*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sean Cronin's Objection to Fee Petition (Dkt. 121). For the reasons stated below, the Objection is denied.

In a July 24, 2024 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Sanuwave Health, Inc's (“Sanuwave”) Motion for Sanctions, the Court ordered that counsel for Cronin, Matthias Kaseorg of Pierce Jewett, PLLC “must pay Sanuwave's reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. 58).” (Dkt. 118 at 33.)[1] The Court ordered that Sanuwave “serve a statement of those reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs on Cronin” and that if Cronin objected to the amount of fees or costs, he could file an objection, and Sanuwave could respond to the objection. (Id. at 33-34.)

On August 6, 2024, Sanuwave's attorney, Terran Chambers, served a statement of its attorneys’ fees related to the Motion, setting forth the billing rates of the attorneys involved and attaching a report detailing the attorneys’ fees incurred by Sanuwave in connection with the Motion. (Dkt. 122-1 at 2-5 (Cronin Ex. A).) The statement requested fees in the amount of $13,635.35 for 19 hours worked, including a 5% client discount. Id. The hourly rates were for $520 for a junior associate, $740 for a senior associate, and $1,075 for a partner. (Id. at 4-5.)

Cronin filed an objection to Sanuwave's fee petition on August 13, 2024 (Dkts. 121 & 122), and Sanuwave filed a response on August 20, 2024 (Dkts. 123 & 124.)

District courts have broad discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees. Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2005). “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Ultimately, the fee applicant bears the burden to produce evidence supporting the hourly rates charged and the hours expended. See id. In addition to the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation, courts may consider:

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

*2 Avery Brooks Bennet, a junior associate at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (“Faegre”) who practices in labor and employment litigation, is claiming a rate of $520 per hour for the work he performed in this case. (Dkt. 122-1 at 4-5 (Cronin Ex. A); Dkt. 123 at 5.) Terran Chambers, a senior associate at Faegre who has done the majority of work on the matter, and who has ten years of experience in labor and employment litigation in the Minneapolis market, has a billable rate of $740 per hour. (Id.; Dkt. 124 at 2 ¶ 5.) Michael Cockson, a partner at Faegre who has been practicing as a trial lawyer for over 25 years, has a billable rate of $1,075 per hour. (Id.; Dkt. 124 at 2 ¶ 6.)

The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of comparable skills, experience and reputation. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). In determining the reasonable hourly rate, “district courts may rely on their own experience and knowledge of prevailing market rates.” Hanig, 415 F.3d at 825. Additionally, “the burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney's own affidavits—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11 (emphasis added); Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., No. CIV. 05-2809 JRT/JJG, 2012 WL 6760098, at *6 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2012) (same) (citations omitted).

Cronin argues that the billing rates should be reduced to $400.00 per hour for an associate, and $600 per hour for a partner. (Dkt. 121 at 2-3.) Cronin cites two cases to support this argument. (See id. at 2-3 (citing Woodward v. Credit Serv. Int'l Corp., No. 23-CV-632 (KMM/ECW), 2024 WL 228454, at *8 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2024), and In Re Lindell Management LLC Litigation, No. 23-cv-1433 (JRT/DJF) (August 8, 2024) (Dkt. 122-3 (Ex. C)).) However, both cases are distinguishable from the case at hand. In Woodward, the parties reached a resolution before any discovery took place and the fee request came at the conclusion of the short, uncomplicated case. 2024 WL 228454, at *2. The Woodward court concluded that because the case was “relatively simple,” a $350 hourly rate was reasonable. Id. at *4. Similarly, in In Re Lindell, the court concluded that “the uncomplicated nature of this discovery dispute” warranted an hourly rate of $400.00. (Dkt. 122-3 (Ex. C) at 4.) Here, the Motion for Sanctions involved complicated discovery disputes that required significant time and expertise to navigate.

Sanuwave counters that the rates should not be reduced and cites three cases to support its position. In Nguyen v. Foley, the Court approved hourly rates for Faegre attorneys of $885 for a partner, $560 for a senior associate, and $460 and $435 for associates; all had relevant experience or expertise with the subject matter of the case, federal Indian law. No. 21-CV-991 (ECT/TNL), 2022 WL 1026477, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 6, 2022). The Nguyen court concluded that because of the attorneys’ expertise in the subject matter and their need to defend against a frivolous case, the rates were reasonable. Id. at *3-4. The case concluded when the Court dismissed the case on the defendant's motion to dismiss. Id. at *1.

In Lakes Venture, LLC v. Miracle Market LLC, the Court concluded that while “Faegre attorneys billed at an hourly rate ranging from $775-$1,065, discounted 5% per the fee agreement struck with the client” was at the “higher-end of the market for legal services,” the rates were, nevertheless, “reasonable for attorneys of comparable skill, reputation, and experience.” No. CV 22-400 (JWB/JFD), 2023 WL 8434474, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2023). Notably, in that case, Cockson was the partner billing the discounted $1,065 rate. Id.

*3 Finally, in Bollom v. Brunswick Corp., the Court acknowledged the work of the associate attorney, who though only an attorney for six years, specialized in the subject matter, did the majority of the work on the case, provided “excellent work, and achieved complete success” for the client. No. CV 18-3105 (MJD/HB), 2021 WL 1195739, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 30, 2021). The Bollom Court approved of this associate's rate, citing the fact that “courts in Minnesota have awarded attorney's fees at hourly rates of $600 and $650.” Id. The Court did, however, reduce the partners’ rates to $650 because the claimed rate was unreasonably high. Id. at *5.

Based on the submissions, the caselaw presented, and this Court's knowledge of and experience with the prevailing rates in this market, the above rates for Bennet, Chambers, and Cockson are comparable to the rates of other attorneys in this community with similar knowledge and practice experience. Chambers’ higher rate, specifically, is justified by nearly 10 years of experience, her excellent work, and her achievement of complete success on the Motion. See id. at *4.

Similarly, Cockson's experience justifies his higher rate. Cockson is a partner with 25 years of experience handling corporate litigation. (Dkt. 124 at 2 ¶ 6.) While his claimed billing rate is significant, the rate is “aligned with those customarily charged by national law firms.” Lakes Venture, 2023 WL 8434474, at *3. In fact, a court in this District approved Cockson's rate of $1,065 in 2023, a difference of only $10 from the rate sought here. Id. Further, Cockson's rate need not be reduced due to unnecessary use of his time; rather, he had a limited, supervisory role in this case, as is evidenced by the limited amount of time he billed with respect to the Motion for Discovery Sanctions. See Bollom, 2021 WL 1195739, at *7 (concluding that a small number of hours billed by a partner supervising an associate and reviewing final drafts was “reasonable and efficient”). Together, the billing rates claimed for Bennet, Chambers, and Cockson are “reasonable for attorneys of comparable skill, reputation, and experience.” Lakes Venture, 2023 WL 8434474, at *3.

Finally, the Court rejects Cronin's argument that the fees should be reduced by 50% because Sanuwave was only partially successful in the outcome of the Motion for Sanctions. (Dkt. 121 at 3-4 (quoting Allen v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 160 F.3d 431, 432 (8th Cir. 1998) (“A party who achieves limited success is [only] entitled to recover a reasonable fee commensurate with the results obtained.”)).) Although the Court denied granting monetary sanctions other than attorney fees and costs, the Court found that each of the complained-of sanctionable violations occurred. (Dkt. 118 at 7-33.) The Court therefore concludes that Sanuwave was fully successful on the Motion, including the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount that exceeded the sought-after monetary sanction, and this warrants an award of the fees and costs incurred rather than Cronin's requested reduction of 50%.

B. Reasonable Hours

Next, the Court examines the number of hours expended by Sanuwave's counsel to determine if they are reasonable in light of the outcome, the necessity and usefulness of the services provided, and the efficiency with which they conducted that activity in light of their expertise. In performing this calculation, the Court must exclude “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Framing this review are the scope of the Court's Orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow for fees “incurred in making the motion” to be recovered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

*4 The time incurred for bringing the Motion and the resulting attorneys’ fees are as follows:

(Dkt. 122-1 (Ex. A) at 4-5.) Cronin argues that there should be a 0.8 reduction in time, specifically reducing a 1.6 hour bill for a meet-and-confer with Cronin's counsel on May 15, 2024. (Dkt. 121 at 2.) Cronin argues that emails summarizing the meet-and-confer did not indicate that the Motion for Sanctions had been discussed, and Cronin submitted the emails for the Court's review. (Id.) Sanuwave counters, including an additional email exchange about the meet and confer, showing that the parties discussed, among other things, the Motion for Sanctions. (Dkt. 123 at 5-6; Dkt. 124-1 (Ex. A) at 1-4.) The Court has reviewed the submissions and declines to reduce the time as the Motion for Sanctions was discussed during the meet-and-confer.

The Court finds that Sanuwave's request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,635.35 to be reasonable and appropriate. Sanuwave expended 19 hours in preparation for the Motion, including researching a Motion for Sanctions where opposing counsel violated a Protective Order by improperly disclosing Attorneys Eyes Only documents, meeting and conferring with Cronin's counsel, determining and strategizing how to proceed with the Motion, and analyzing and drafting the written Motion materials, along with preparing for and appearing at the three-hour-long hearing on the Motion. While quantifying the appropriate level of “lawyering” in a matter is not an exact science, the Court finds this to be an appropriate amount of time for a motion of this nature and orders payment of the $13,635.35 in attorneys’ fees. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. U.S., 713 F. Supp. 1308, 1312 (D. Minn. 1989).

Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein,, IT IS ORDERED THAT: