*1 On June 18, 2019, Defendants HMC Kea Lani LP and CCFH Maui LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). ECF No. 106. On July 19, 2019, this Court issued an order granting the Motion to Compel (“07/19/2019 Order”). ECF No. 121. In addition to other relief, the 07/19/2019 Order awarded sanctions in favor of Defendants in the form of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a)(5)(A). See id. at 6. Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that, if a motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery is granted, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)).

The Court ordered Defendants' counsel to submit a declaration in support of the reasonable fees and costs incurred by Defendants in obtaining the 07/19/2019 Order by July 22, 2019. Id. at 6-7. The Court permitted Plaintiffs Steve Pell, Dionna Pell, J.P. and L.P., minors, Erin Barens, Shannon Bailey, Emma Pell, and Stevi Pell (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to file any opposition to Defendants' counsel's declaration by July 24, 2019. Id. at 7.

On July 22, 2019, Defendants submitted declarations from two of their attorneys, Noel C. Capps, Esq., and Jeffrey Hu, Esq. ECF No. 123. Plaintiffs did not submit an opposition or otherwise respond to the declarations.

DISCUSSION

I. Attorneys' Fees

Reasonable attorneys' fees are generally based on the traditional “lodestar” calculation. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “Under the lodestar method, the district court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants request (1) $10,122 for 48.2 hours expended by Mr. Capps ($210/hour), and (2) $2,548 for 18.2 hours expended by Mr. Hu ($140/hour).

A. Number of Hours Reasonably Expended

The Court has carefully reviewed Mr. Capps' and Mr. Hu's declarations and the timesheets they submitted in support thereof. First, Mr. Capps' timesheets indicate that he expended time reviewing the 87 photographs Plaintiffs previously produced to Defendants, corresponding with Plaintiffs' attorneys regarding an agreement to have Plaintiffs search for additional photographs and videos responsive to Defendants' prior discovery requests, researching caselaw, drafting and editing the Motion to Compel and the Reply, and preparing for and attending the July 17, 2019 hearing on the Motion to Compel (“07/17/2019 Hearing”). The Court finds that 28.2 hours is a reasonable amount of time to have expended on the foregoing tasks, which “were associated with the relief requested and reasonably necessary to achieve the results obtained.” Tiki Shark Art Inc. v. Cafepress Inc., Civil No. 13-00577 JMS-RLP, 2014 WL 12613386, at *2 (D. Haw. July 24, 2014) (citing Tirona v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 821 F. Supp. 632, 636 (D. Haw. 1993)).

*2 Mr. Capps' timesheets also include 20 hours of travel time to attend the 07/17/2019 Hearing – 10 hours flying from Arizona to Hawaii and 10 hours for the return flight. “Courts are especially reluctant to award fees for traveling to a hearing where an insufficient showing has been made that local counsel alone could not have attended and/or the out-of-state counsel could not have attended telephonically.” Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 5324787, at *6 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2013) (other citations omitted) (citing Stanford v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, No. CIV-S-10-1763-JAM GGH, 2012 WL 37383, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012) (reducing fees for travel time where telephonic appearance was possible)). Defendants have two local law firms representing them in this case, and Mr. Capps does not explain why local counsel could not have argued the Motion to Compel or why Mr. Capps could not have appeared telephonically at the 07/17/2019 Hearing. The Court thus finds that Defendants have made an insufficient showing that they are entitled to attorneys' fees for Mr. Capps' travel time.

Second, Mr. Hu's timesheets indicate that he expended time researching caselaw, drafting the Motion to Compel, editing the Reply, and preparing for and attending the 07/17/2019 Hearing. The Court finds that 18.2 hours is a reasonable amount of time to have expended on such tasks, which “were associated with the relief requested and reasonably necessary to achieve the results obtained.” Tiki Shark Art Inc., 2014 WL 12613386, at *2 (citing Tirona, 821 F. Supp. at 636).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to recover for 28.2 hours of Mr. Capps' time and 18.2 hours of Mr. Hu's time expended to obtain the 07/19/2019 Order. The Court also finds, however, that Defendants did not establish that they are entitled to recover for time Mr. Capps expended traveling to and from the 07/17/2019 Hearing. The Court thus denies Defendants' request for 20 hours of Mr. Capps' travel time.

B. Reasonable Hourly Rates

In determining the reasonableness of an hourly rate, courts consider the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting the fee. See Webb v. Ada Cty., 285 F.3d 829, 840 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, the reasonable hourly rate should reflect the prevailing market rates in the community. See id.

Defendants request an hourly rate of $210 for Mr. Capps' work in obtaining the 07/19/2019 Order. Mr. Capps states in his declaration that he is a partner at Renaud Cook Drury, Mesaros, PA, which is located in Phoenix, Arizona. ECF No. 123-1 at ¶ 2. Although Mr. Capps does not specify the number of years he has been practicing law, Mr. Capps has demonstrated a high degree of experience, skill, and professionalism before this Court. Thus, based upon the Court's knowledge of the prevailing rates in this community, the Court finds that $210 is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Capps.

Defendants request an hourly rate of $140 for Mr. Hu's work in obtaining the 07/19/2019 Order. Mr. Hu is an associate at Yamamoto Kim LLP. ECF No. 123-2 at ¶ 5. Mr. Hu states in his declaration that he was admitted to the Hawaii bar in 2014 and joined Yamamoto Kim LLP in September 2015. Id. Based on Mr. Hu's statements regarding his experience and this Court's knowledge of the prevailing rates in the community, the Court finds that $140 is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Hu. See Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, FSB, CIVIL NO. 17-00299 HG-KSC, 2017 WL 4883424, at *7 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 6596582 (D. Haw. Dec. 26, 2017) (finding that $200 was a reasonable hourly rate for a litigation associate with four years of experience).

C. Total Lodestar Calculation

In sum, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to recover $5,922 for attorneys' fees incurred by Mr. Capps to obtain the 07/19/2019 Order.[1] In addition, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to recover $2,548 for attorneys' fees incurred by Mr. Hu to obtain the 07/19/2019 order.[2] The Court finds these amounts to be reasonable and declines to adjust this lodestar amount. Accordingly, the Court awards Defendants $8,470 in attorneys' fees.

II. Costs

*3 Defendants request $27.30 for in-house photocopying costs (273 pages at $0.10 per page). See ECF No. 123-2 at 8. The Court finds this amount to be reasonable under the circumstances. The Court thus awards Defendants $27.30 for copying costs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred to obtain the 07/19/2019 Order as follows:

Moreover, after carefully considering the arguments at the 07/17/2019 Hearing and the record in this case, the Court holds that the actions – or lack thereof – on the part of Plaintiffs and their counsel, Robert M. Ostrove, Esq., necessitated the Motion to Compel. The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs and Mr. Ostrove are jointly liable to Defendants for this amount. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (providing that the court may order “the party or the attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion ....”). Payment shall be remitted to Defendants' counsel by September 30, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 30, 2019.

Pell, et al. v. HMC Kea Lani LP, et al., Civil No. 17-00529 DKW-KJM; ORDER ON REASONABLE EXPENSES RELATED TO ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HMC KEA LANI LP AND CCFH MAUI LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, FILED ON JUNE 18, 2019 [ECF NO. 106]