I. INTRODUCTION

*1 On June 4, 2021, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Defendant Ningbo Swell Industry Co., Ltd's (Swell) Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Attorney's Fees and Costs, among other relief. ECF No. 105. The Court's June 4, 2021 Order required Plaintiff Global Technology, Inc. (Global) to pay the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by Swell as a result of Global's failure, without substantial justification, to (1) produce documents ordered by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand in his February 24, 2021 Order, and (2) produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness or President for properly noticed depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) and (d)(1)(A)(3). Id. at PageID.2297-98.

Specifically, the Court's June 4, 2021 Order required Global to pay the attorney's fees and costs associated with Swell's (1) May 5, 2021 Motion to Compel, including briefing and oral argument, as well as (2) Swell's preparation for, and attendance at, the properly noticed depositions. Id. Finally, the Court ordered Swell to produce its billing records and a 3-page brief in support of its attorney's fees and costs. Id. at PageID.2304.

Now before the Court is Swell's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, filed on June 11, 2021. Swell seeks attorney's fees in the amount $39,432.13, and costs in the amount of $769.28. Plaintiff filed a Response on June 18, 2021, and Swell filed its Reply on June 25, 2021. Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court finds oral argument will not aid in the disposition of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will resolve Swell's present motion on the briefs. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part Swell's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs and order Global to pay Swell's reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $20,684.13, representing $19,914.85 in attorneys' fees and $769.28 in costs.

II. LAW & ANALYSIS

When a court finds that an award of fees is appropriate, it must then arrive at a reasonable amount of fees to award. See Bldg. Serv. Local 7 Cleaning Contractors Pension Plan v. Grandview Raceway, 46 F.3d 1392, 1400 (6th Cir. 1995). “The primary concern in an attorney fee case is that the fee awarded be reasonable, that is, one that is adequately compensatory to attract competent counsel, yet which avoids producing a windfall for lawyers.” Adcock-Ladd v. Sec'y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 2000). The Court must use the “lodestar” method to determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees. See Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F. 3d 729, 745 (6th Cir. 2005). “To determine the lodestar figure, the court multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 822 F.3d 269, 279 (6th Cir. 2016).

Second, the court may adjust the lodestar figure up or down to reflect relevant considerations particular to the context of the case at hand. Lavin v. Husted, 764 F.3d 646, 649 (6th Cir. 2014). These considerations include: (1) time and labor; (2) difficulty of the case; (3) skill necessary; (4) the extent the attorney is precluded from working on other matters; (5) the customer fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the attorney's experience, reputation, and ability; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the attorney-client relationship; and (12) awards in similar cases. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 n.3 (1983).

*2 “The party seeking an award of attorney fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Id. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Fees that are not reasonably expended, such as fees incurred as a result of duplication of efforts, are to be excluded. Id. In assessing the “reasonable hourly rate” component of the lodestar method, the district court should assess the “prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The prevailing market rate is “that which lawyers of comparable skill and experience can reasonably expect to command within the venue of the court of record.” Addock-Ladd, 227 F. 3d at 350.

Swell's lead counsel, John F. Rhoades, has been a practicing attorney with Dykema Gossett PLLC for ten years and currently focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation. ECF No. 107, PageID.2348. Mr. Rhoades' hourly rate is $399 per hour. Mr. Rhoades spent 18.9 hours total on drafting the Motion to Compel, drafting the Reply and attending the hearing. Mr. Rhoades spent 28.8 hours preparing for, and attending, the properly noticed depositions, as well as 4.6 hours drafting his fees application. Id. at PageID.2533-55.

Swell's associate counsel, Ryan VanOver, has been a practicing attorney with Dykema for four years and works on complex commercial litigation matters, including as a member of an automotive industry national discovery team. Id. Mr. VanOver's hourly rate is $332.50 per hour. Mr. VanOver spent 39.5 hours drafting the Motion to Compel and the Reply, 7.4 hours preparing for the depositions and 6.7 hours on the fees application. Id.

Paralegal Carrie Hazel has worked for Dykema for six years and has more than 15 years' experience as a Litigation Paralegal working in the area of complex automotive, class action and product liability cases. Id. at PageID.2347. Ms. Hazel's hourly rate is $327.25 per hour. Ms. Hazel spent .9 hours assisting counsel with the Motion to Compel, the Reply and preparation for the hearing and 1 hour on the fees application. Id. at 2533-55.

In its response, Global does not object to the hourly rates charged by counsel. The 2020 State Bar of Michigan Survey of Michigan lawyers' billing rates who practice in downtown Detroit shows hourly rates ranging from $218 to $630; with the mean rate of $343 per hour. Id. at PageID.2367-2375. Based on practice qualifications, the survey reveals that attorneys with similar qualifications to lead counsel have an hourly rate ranging from $275 to $568; with the mean rate of $358 per hour. Id. Associate attorneys charged hourly rates of $190 to $388, with the mean rate of $250 per hour. Id.

Courts in this district routinely rely upon the State Bar's survey as evidence of a reasonable billing rate. See Litt v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 13-12462, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53406 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2015)(citing Garrett v. Gila LLC, No. 11-12523, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180030 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (collecting cases); O'Connor v. Trans. Union, LLC., No. 05-cv-74498, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94498, at *6 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (“District courts have relied on the State Bar of Michigan Economics of Law Practice Survey to determine average billing rates in Michigan, and the Sixth Circuit has approved this practice.”)); see also Lamar Adver. Co. v. Charter Twp. of Van Buren, 178 F. App'x 498, 501-02 (6th Cir. 2006).

Because the 2020 State Bar of Michigan Survey evidences that Mr. Rhoades' and Mr. VanOver's hourly billing rates are reasonable in the relevant community, the Court will conclude their rate is reasonable. Swell did not provide similar evidence to support Ms. Hazel's hourly rate and the Court notes her hourly billing rate is near that of Mr. VanOver. While Ms. Hazel has extensive experience, the Court cannot conclude this is a reasonable rate without more. As such, the Court will reduce Ms. Hazel's hourly rate to $300 per hour.

*3 As to the hours expended on the briefing and hearing associated with Swell's Motion to Compel and Swell's preparation for the properly noticed depositions, Swell seeks reimbursement for 95.5 total hours. Swell also seeks reimbursement for its fees incurred as a result of preparing the fees application, which totals 12.3 total hours of attorney and legal assistant work on fees application. These fees are reimbursable. McCarthy v. Ameritech Pub'l., Inc., 763 F.3d 488, 494 (6th Cir. 2014).

The Court first notes that Global inexplicably misapprehends the Court's June 4, 2021 Order Granting Swell's Motion to Compel and for Attorney's Fees. See ECF No. 112, PageID.2408. Global complains that Swell has “misrepresent[ed] that Plaintiff violated the Magistrate Judge's February 24, 2021 Order ... by failing to properly respond to” Swell's Fifth RFP, even though Magistrate Judge Grand's Order “did not address” Swell's Fifth RFP. Id.

Swell has not misrepresented the record. Magistrate Grand ordered Global to respond to Swell's Fourth Requests to Produce (RTP) Nos. 1 through 4 in his February 24, 2021. The record shows that Global not only failed to comply with that production, but also failed to comply with Swell's Fifth Requests to Produce, which sought the same discovery that was the subject of Swell's Fourth Requests to Produce and Magistrate Judge Grand's February 24, 2021 Order. ECF No. 105, PageID.2296 (“Here, Magistrate Judge Grand ordered Global to produce the same documents at issue in Global's present Motion to Compel in his February 24, 2021 order granting Swell's first Motion to Compel”)(emphasis supplied). Global's suggestion that Swell has misrepresented the record is unavailing and emblematic of counsel's approach to this litigation. Plaintiff's counsel violated Rule 37(b)(2)(C) by failing to produce the discovery that Magistrate Judge Grand ordered Plaintiff to produce.

Here, the Court finds some of the hours claimed are duplicative or otherwise unreasonable and will cut hours accordingly. For instance, Swell bills for preparing its Response to Global's Motion for Reconsideration, even though the Court did not award attorney's fees for this work. The Court acknowledges that Swell was wholly successful with respect to its Motion to Compel and for Attorney's Fees, however, its claimed hours are excessive. Mr. VanOver spent 39.5 hours performing work associated with the Motion to Compel, even though Mr. Rhoades also billed 18.9 hours for the same work. Similarly, Mr. Rhoades billed 28.8 hours and Mr. VanOver billed 7.4 for work related to the depositions. The Court finds that a reasonable amount of hours to expend on the briefing and hearing on the Motion to Compel, and the work preparing for the depositions should be reduced by 50%. The legal issues involved in the motion to compel, drafting discovery, preparing for two depositions, a hearing, and drafting the fees application in this breach of contract action are not novel or difficult warranting the amount of hours billed.

Accordingly, Global shall pay $19,914.85 in attorney's fees to Swell, representing 26.15 total hours at a rate of $399 per hour for Mr. Rhoades, 26.8 total hours at a rate of $332.50 per hour for Mr. VanOver, and 1.9 total hours at a rate of $300 per hour for Ms. Hazel. Global shall also pay Swell's costs in the amount of $769.28.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Swell's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [#107] is GRANTED IN PART.

*4 Global shall pay Swell its reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $19,914.85 and costs in the amount $769.28, totaling $20,684.13, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.