Houseton v. Kirk
Houseton v. Kirk
2025 WL 325327 (C.D. Cal. 2025)
January 8, 2025
Christensen, Stephanie S., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court awarded reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, to the defendant for filing a motion to compel discovery. The plaintiff's untimely production of requested discovery was not found to be substantially justified, and the court did not find any circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust. The court also found the defendant's hourly rate and number of hours expended to be reasonable.
Jacy Houseton, et al.
v.
Trevor Kirk, et al.
v.
Trevor Kirk, et al.
Case No. 2:23-cv-06887-SVW-SSCx
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed January 08, 2025
Christensen, Stephanie S., United States Magistrate Judge
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Expenses (ECF 188; ECF 210)
I
*1 On October 25, 2024, Defendant Trevor Kirk moved to compel from Plaintiff Jacy Houseton responses to interrogatories and requests for production. (ECF 188.) On November 20, 2024, the matter was reassigned to this Court, which set a new briefing schedule and allowed supplemental briefing. (ECF 199; ECF 200.) Now pending is a request by Defendant Trevor Kirk for reasonable expenses incurred in bringing that motion. (ECF 188; ECF 210.)
On December 16, 2024, the Court held a hearing and issued an oral order dismissing as moot the motion to compel discovery responses, as Plaintiff had produced the delinquent discovery shortly before the hearing. (ECF 208.) The Court reserved ruling on the request for payment of reasonable expenses and invited Defendant to file supplemental briefing for the recovery of expenses incurred in connection with the bringing of the motion and underlying events. (Id.)
On December 18, 2024, Defendant filed supplemental briefing in support of his request for reasonable expenses. (ECF 210.) Plaintiff filed a response on December 20, 2024. (ECF 211.) Having reviewed the briefing submitted by the parties, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without a further hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15.
II
A
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “must” award “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees” where, as here, discovery was provided only after a motion to compel was filed, and where the court has given the parties an opportunity to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Exceptions exist if the court finds that the opposing party's position was “substantially justified,” that the movant did not act in good faith by attempting to obtain the discovery before filing the motion, or that “other circumstances make an award of expense unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
B
Plaintiff contends that an exception to mandatory sanctions exists, arguing that Defendant failed to “attempt to obtain the discovery [in] question in good faith without court action.” (ECF 211 at 2.) As explained in detail during the hearing on the motion, the Court disagrees with that characterization given the timeline of events. Also unpersuasive is Plaintiff's contention that Defendant does “not need[ ] the discovery” because Plaintiff previously provided responses to substantively similar requests, “the entire incident is on video,” and Defendant “already has” Plaintiff's medical records. (Id. at 2–3.)
In these circumstances, the Court can neither find Plaintiff's untimely discovery responses to be substantially justified, nor conclude that there exist circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust. See Cherokee Chem. Co. v. Frazier, No. CV 20-01757-MWF (ASx), 2021 WL 8316491, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021).
Defendant is entitled to the reasonable expenses incurred in having to file its motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with her discovery obligations.
C
The remaining question is the amount of expenses.
*2 Although “[t]he calculation of the amount of a ‘reasonable attorney's fee’ is not a precise science[,]” Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612, 614 (C.D. Cal. 2005), there is a presumption that the number of hours reasonably expended, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, represents a reasonable fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). However, the Court must exclude time that is “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary[.]” Id. at 434.
Plaintiff does not object to any particular billing entries or to defense counsel's hourly rate, as represented in the instant request. And the Court finds defense counsel's representations concerning her rate to be adequately supported. (ECF 210 at 4); see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
As to the number of hours expended, Defendant's motion to compel initially sought $3,360, representing 4.8 hours of work at $700/hour to prepare the October 25, 2024 motion. (ECF 188-1 at 5.) Based on the attached supporting declaration, these expenses appear to have been incurred through October 17, 2024. (Id.) Having since filed supplemental briefing and appeared at the hearing on the motion, Defendant now seeks $11,060. (ECF 210 at 4.) The Court quotes from Defendant's latest request, which lists the following tasks and time:
a. 09-04-24 Draft letter to [P]laintiff's counsel re overdue discovery responses: 0.30
b. 09-28-24 Draft Rule 37-1 letter for discovery conference: 0.30c. 10-17-24 Correspondence to [P]laintiff's counsel re Joint Stipulation and Motion to Compel: 0.20d. 10-17-24 Draft Joint Stipulation and motion to compel responses to discovery; declaration in support including gathering of exhibits for motion: 5.80e. 10-17-24 Draft proposed Order on motion to compel responses to discovery: 0.30f. 10-23-24 Review [P]laintiff's portion of joint stipulation on motion to compel including declaration and exhibits: 1.80g. 10-24-24 Review correspondence from [P]laintiff's counsel re responses to discovery and joint stipulation: 0.40h. 10-25-24 Draft final Joint Stipulation re motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for documents including [P]laintiff's portion and preparation of proposed order: 1.60i. 10-25-24 Multiple items of correspondence from and to [P]laintiff's counsel re Joint Stipulation re interrogatories and request for documents: [0].8
j. 10-25-24 Review notice of filing of motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for documents: 0.10k. 11-13-24 Draft supplemental memorandum and supporting declaration on motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for documents: 2.20l. 11-14-24 Review notice of filing of supplemental memo re motion to compel: 0.10m. 12-16-24 Preparation for and Attendance at hearing on Motion to Compel: 1.9
(Id. at 2–3.)
Initially, the Court notes that Defendant's calculations in the request for attorney's fees (ECF 188-1) and the supplemental briefing (ECF 210) differ in part. Counsel initially represented to the Court, under penalty of perjury, that, as of October 17, 2024, she had “spent 4.8 hours in preparation of this motion, the correspondence to [P]laintiffs' counsel and the gathering of Exhibits for this Declaration.” (ECF 188-1 at 5–6.) In the December 2024 supplemental briefing, counsel seeks fees representing 6.9 hours of work through that same date. (ECF 210 at 2–3.) Because Defendant does not explain this ambiguity, the Court cannot find reasonable the additional time purportedly incurred retroactively. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The Court thus relies on the initial representation made by counsel in this request and adopts 4.8 hours as the starting point for work incurred in drafting the motion to compel through October 17, 2024.
*3 Next, the Court declines to award fees for .6 hours spent meeting and conferring with Plaintiff's counsel prior to the filing of the motion to compel. “Courts in this district have reasoned that time spent by counsel in meet and confer efforts [is] not compensable under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).” Cherokee Chem. Co., 2021 WL 8316491, at *2; Dish Network, LLC v. Jadoo T.V. Inc., No. 2:18-cv-9768-FMO (KSx), 2019 WL 7166067, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019)).
Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an award of attorney's fees representing 13.1 hours of work.
III
Plaintiff Jacy Houseton is ordered to pay, no later than 14 days from the date of this order, $9,170 in reasonable attorney's fees (13.1 hours multiplied by $700/hour) incurred by Defendant to compel Plaintiff's compliance with discovery requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED.