*1 Before the court is a Motion for Attorney Fees filed by plaintiffs, in relation to a withdrawn Motion to Compel. Doc. 28. Defendant Gotham Insurance Company has filed a response. Doc. 29.

This suit arises from damage inflicted to car dealerships owned by plaintiffs during Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta. At all relevant times the properties were insured under a commercial policy issued by Gotham. Plaintiffs allege that Gotham failed to timely or adequately adjust the claim. They filed suit in this court on August 16, 2022, raising claims for breach of contract and bad faith under Louisiana law. Doc. 1. The case proceeded through the streamlined settlement process outlined in the court's Case Management Order [doc. 2] for hurricane lawsuits but did not resolve. The matter is now set for jury trial before the undersigned on November 6, 2023.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel relating to their 30(b)(6) deposition, which was referred to the magistrate judge and denied as moot. Docs. 13, 17. Plaintiffs then filed a second motion to compel and motion for attorney fees regarding Gotham's responses to certain written discovery. Doc. 19. Shortly thereafter chambers was advised that the subject of the motion to compel was moot but that plaintiffs still sought attorney fees. Doc. 22. Plaintiffs have now filed a memorandum in support of the attorney fees due and Gotham has filed a response. Docs. 28, 29.

Rule 37(a) governs motions to compel discovery responses and provides, as applies here, that a party may move to compel a discovery response if the opposing party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or fails to produce a document requested under Rule 34. Id. at 37(a)(3)(iii)–(iv). For purposes of this rule, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to respond.” Id. at 37(a)(4). If the motion is granted or if the requested discovery is only provided after the motion is filed, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Id. at 37(a)(5)(A).

Federal courts engage in a two-step inquiry when determining an appropriate award of attorney fees. First, the court determines the reasonable number of hours worked and the reasonable hourly rate of the participating attorneys. La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324–25 (5th Cir. 1995). The product of these two figures is the lodestar, “which the district court then either accepts or adjusts upwards or downwards, depending on the circumstances of the case.” Id. at 325. There is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar figure is reasonable. Heidtman v. Cnty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1044 (5th Cir. 1999). If an adjustment is made, however, the court does so based on the following factors:

La. Power & Light Co., 50 F.3d at 329 n. 19 (citing Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974)).

Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for 17 hours of attorney time spent on the motion to compel. Doc. 28. Specifically, they claim one hour of time by a partner, an attorney with thirty years’ experience, on reviewing drafts of the motion and sending comments. Doc. 28, att. 2. They also claim sixteen hours of time by an associate, an attorney with over five years’ experience, on research, drafting, conferences with opposing counsel, and correspondence with the court. Id. The rates charged are $375/hour for the partner and $250/hour for the associate, for a total of $4,375.00. Id. Gotham does not contest that attorney fees are owed but instead disputes the reasonableness of the hours billed. Doc. 29.

The Second Motion to Compel [doc. 19] was supported by a five-page memorandum. Therein plaintiffs pointed to Gotham's failure to provide all reports prepared by its adjuster, Engle Martin & Associates (“EMA”), in their initial disclosures and pointed to the discrepancies in those reports as an example of prejudice. The request for attorney fees is supported by a memorandum with a body of less than three pages. Doc. 28. Gotham complains that plaintiffs billed 2.75 hours of attorney time for review of the EMA subpoena responses, and notes that this should have been conducted in the ordinary course of representation. Gotham also complains of excessive billing on other fronts, including .25 hour entries for composition of brief emails, 6.5 hours for researching and drafting the motion, and 5.25 hours for researching and drafting the memorandum in support of their request for attorney fees. Doc. 29; see doc. 28, att. 2.

The party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees sought by submitting documentation of the hours reasonably expended. Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814, 822 (5th Cir. 1997). A party submitting a fee request is required to exercise billing judgment by excluding time that is unproductive, excessive, or inadequately documented. Walker v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 768–69 (5th Cir. 1996); Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2006). The remedy for a failure to exercise billing judgment is to reduce the award “by a percentage intended to substitute for the exercise of billing judgment.” Saizan, 448 F.3d at 799.

In their reply plaintiffs point to a recent award of attorney fees in Bertram v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co., 2021 WL 433976 (W.D. La. Feb. 8, 2021). In that matter, the court found that plaintiff's counsel had reasonably expended 39.1 hours of attorney time on the matter, including attendance at the hearing, preparation of the motion to compel, and preparation of a motion for contempt and motion for sanctions. There counsel billed only 6.3 hours total in researching and drafting a motion to compel and 11 hours in researching and drafting a motion for sanctions, both of which are of similar length to the ones at issue here. Id.; see Bertram v. Progressive S.E. Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-1478, docs. 25 & 28 (W.D. La. Feb. 8, 2021). The court also awarded fees for ten hours spent reviewing discovery. Bertram, 2021 WL 433976 at *5. In light of this award, the court does not find the hours billed here unreasonable and will additionally award one hour billed by the associate in preparing the reply, for a total lodestar of $4,625.00. From this amount the court finds no need to make further adjustment.

*3 For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees [doc. 19] be GRANTED and that attorney fees in the amount of $4,625.00 be awarded to plaintiffs. Payment is due within fourteen days of this order.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 20th day of July, 2023.