Droz v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 2:2020cv00048 - Document 43 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER denying Defendant's 37 Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendant shall pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,527.63 in full within 30 days of the date of this Order, otherwise additional sanctions may be imposed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Droz v. Boston Scientific Corporation Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 LINDSAY DROZ, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-48-RSM-DWC ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES 14 Defendant. 15 16 The District Court referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. 17 Christel. Dkt. 10. Presently before the Court is Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation’s 18 Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiff Lindsay Droz’s Motion for Attorney Fees. Dkts. 37, 39. 19 After review of the relevant record, the Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) is denied and the 20 Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 39) is granted-in-part. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel on July 23, 2020. Dkt. 27. On September 1, 2020, the 23 Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. 36. In the Order, the Court found Plaintiff was 24 entitled to reasonable expenses. Id. As Plaintiff did not provide an accounting of the expenses ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 incurred in filing the Motion to Compel, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide documentation of 2 the reasonable expenses incurred. Id. The Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Attorney 3 Fees were filed in response to the Court’s Order. See Dkts. 37, 39. 4 II. 5 On September 15, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) 6 reconsideration of the Court’s decision to grant Plaintiff reasonable expenses incurred in filing 7 the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 37. 1 Defendant asserts the Court committed manifest error when it 8 failed to analyze whether Defendant’s opposition to the discovery requests was “substantially 9 justified.” Id. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a response and, on September 23, 2020, Plaintiff 10 filed her Response to the Motion for Reconsideration. Dkts. 38, 41. Plaintiff argues that the 11 Court did not error and, even if the Court did not use the words “substantially justified,” 12 Defendant’s position was not substantially justified. Dkt. 41. 13 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be 14 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which 15 could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. 16 Defendant fails to show a manifest error in the Court’s Order granting reasonable 17 expenses. In the Order, the Court articulated the exceptions for denying expenses and stated, in 18 relevant part, that Defendant “did not meet its burden to show why the discovery request should 19 be denied.” Id. at p. 8. The Court found Defendant’s refusal to produce discovery was not 20 substantially justified in light of Defendant’s documentation showing Plaintiff was evaluated and 21 disciplined based on her performance as compared to all sales representatives locally and 22 23 1 Defendant does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s decision ordering Defendant to produce the 24 disputed discovery. See Dkt. 37. ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 2 1 nationally. See Dkt. 37, pp. 7-8. The Order reflects that Defendant did not show, nor did the 2 Court find, Defendant’s position in its nondisclosure of the requested discovery was substantially 3 justified. Therefore, Defendant has not shown a manifest error in the Court’s decision. 4 Defendant has also not shown new facts or legal authority exist which could not have 5 been presented earlier. Defendant argues for the first time that its position in refusing to produce 6 the requested discovery was substantially justified. Dkt. 37. Defendant has provided no 7 explanation for not raising these arguments earlier, despite Plaintiff requesting a fee award in the 8 Motion to Compel. See Dkts. 27, 31, 37. Further, Defendant does not cite to new facts or new 9 legal authority that could not have been presented earlier. See Dkt. 37. Thus, Plaintiff has not 10 shown reconsideration is warranted because new facts or legal authority exist. 11 For the above-stated reasons, Defendant has not shown a manifest error or new facts or 12 legal authority exist which could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. 13 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) is denied. 14 III. 15 The Court found Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 39) 16 Motion to Compel. Dkt. 36. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with documentation 17 showing the specific amount of expenses reasonably expended on or before September 18, 2020. 18 Id. On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Attorney Fees. Dkt. 39. Defendant filed 19 a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees on September 25, 2020. Dkt. 42. 20 Plaintiff states she incurred attorney fees in the amount of $8,381.00 and costs in the 21 amount of $123.25 for a total award of $8,504.25. Dkts. 39, 40. Defendant asserts this is 22 unreasonable and the fee request should be denied in full because Defendant’s position was 23 substantially justified. Dkt. 42. 24 ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 3 1 A. Attorney Fees 2 A review of Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration shows Plaintiff’s counsel expended 28.9 3 hours of work in filing the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 40, Trivett Dec. Defendant submits that, if 4 the Motion for Reconsideration is denied, a reasonable amount of time expended on the Motion 5 to Compel is 15 hours. Dkt. 42, p. 2 n.2. The Court should reduce the hours for which counsel 6 seeks compensation if “documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and 7 hours are duplicated; [or] if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” 8 Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Having reviewed the facts of this case, the Court agrees with Defendant that the hours 10 claimed are not reasonable. Expending 28.9 hours on a straightforward motion to compel and 11 reply is excessive. Plaintiff’s counsel spent 22.5 hours preparing and drafting the Motion to 12 Compel. Dkt. 41, Trivett Dec. Judges in this district have found 8 to 12 hours is reasonable for 13 drafting a motion to compel. See Maclay v. M/V SAHARA, 2012 WL 6552762, at *3 n.6 (finding 14 8.8 hours a reasonable amount of time for two attorneys to prepare a 13 page motion to compel); 15 Johnson v. King County Jails, 2009 WL 981765, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2009) (awarding 12 16 hours of attorney time for a motion to compel). Thus, the Court finds 22.5 hours for preparing 17 and drafting the Motion to Compel is excessive. The Court reduces the expended hours by 60 18 percent. Accordingly, the Court finds 9.0 hours is reasonable for drafting the Motion to Compel. 19 Nat'l Prod., Inc. v. Aqua Box Prod., LLC, 2013 WL 12106900, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 20 2013) (reducing hours spent on a motion to compel by 60 percent where the hours were 21 excessive and redundant). 22 Plaintiff’s counsel spent 6.4 hours reviewing Defendant’s response and drafting a reply. 23 See Dkt. 41, Trivett Dec. The Court finds this is reasonable. Maclay, 2012 WL 6552762 at *3, 24 ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 4 1 n.7 (finding 7.4 hours to be reasonable to draft a seven-page reply to opposing party’s response 2 to a motion to compel); Nat'l Prod., Inc., 2013 WL 12106900 at *4 (reducing hours spent on a 3 reply in a motion to compel to 10.7 hours). 4 In sum, the Court finds 15.4 hours for filing the Motion to Compel (9 hours) and Reply 5 (6.4 hours) is reasonable. Defendant does not assert, nor does the Court find, Plaintiff’s hourly 6 rate of $290 is unreasonable. Therefore, the total fee award for the Motion to Compel is 7 $4,466.00 (15.4 hours multiplied by $290). 8 B. Costs 9 Plaintiff requests costs in the amount of $123.25 for copying and printing charges. Dkt. 10 40, Trivett Dec. While Defendant does not dispute the costs, it is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel 11 was required to incur copy and printing charges. Id.; see also Dkts. 39, 42. As Plaintiff has not 12 adequately explained the necessity for the costs, the Court finds the costs for incurring copy and 13 printing charges is unreasonable. The Court reduces the costs by 50 percent. Therefore, the Court 14 awards costs in the amount of $61.63. 15 C. Fees for Responding to Motion for Reconsideration 16 The Court declines to award additional fees for Plaintiff’s counsel’s drafting of a 17 response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. 18 D. Summation 19 The total calculation for Plaintiff’s reasonable expenses is $4,527.63 ($4,466.00 in 20 attorney fees + $61.63 in costs). 21 IV. 22 For the above stated reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 37) is denied Conclusion 23 and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 39) is granted-in-part. Defendant shall pay 24 ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 5 1 attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,527.63 in full within 30 days of the date of this 2 Order, otherwise additional sanctions may be imposed. 3 Dated this 5th day of October, 2020. A 4 5 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ON ATTORNEY FEES - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
