2 hours due to excessive time spent drafting the Motion. Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the sum to State Farm's counsel within 14 days.

Additional Decisions

MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC; MSP RECOVERY, LLC; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

No. 17-cv-1537

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

February 27, 2019

Counsel

Andres Rivero, Rivero Mestre LLP, Miami, FL, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP, Plaquemine, LA, Robert Brent Wisner, Adam M. Foster, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, Los Angeles, CA, Courtney L. Stidham, Tracy L. Turner, Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP, New Orleans, LA, David M Hundley, Hundley Law Group, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
David Matthew Allen, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., Tampa, FL, Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, Edwardsville, IL, Benjamine Reid, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., Miami, FL, Brian Joseph Neff, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, New York, NY, Harnaik Singh Kahlon, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr, James P. Gaughan, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

Schanzle-Haskins, Tom, United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION

*1 This matter comes before the Court on the determination of the award of fees and expenses to Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). For the reasons set forth below, the Court awards fees and expenses in the sum of $2,427.30.

This Court allowed State Farm's Motion to Compel. Opinion entered December 19, 2018 (d/e 109) (Opinion), at 19-20. The Court must award fees and expenses in this circumstance unless the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action; the opposing party's failure to respond was substantially justified; or other circumstances made an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). The Court found that none of these circumstances existed in this case. Opinion, at 19.

Plaintiffs argue that fees should not be awarded because State Farm did not make a good faith attempt to secure the discovery without court action. Plaintiffs' Objection to State Farm's Statement of Fees and Expenses (d/e 115), at 1-2. The Court disagrees. State Farm served its discovery requests on September 14, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs asked for a three-week extension and State Farm waited the three weeks. The Plaintiffs produced nothing. On November 7, 2018, State Farm again asked by email when the Plaintiffs would comply with State Farm's discovery requests and the Plaintiffs failed to respond. The bifurcated class certification discovery was scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2018. In light of this discovery deadline, State Farm reasonably had to act in good faith to protect its interest. See Opinion, at 6, 8-9, 16. The Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. No exception to the mandatory requirement to award fees exists in this case.

The District Court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees in discovery matters. The Court may rely on its experience and may reject fee requests that are “unsatisfactorily supported.” Vocca v. Playboy Hotel of Chicago, Inc., 686 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1982).

In this case, the Court finds that the fee request is excessive. State Farm asks for $3,570.75 in fees to file the Motion to Compel. State Farm Statement of Fees and Expenses (d/e 112) (Fee Statement), at 3. The Motion to Compel was relatively simple. State Farm asked the Court to compel a response to its discovery because the Plaintiffs had not responded at all. State Farm did not need an analysis of claims of privilege, objections, or the sufficiency of particular responses. The Plaintiffs had not responded at all.

State Farm attorneys spent 5.7 hours drafting and editing the Motion. The Court finds this time to be excessive. In particular, attorney Gaughan spent .9 hours outlining the Motion, attorney Neff spent 2.2 hours drafting the Motion, and then attorney Gaughan spent another 2.2 hours editing and revising attorney Neff's draft. See Fee Statement, at 2. Either attorney Neff's efforts were largely unnecessary or attorney Gaughan spent excessive amounts of time editing and revising Neff's draft. The Court reduces the request by 2.2 hours deducting the excessive time spent drafting the Motion. The Court reduces the request by 1.1 hours at attorney Gaughan's rate of $612 per hour, or $673.20; and 1.1 hours at attorney Neff's rate of $427.50 per hour, or $470.25; for a total reduction of $1,143.45. The original request of $3,570.75 minus $1,143.45 equals $2,427.30. The Court awards fees in the sum of $2,427.30.

*2 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs pay to State Farm the sum of $2,427.30 in fees and expenses incurred in bringing State Farm's Motion to Compel (d/e 97). The Court orders Plaintiffs to pay this sum to State Farm's counsel within 14 days of the date of this Opinion.