Hedrick v. Grant

Full title: DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 5, 2014

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2014)

Opinion

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

09-05-2014

DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer; and JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBECK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiffs filed an untimely motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the services their counsel and certified law students rendered defending against Defendants' motion to terminate a consent decree governing conditions at the Yuba County Jail ("the Jail"). Plaintiffs also move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 6(b) for an extension of time to file the motion when it was filed. Defendants oppose each motion.

I. MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiffs filed their attorney's fees motion after the deadline for such motions prescribed in Local Rule 293(a). This rule states in pertinent part: "Motions for awards of attorneys' fees . . . shall be filed not later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of final judgment." Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree was denied in an order filed April 2, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their attorney's fees motion at 12:03 a.m., on May 1, 2014, which is twenty-nine days after denial of Defendants' motion. Since Plaintiffs' attorney's fees motion was filed approximately three minutes late, it was untimely.

Plaintiffs argue the "excusable neglect" standard in Rule 6(b) authorizes them to be granted the extension of time they seek and that they have satisfied this standard. Rule 6(b) states, in pertinent part: "When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). "To determine whether a party's failure to meet a deadline constitutes 'excusable neglect,' courts must apply a four-factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).

Plaintiffs argue "there is no danger of prejudice to . . . Defendants" since Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Defendants' counsel the attorney's fees motion prior to the filing deadline. (Pls.' Mot. for Extension of Time, 3:1, ECF No. 141.) Specifically, Plaintiffs' counsel declares: "After attempting and failing to file the documents, [on April 30, 2014,] at 11:48 p.m. I sent . . . five pdf files (motion and 4 attachments) in an email message to . . . counsel for Defendants." (Decl. of Carter White in Support of Pls.' Mot. For Extension of Time ("White Decl.") ¶ 3, ECF No. 141-1.) Plaintiffs have shown that it is unlikely that their tardiness prejudiced Defendants.

Plaintiffs further argue that the factor concerning the extent of their tardiness, and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings, also weighs in favor of finding excusable neglect. The only proceeding scheduled was the hearing that Plaintiffs' scheduled in their attorney's fees motion that noticed the motion for hearing on a law and motion hearing date provided by the courtroom deputy's voice mail message, in which she lists available law and motion hearing dates. The circumstances involved with the late filing do not indicate that Plaintiffs' tardiness had a negative impact on the judicial proceeding. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1262 (finding excusable neglect where, inter alia, Plaintiff's counsel's three-day delay in filing a summary judgment opposition "would not have adversely affected either the summary judgment hearing date, which was ten days away, or the trial, which was two and a half months away.")

Plaintiffs' counsel also avers their reason for the tardiness is that their counsel first "attempted to electronically file the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees" "at approximately 11:30 p.m." - one half hour before the filing deadline - and thereafter experienced computer problems which delayed filing until 12:03 a.m. (White Decl. ¶ 3.) "Although we are sympathetic with the circumstances of [Plaintiffs' counsel's computer] problems[,] . . . it seems to us that the problem was really that [Plaintiffs' counsel] waited until the last minute to get [their] materials together. [Plaintiffs, counsel] apparently neglected the old proverb that 'sooner begun, sooner done.' When parties wait until the last minute to comply with a deadline, they are playing with fire." Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153, 157 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, this factor does not weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect.

Plaintiffs also argue their counsel acted in good faith in connection with the tardiness. Plaintiffs emailed the attorney's fees motion to Defendants' counsel prior to the filing deadline, and filed their motion for an extension of time one day after they filed their attorney's fees motion. Plaintiffs have shown that their counsel acted in good faith concerning the late-filed attorney's fees motion.

Plaintiffs have shown that three of the four factors weigh significantly in favor of granting their motion for an extension of time. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Rule 6(b) motion is granted. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding excusable neglect despite Plaintiff's counsel's "weak justification" for delay, since "there was no evidence that [Plaintiff's counsel] acted with anything less than good faith," and the delay caused only a "minimal" amount of prejudice to Defendant and a "minimal" impact on judicial proceedings.)

II. ATTORNEY'S FEES MOTION

Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for all services rendered on their behalf defending against Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree. Defendants request that the ruling on the motion be deferred until after the Ninth Circuit has decided Defendants' appeal of the denial of their motion to terminate the consent decree.

"The district court[s] retain[] the power to award attorneys' fees after the notice of appeal from the decision on the merits ha[s] been filed." Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983).

Recognition of th[e] authority [to determine fees while an appeal is pending] best serves the policy against piecemeal appeals[,] . . . prevent[s] hasty consideration of postjudgment fee motions . . . [and] prevent[s] postponement of fee consideration until after the circuit court mandate, when the relevant circumstances will no longer be fresh in the mind of the district judge.

Id. (citations omitted) (citing Terket v. Lund, 623 F.2d 29, 34 (7th Cir. 1980)). "[T]he policy against piecemeal appeals" and deciding attorney's fees issues when "they are fresh in the mind of the district judge" favor denying Defendants' deferred ruling request. Id.

a. Legal Standard

§ 1988 provides in pertinent part: In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections . . . 1983 . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

"To determine the amount of a reasonable fee under § 1988, district courts typically proceed in two steps. First, courts generally 'apply ... the lodestar method to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee.'" Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Costa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012)). "Under the lodestar method, the district court 'multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.'" Id. "Second, '[t]he district court may then adjust [the lodestar] upward or downward based on," the following factors:

(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the "undesirability" of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.

Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008), and id. at 1209, n. 11. (quoting Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363, n. 8 (9th Cir. 1996)).

b. Discussion

i. Whether Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties for the Purposes of § 1988

Plaintiffs argue they are prevailing parties under § 1988 since from September 2013 to April 2014 their counsel and certified law students defended against Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties since the denial of Defendants' motion "changed nothing about the legal relationship between . . . Plaintiff[s] . . . and . . . Defendant[s]." (Def.'s Opp'n to PL's Mot. for Attorney's Fees ("Defs.' Opp'n") 3: 24-25, ECF No. 143.)

Attorney's fees are recoverable for "postjudgment enforcement" of a consent decree, which "includes defending against efforts to terminate a consent decree." Graves v. Arpaio, 633 F. Supp. 2d 834, 844 (D. Ariz. 2009) aff'd, 623 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010)(citing Cody v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767, 777 (8th Cir. 2002)); cf. Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 451 (9th Cir. 2010)(citing Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 855-57 (9th Cir. 1987)) ("[A] party . . . may recover attorneys' fees under § 1988 for monitoring compliance with [a consent] decree, even when such monitoring does not result in any judicially sanctioned relief."); Webb v. Ada Cnty., 285 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding "attorney's fees incurred for postjudgment enforcement of [a] district court's . . . consent decree were compensable under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] ," which limits the fees awardable to prisoners under § 1988.).

Since Plaintiffs have defended against Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree, Plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to an attorney's fees award.

ii. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act Limits the Amount of Attorney's Fees Plaintiffs Recover

Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to the full amount of fees they seek and that what they request is not limited by the fee restriction in the Prison Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA") in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1).

The PLRA prescribes, in pertinent part:

In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail . . . , in which attorney's fees are authorized under section 1988 . . . , such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that--



(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 . . . ; and



(B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or



(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.

42 U.S.C. §§ 1997e(d)(1)(A)-(B)(emphasis added).

Under the PLRA, "a plaintiff is entitled to fees incurred in enforcing a judgment entered upon proof that the plaintiff's constitutional rights had been violated." Webb v. Ada Cnty., 285 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2002). However, "the court . . . must assure that the case is not being milked by a [plaintiff] after the [judgment] has been obtained, for fees that are unreasonable in amount, for work not reasonably performed to enforce the relief, or for work not directly related to enforcing the relief." Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910, 919 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs argue their fee request should be awarded since the consent decree they defended was entered upon a finding of constitutional violations at the Jail, and therefore is consistent with the PLRA's requirement that fees for defending a consent decree must concern a consent decree that was entered upon proof of a constitutional violation.

Concerning constitutional violations, the consent decree states: "On November 12, 1976 the Court . . . filed its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order granting . . . [Plaintiffs'] motions for partial summary judgment[,]" concerning ". . . [a]ccess to [l]egal [m]aterials," and ". . . female participation in the . . . Jail trusty program." (Consent Decree, 2:13-16, 2:3-5 ECF No. 120-1.) This Order was "subsumed" into the consent decree, upon the Court's final approval of the consent decree on May 2, 1979. (Id. at 3:10-15.)¹ Therefore, Plaintiffs have shown they are entitled to attorney's fees for legal services rendered defending the portions of the consent decree concerning access to legal materials and female participation in the Jail trusty program (hereafter, "the relevant portions of the decree").²

1 The referenced Order is not in the Court's filing system since it has been archived, and the nature thereof has not been disputed.

2 Plaintiffs also argue that "in issuing a preliminary injunction [in 1976] . . . the Court found that conditions of confinement at the Jail violated the Constitution," and therefore "fees may be awarded in proportion to the relief granted." (Pls.' Mot. for Attorney's Fees ("Pls.' Mot."), 5:19-21, ECF No. 139.) However, the Ninth Circuit has found that prisoners are not entitled to attorney's fees under the PLRA where prisoners obtain "temporary relief . . . in the form of a preliminary injunction [that] [does] not affirmatively establish that the [municipality] actually violated [the prisoners'] protected rights." Kimbrough v. California, 609 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2010).

However, the other portions of the consent decree prescribe relief not related to the claims on which the partial summary judgment was granted. Further, the parties "waive[ed] a hearing and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues raised by the Complaint that are disposed of [in the consent decree]." (Consent Decree 2:30-32.) Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to attorney's fees for defending those portions of the consent decree that do not concern accessing legal materials or female participation in the Jail's trusty program.

The Court's decisions concerning whether law student billings are compensable under the PLRA are in Appendix 1, which is attached to this order, and are also below; Appendix 1 contains a copy of the law students' time sheets.³ Since Plaintiffs have not explained precisely which billing entries concern the relevant portions of the consent decree, certain entries are reduced based on whether Plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ("proposed findings"), filed on March, 19, 2014, or the declarations of detainees which Plaintiffs filed on March 31, 2014, indicate that the entry concerns a relevant portion of the consent decree. (ECF Nos. 129, 133-1, 133-2). These decisions were made to "assure that" Plaintiffs are not compensated for "fees that are unreasonable in amount, for work not reasonably performed to enforce the relief, or for work not directly related to enforcing the relief." Balla, 677 F.3d at 919.

3 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants attached an annotated version of these time sheets to their respective opening and opposition briefs. Plaintiffs' counsel crossed out certain entries not claimed to be compensable and listed at the bottom of each page the total number of hours claimed to be compensable on that page. Defendants' counsel circled entries in pen which Defendants argue are "based on clerical tasks, unnecessary research, and unnecessary billings not reasonably related to this litigation." (Defs.' Opp'n 7:5-6.). Since the annotated time sheets attached to Defendants' opposition brief exclude certain pages of time sheets attached to Plaintiffs' opening brief, the Court created Appendix 1 by inserting the referenced excluded pages into the time sheets attached to Defendants' opposition brief.
The Court has used computer software to insert red markings to show whether certain time sheet entries are compensable. Those entries inside a red rectangular box are compensable. Where tasks are block-billed and only a certain percentage of the block-billed tasks are compensable, an explanation of which hours were deducted is inside a red rectangular box with an arrow pointing to the relevant entry. The total number compensable hours within each box is rounded to the nearest hundredth. When an entry is not compensable, an explanation of why the entry is not compensable is inside a red rectangular box with an arrow pointing to the entry. Finally, at the bottom of each page the total number of hours awarded on that page is inside a red box.

For example, since declarations of Erik-James Pendergraph, Neil Ernest Carranza, Tiara Tyson, Shannon Silva, Peter Azevedo, Patrick Perry, Jon Bechtel, and Jennelle Cropsey do not contain any statement concerning access to legal material or the Jail's trusty program, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to attorney's fees for the hours billed concerning these detainees. Further, each billing entry concerning detainee Theron Holston is reduced by approximately 67% since only one of three declarations submitted by Mr. Holston concerns the relevant portions of the consent decree. Similarly, each entry concerning detainee George Pasion is reduced by 75% since only one of four declarations submitted by Mr. Pasion concern the relevant portions of the consent decree. Moreover, entries concerning visits to the jail for unspecified purposes, Plaintiffs' requests for production of documents concerning unspecified subjects, and entries related to preparation of Plaintiffs' proposed findings were reduced by 87.5%, since only one of eight sections in the proposed findings concerns a relevant portion of the consent decree; specifically, the access to legal materials section. Additionally, entries which record services rendered concerning individuals who are not mentioned in the proposed findings or who did not produce a declaration that Plaintiffs filed on the case docket are not considered compensable under the PLRA since Plaintiffs have not shown these services concern relevant portions of the consent decree.

Where Plaintiffs' counsel block-billed tasks both related to and unrelated to the relevant portions of the consent decree, the hours claimed in the entry were reduced based on the description of the billed tasks to "fairly balance' those hours that were actually billed in block format." Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007)(quoting Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001)).

For example, December 15, 2013 entry number 57179 bills .2 hours and reads: "Read letter from Patrick Perry re willing to meet; review declarations returned to CRC from Passion and Holston." Since the entry contains two sub-entries separated by the semi-colon, the entry indicates that approximately one half of the time was spent reading a letter and one half of the time was spent reviewing declarations. Plaintiffs have not shown that the time spent reading the Perry letter is compensable since Perry's declaration does not address the relevant portions of the consent decree. To reflect this, the billing entry is reduced by half (.1 hours). The remaining .1 hours is further reduced to reflect that Plaintiffs have not shown that more than approximately 33% of the entry concerning Holston and 25% of the entry concerning Pasion relate to relevant portions of the consent decree. After these reductions are made, the fee award is .03 hours since it was rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Similarly, for any block-billed trips to the jail, Plaintiffs are credited with 2.5 hours of travel time. The travel time estimate is based on the average of two separately billed car trips to the jail, billed on February 11, 2014 (Entry No. 57746) and February 18, 2014 (Entry No. 57841). Further, where two students entered separate billing entries for a jail visit on the same day, the two students' hours are credited as having worked on the same tasks, unless an entry indicates otherwise.

In addition to the fees sought for law student services, Plaintiffs seek 46 hours of fees for their counsel's services. Their counsel declares that these hours comprise eight jail visits during which he accompanied law students; 1.5 hours revising Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate; 3 hours revising Plaintiffs' Joint Statement and Proposed Findings of Fact; and 1.5 hours revising Plaintiffs' request for an order to seal. Plaintiffs have not submitted time sheets of their counsel's hours; however, review of the student time sheets and the documents Plaintiffs' counsel revised indicates that only a portion of these hours are compensable under the PLRA. Specifically, the time sheets reveal that only 6.3 hours of fees should be awarded for Plaintiffs' counsel's jail visits. Further, since only one eighth of the proposed findings concerns relevant portions of the consent decree, this document reveals that only .375 hours should be awarded for the time Plaintiffs' counsel spent revising it. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown that attorney's fees should be awarded for any time spent revising the request for an order to seal, since Plaintiffs' request concerns medical records that have not been shown to have a relationship to the relevant portions of the consent decree.

The 1.5 hours Plaintiffs' counsel spent revising the opposition to Defendants' motion to terminate are compensable, since the opposition brief evinces that these fees were reasonably incurred enforcing the relief ordered in the relevant portions of the consent decree.

iii. Whether Law Students Worked Reasonable Hours Defending Relevant Portions of The Consent Decree

The parties dispute whether law students worked an unreasonable number of hours. Specifically, the parties dispute whether certain law student time sheet entries are redundant, concern clerical tasks, concern unnecessary research, or are "not reasonably related to this litigation." (Defs.' Mot. 7:6-7.) These disputes are only decided for those entries that concern relevant portions of the consent decree.

Under the loadstar method, "a 'reasonable' number of hours equals '[t]he number of hours . . . [which] could reasonably have been billed to a private client.'" Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1202 (alteration in original) (quoting Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111). "The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked." Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)). If the fee applicant submits vague records, the district court may "simply reduce[] the fee [award] to a reasonable amount." Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000); see Neil v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 495 F. App'x 845, 847 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating, "the district court acted within its discretion in reducing Neil's fee award by .3 hours to account for an . . . entry that was vague and inadequately explained.") Furthermore, where a fee applicant chooses to "block bill some of its time rather than itemize each task individually," the court may "impose a reduction," as long as it 'explain how[s] or why . . . the reduction . . . fairly balance[s]' those hours that were actually billed in block format." Welch, 480 F.3d at 948 (quoting Sorenson, 239 F.3d at 1146). Moreover, a plaintiff may not receive attorney's fees for clerical tasks. See Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009) ("When clerical tasks are billed at hourly rates, the court should reduce the hours requested to account for the billing errors."); Yates v. Vishal Corp., 11-CV-00643-JCS, 2014 WL 572528, at * 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) (refusing to award attorney's fees for "purely clerical," tasks "such as posting letters for mail, photocopying, three-hole punching, internal filing, calendaring, and preparing the summons and complaint for filing.")

Each of the law students' time sheet entries has been reviewed. Certain time sheet entries concern clerical tasks or are vague. Fees are not awarded for services recorded in these entries. See Nadarajah, 569 F.3d at 921 (reducing fees to account for the billing of clerical work); Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d at 1121 (stating fee award may be reduced where entries are vague); Neil, 495 F. App'x at 847 (affirming reduction in fee award for vague entry). Specific deductions to the law student hours are presented in Appendix 1.

iv. Hourly Rate For Plaintiffs' Counsel and Law Students

Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney's fees based on a rate of $211.15 per hour for Plaintiffs' counsel's services, which Plaintiffs argue is the maximum hourly rate the PLRA authorizes. (Pls.' Mot. for Attorney's Fees ("Pls.' Mot."), 10: 2-4, ECF No. 139.)

Concerning this, the PLRA prescribes, in pertinent part:

In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, . . . in which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §] 1988 . . . [n]o award of attorney's fees . . . shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent[(the "multiplier")] of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 [(the Criminal Justice Act ["CJA"])] for payment of court-appointed counsel [(the "baseline rate")].

42 U.S.C. §§ 1997e(d)(1),(3). The Ninth Circuit has stated the baseline PLRA hourly rate "is the amount authorized by the Judicial Conference." Webb v. Ada Cnty., 285 F.3d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553, 555-56 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting the maximum hourly rate under the PLRA at "150 percent of $113" since the "Judicial Conference [had] increased the maximum hourly rate for court-appointed counsel to $113.") The rates authorized by the Judicial Conference are published in the Guide to Judiciary Policy. See 7 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 230.16 available at http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/AppointmentOfCounsel/CJAGui delinesForms/vol7PartA/vol7PartAChapter2.aspx#230_16; Gilman v. Brown, CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CK, 2014 WL 3735401, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2014) (quoting 7 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 230.16 for the rates established by the Judicial Conference.) Since the Judicial Conference has changed the established hourly rate over the past several years, the baseline rate of compensation under the PLRA depends on when the services were performed. See Gilman, 2014 WL 3735401, at *1 ("[T]he baseline rate . . . depends on the year the services were performed . . . .")

The Judicial Conference established a rate of $110 per hour for services performed from September 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014, and a rate of $126 per hour for services performed from March 1, 2014 to the present. The first entry in the time sheets submitted by Plaintiffs is dated September 3, 2013, and Plaintiffs seek fees for their counsel's services through the filing of their attorney's fees reply brief on May 23, 2014.⁴ Therefore, Plaintiffs have shown they are entitled to a baseline rate of $110 per hour for their counsel's services prior to March 1, 2014, and $126 per hour for their counsel's subsequent services.⁵

4 Plaintiffs do not submit time sheets concerning their counsel's work. The time sheets submitted by Plaintiffs only record law student hours. However, Plaintiffs seek compensation for their counsel's service when he accompanied law students on visits to the jail and revised certain court-filed documents. Therefore, the dates on which Plaintiffs' counsel performed these tasks is determined by using the student time sheets and the case docket.

5 Plaintiffs argue that a rate of $141 should serve as the baseline rate since the Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United States, testified before a Congressional subcommittee that: "[The Judicial Conference] request[s] [Congress] . . . to increase the . . . [CJA] rate to the statutorily authorized rate of $141 per hour, effective January 1, 2011." Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United States before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of Representatives, March 18, 2010, at 13, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/News/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/News/2010/docs/Judge_Gi bbons Judicial Conference.pdf. "However, [P]laintiffs do not explain how Congressional testimony, even from Judge Gibbons, could override the official, published determination of the Judicial Conference itself[,]" set forth in the Guide to Judiciary Policy. Gilman, 2014 WL 3735401, at *3. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to a PLRA baseline rate of $141.

Plaintiffs further argue that the maximum PLRA multiplier (150%) should be applied to their counsel's baseline hourly rates, since similarly experienced attorneys in the Eastern District of California have received between $350 and $450 per hour under § 1988. Defendants counter, arguing in a conclusory manner that it would be inequitable to award the maximum multiplier for Plaintiffs' counsel's services.

Under the loadstar method, the reasonable hourly rate is "calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community, and the general rule is that the rates of attorneys practicing in the forum district, here the Eastern District of California . . . are used." Gates, 987 F.2d at 1405 (citation omitted). "Within this geographic community, the district court should 'tak[e] into consideration the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney . . . ." Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1205 (first alteration in original) (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 813 (9th Cir. 2005)).

"'[T]he burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence . . . 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.'" Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11 (1984)). "Affidavits of the plaintiffs' attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases . . . are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (indicating a district court may "rely on its own familiarity with the legal market" in determining a reasonable hourly rate); Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1115 ("District judges can . . . consider the fees awarded by other judges in the same locality in similar cases.").

Plaintiffs argue the maximum PLRA multiplier of 150% should be applied to the baseline hourly rates for their counsel's services. This would entitle Plaintiffs to a $165 hourly rate for Plaintiffs' counsel's services prior to March 1, 2014, and an $189 hourly rate for Plaintiffs' counsel's subsequent services. Plaintiffs argue these hourly rates are reasonable, since in a civil rights case captioned Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, a case that was not governed by the PLRA, the Court concluded a $350 hourly rate was reasonable for an attorney with experience comparable to Plaintiffs' counsel's experience. 2:06-CV-00457-GEB, 2013 WL 5597134, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013). Defendants counter with the conclusory argument that it would be inequitable to award Plaintiffs the maximum PLRA multiplier; however, this argument fails to rebut Plaintiffs' reasonable hourly rate evidence. Plaintiffs have shown that it is reasonable to apply the maximum PLRA multiplier for their counsel's services.

Plaintiffs further argue they are entitled to the maximum PLRA hourly rate for hours billed by the law students. Plaintiffs submit a declaration from Andrew Bluth, an attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ("Pillsbury") in support of this argument. Bluth avers that law students at his firm bill $315 per hour. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs have not shown what Bluth avers is relevant to the determination of the law student fees in this action, since Bluth does not describe the nature of the services the law students rendered for Pillsbury and how those services compare to the services rendered by the law students in this action. Defendants further argue that law students at Pillsbury bill a higher hourly rate than law students have received under § 1988 in recent cases in the Eastern District of California.

Bluth's averments lack an explanation of the complexity of the matters on which law students worked at Pillsbury and therefore do not demonstrate that the hourly rates billed by law students at the Pillsbury firm are for services comparable to the services at issue. Further, recent decisions in the Eastern District of California have awarded § 1988 fees for services rendered by law clerks, including those who graduated from law school, at hourly rates between $100 and $125. See Miller v. Schmitz, 1:12-CV-00137-LJO, 2014 WL 642729, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014)(setting hourly rate for law clerk who graduated from law school at $100 per hour); Hall v. City of Fairfield, 2:10-CV-0508 DAD, 2014 WL 1286001, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014)(same at $125 per hour).

In light of the baseline PLRA rates applicable to Plaintiffs' counsel and the lack of evidence in the record concerning the experience and expertise of the law students, Plaintiffs have not shown that the law students' hourly rate should be approximately the same as their counsel's PLRA baseline rates of $110 per hour for services performed from September 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014, and $126 per hour for services performed from March 1, 2014 to the present. See Camacho, 523 F.3d at 980 ("'[T]he burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence . . . that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community . . . ."); cf. Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) ("We have . . . denied section 1988 fees on appeal . . . because counsel failed to adequately brief the issues he presented, thereby requiring the court to engage in independent research.") Nor does any cited case from the relevant community contain information justifying what the law students' rate should be in this case. However, it is presumed that a lower hourly rate should apply to the law students' to account for their lack of expertise. See Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 503 (9th Cir. 1997) ("presume[ing]" that an attorney reduced the value of a request for "law clerk costs" "to account for her law clerk's lack of experience and expertise.") Therefore, the reasonable hourly rate for the law students is one half of the PLRA baseline rates applicable to this action: $55 per hour for services performed from September 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014, and $63 per hour for services performed from March 1, 2014 to the present.

v. Whether Adjustment to the Loadstar is Warranted

Defendants argue that the loadstar figure should be adjusted downward, contending "[P]laintiff achieved only limited success" in opposing Defendants' motion to terminate. (Defs.' Opp'n, 4:20-22 (quoting Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, C2:06-CV- 00457-GEB, 2013 WL 5597134, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013).) Specifically, Defendants contend Plaintiffs attempted to expand the scope of the consent decree and "were successful in none of their efforts" to do so. (Defs.' Opp'n 4:4-5.) However, PLRA limits the fees recoverable by Plaintiffs to those that are "proportionately related to the court ordered relief for [a proven civil rights] violation[] or . . . directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for violation." §§ 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). Defendants do not address this statutory restriction on fees in this portion of their opposition. Therefore, Defendants' argument is unpersuasive.

vi. Whether Travel Expenses Should be Reimbursed

Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement for their counsel and law students' travel expenses. Defendants do not oppose this portion of the motion.

Section 1988 "allows for recovery of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses," including travel costs, so long as they were "reasonably expended." Woods v. Carey, 722 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2013). However, Plaintiffs have not addressed whether the PLRA's fee limitation, prescribed in §§ 1997e(d)(1)(A)-(B), restricts the travel expenses they may recover. See §§ 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) (stating "fee[s] [must be] proportionately related to the court ordered relief for [a proven civil rights] violation; or . . . directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for violation."). Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown they should be reimbursed for travel expenses not shown to concern the aforementioned pertinent portions of the consent decree.

Plaintiffs seek the following reimbursements for travel expenses:

Date	Destination	Mileage	Rate	Amount
09/20/13	Marysville	98	56.5	55.37
09/26/13	Sacramento	33	56.5	18.64	Hearing on motion to terminate consent decree
10/21/13	Marysville	98	56.5	55.37
10/22/13	San Bruno	164	56.5	92.66	National Archives to research Hedrick court case file
11/12/13	Sacramento	37	56.5	20.90	Meeting at Mexican Consulate
11/25/13	Marysville	98	56.5	55.37
12/06/13	Marysville	98	56.5	55.37
01/17/14	Marysville	98	56.0	54.88
01/31/14	Lower Lake	208	56.0	116.48	Konocti Conservation Camp, to meet with inmate Perry
02/11/14	Marysville	98	56.0	54.88
02/14/14	Marysville	98	56.0	54.88	Students picked up documents in response to RFP
02/18/14	Marysville	98	56.0	54.88
02/25/14	Marysville	98	56.0	54.88
Total				744.56

Plaintiffs have not shown that the October 21, 2013 visit to Marysville should be reimbursed, since Plaintiffs do not seek attorney's fees for services performed during this visit and Plaintiffs' counsel declares that during the visit counsel and law students attempted to "obtain . . . files . . . from [Plaintiffs'] previous counsel," a service for which Plaintiffs' counsel "would not bill a paying client." (Decl. of Carter White in Support of Pls.' Mot. ¶ 12, ECF No. 139-2.) Plaintiffs have failed to explain whether the meeting at the Mexican Consulate concerns the relevant portions of the consent decree. Further, Plaintiffs have not shown that the meeting with inmate Perry concerns the relevant portions of the consent decree since the filed Perry declarations do not concern access to legal materials or female participation in the Jail's trusty program. (Decl. of Patrick Perry, ECF 133-1.) Moreover, review of the law student billing records indicates that Plaintiffs have not shown that the visits to the Jail on December 6, 2013, January 17, 2014, February 11, 2014, February 18, 2014, and February 25, 2014, concerned relevant portions of the consent decree. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown these travel expenses are compensable.

vii. Whether Plaintiffs Are Awarded Fees for Time Expended on The Fee Motion

Plaintiffs also seek fees for the hours their counsel expended composing the opening and reply briefs for the attorney's fees motion. However, Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence concerning the number of hours their counsel expended on these tasks. Therefore, this portion of the motion is denied. See Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397 ("The fee applicant . . . must submit evidence in support of those hours worked.").

viii. Whether Plaintiffs Are Awarded Interest on Their Fee Award

Plaintiffs seek an award of interest on their fee award, arguing interest should begin accruing the date on which the fee award order issues. Defendants do not oppose this portion of the motion. Since a party may recover interest on a § 1988 fee award, this portion of the motion is granted. See Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that interest may be awarded on § 1988 attorney's fees); Jones v. Cnty. of Sacramento, CIV S-09-1025 DAD, 2011 WL 3584332, at *19 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) (holding that "interest will begin accruing on plaintiff's award of fees on the date of this order . . . .")

ix. Total Attorney's Fees Award

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is granted in part. The total attorney's fees award is: $7,826.60. The award is calculated as follows:

			Total
	9/3/2013 - 2/28/2014	3/1/2013 5/23/2014
	Hours	Rate	Hours	Rate
Plaintiffs' Counsel	7.8	$165	.375	$189	$1357.88
Law Students	108.34	$55	3.7	$63	$6,191.80

Travel Expenses

$276.92

Total

$7,826.60

Dated: September 5, 2014

/s/_________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

APPENDIX 1

27 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55441 TIME 9/3/2013 9/3/2013 Review second half of consent decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 55442 TIME 9/3/2013 9/3/2013 Write note about potential issues and areas needing additional research not shown to concern retevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 31.73 55443 TIME 9/3/2013 9/3/2013 Review materials on Yuba County jail website including sheriffs message nd sheriff's response; Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 74.03 55444 TIME 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 Review PLRA document from Boston and write notes Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 55446 TIME 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 Discuss Hedrick assignment with Suliman re initiai assignment on motion in opposition Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 55448 TIME 9/5/2013 9/5/2013 Review notes from 09/04 meeting with White and Suliman; research Rule 60 motion; research PLRA in Boston document; research 18 USC 3626 re Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 317.25 28 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description definitions; research ICE materials on Internet for information on Yuba County jail; print Agyeman and Andrews cases User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55451 TIME 9/5/2013 9/5/2013 Review Agyeman and Andrews cases re analysis of detainee as prisoner under PLRA Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 55452 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Edit draft of Suliman's section of motion to terminate response Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 55453 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Use Yuba jail website to research who is an immigrant detainee Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 74.03 55454 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Email with White re number of immigrant detainees at the jail and ways to calculate the number; six emails related to this issue Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84,60 55455 TIME 9/6/2013 Research/read Agyeman and Andrews cases re application of PLRA to non-prisoners; shephardize cases Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 306.68 29 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 55456 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Locate and review Yuba GJ reports about jail Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 95:18 55457 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Begin to draft memo in opposition to Vacek's motion to terminate; finish first draft of section re ICE detainees are not prisoners Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 972.90 55458 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Finish reading Agyeman opinion and dissent; write notes about both cases Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 148.05 55459 TIME 9/6/2013 9/6/2013 Finish reading Andrews opinion and dissent and write notes about case Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.90 55460 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Edit my section of the memo to reflect more info teamed about 9th Cir approach to PLRA and non prisoners Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84 60 55461 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Uite cnecK memo: review Martinez-Mendoz v. Holder re civil violation for illegal aliens to be in US Serne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 55462 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Research for California Code of Regulations not giving more protections than consent decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 52.88 30 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 55483 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Revise memo to reflect research above Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 1,45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 306.63 55404 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Review past GJ reports for analysis of compliance w/ consent decree, reports from'13, '12,. '11, 10; begin drafting section of memo to reflect this Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 190.35 55465 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Review CCRs for local detention facility info, identify inconsistencies between the consent decree and GJ reports; begin to draft section of memo covering this not shown to concern relevant portions of Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 317.25 55466 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Proof and edit these new memo sections not shown to concern relevant portions of Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 52.88 55467 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Cite check and edit these memo sections a second time not shown to concern relevant portions of Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 74.03 55465 TIME 9/7/2013 9/7/2013 Review ABA 2003 report on the jail an newspaper article about the consent decree suit sent by Suliman Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 55468 TIME 9/8/2013 9/6/2013 Proof and revise entire memo thus far Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 148.05 55470 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 105.75 31 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Review DHS inspection report of jail from April 12 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree 0.00 55471 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Research ICE detention facility standards; compare ICE standards w/ the consent decree; attempt to determine what ICE classification status applies to the jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 274,95 55472 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Review edits So my memo draft sent by Suliman; email w/ Suliman about ICE research and next steps for memo Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 52,88 55473 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Review Title 24 of CCR for building code provisions that may apply to the jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.90 55474 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Final edits and revisions/proofread of memo; email memo to Whits and Suliman Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0 00 0.00 211.50 U 158.63 55533 TIME 9/5/2013 0/5/2013 Read Yuba City's motion to terminate, CRLA motion to withdraw, researched PLRA law and read Boston's treaty in preparation to draft motion Suliman, M. Review Hedrick 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 264,38 55534 TIME 9/5/2013 9/5/2013 Research and Draft Motion Reply Suliman, M. Research Hedrick 5.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 1089.23 55535 TIME 9/8/2013 9/8/2013 Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 21150 U 317.25 32 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Edit partner motion, edit my portion of the motion, sent motion in to CW 0.00 55564 TIME 9/10/2013 9/10/2013 Email White re opposition motion; review Vacek motion; research Rule 230c Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 55565 TIME 9/10/2013 9/10/2013 Research opposition arguments to our motion Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 55566 TIME 9/10/2013 9/17/2013 Research R 60b6; review Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk County re amending consent decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 137.48 55567 TIME 9/10/2013 9/10/2013 Review article Kaleidoscopic Consent Decrees re PLRA and crt power to modify/terminate consent decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 55568 TIME 9/10/2013 9/10/2013 Google and westlaw searches of immigrant detainees, PLRA and consent decree, and research consequences of consent decree termination Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 148.05 33 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 35574 TiME 9/12/2013 9/12/2013 Research decree and PLRA in westlaw; read Rights of Prisoners Ch 17 by Mushtin; read Benajmin v Fraser. Carty v. Farrelly, and briefly review other rase search results Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.80 55575 TIME 9/12/2013 9/12/2013 Research cites to headnote 6 in Vazquez v Carver re immigrants as prisoners under PLRA Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 10.58 55576 TIME 9/12/2013 9/12/2013 Keyciie headnote 6 above, review Clark v California, Hailett v Morgan. Miller v French Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 296.10 55577 TIME 2/13/2013 9/13/2013 PACER search re other cases involving Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 454.73 34 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rata Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value County and constitutional violations, made it thru Yuba County Jail hyperlink when Yuba searched in PACER business name Field; create chart recording results of case analysis vague 55578 TIME 9/13/2013 9/13/2013 PACER thru second Yuba County Jail link vague Beche, Cody Research Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 52.88 55579 TIME 9/13/2013 9/13/2013 PACER thru Yuba County Sheriff link. Yuba County Sheriff Department. vague Beche, Cody Research Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 83.45 55580 TIME 9/13/2013 9/13/2013 PACER thru more Yuba County Sheriff's Office, Yuba County Sheriff Steve Durfor vague Beche, Cody Research Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 158.63 55581 TIME 9/14/2013 9/14/2013 PACER thru Yuba County Sheriff's Department vague Beche, Cody Research Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 95.13 55582 TIME 9/14/2013 9/14/2013 PACER thru Yuba County Sheriff's Office, Yuba County Sheriffs Department, Yuba County Sheriff's Department. Yuba Coutny Jail [sp intended]; search google re suits against Yuba jail; complete PACER research chart vague Beche, Cody Research Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.80 35 Slip ID Dates 3nd Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55619 TIME 9/15/2013 9/15/2013 Researched constiItuopnal violations in Yuba County jail using PACER system Suliman, M. Research Hedrick 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 423.00 55647 TIME 9/18/2013 9/18/2013 Review emails from White, Mitch re rescheduled Hedrick meeting and issues in Hedrick, reply w/ availability and additional questions Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 55848 TIME 9/18/2013 9/18/2013 Email White PACER search results anc brief message re helpful cases located via PACER Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 55649 TIME 9/18/2013 9/18/2013 Emails w/ White re contacting parties involved in litigation against Yuba clerical Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 36 Slip to Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value create task list to organize next steps in Hedrick 55654 TIME 9/19/2013 9/19/2013 Review Hedrick docs in memos and notes folder Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 10.58 55656 TIME 9/19/2013 9/19/2013 Review example declarations posted to Smartsite, research Rule 50, R27a4 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 137.48 55658 TiME 9/19/2013 9/19/2013 Meet w/ White re Hedrick hearing next week Berne, Cody Meeting 44edrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 105.75 37 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 55660 TIME 9/20/2013 9/20/2013 Review my section of response motion review Agyeman v. INS Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.50 55662 TIME 9/21/2013 9/21/2013 Email w/ White re 8th Amend issues in Perry claim and grievance procedurw inl jail manual not shown to come relevant protion ofdecree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 55664 TIME 9/21/2013 9/21/2013 Draft memo re interview Corona-Chavez at jaii; not shown to come relevant protion of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.90 55665 TIME 9/21/2013 9/21/2013 Re-read Vacek motion; re read and outline my section of response; review Andrews and Agyeman cases. Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 274.95 55656 TIME 9/21/2013 9/21/2013 Review ICE detention standards re library access, materials; finish argument outline and review argument outline Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 38 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55734 TIME 9/19/2013 9/19/2013 Reading case files & loiters for potential inmates to interview at Yuba jail Suliman, M. Review Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 190.35 55735 TIME 9/20/2013 9/20/2013 Yuba County Jail Visit Travel (2.5 hrs); Other unspecified visit activities (6 - 2.5 = 3.5 hrs) 12.5% of unspecified jail visit compensable (3.5 x .125 = .4375.) Total compensable = 2.5 + .4375 = 2.94 Suliman, M. Meeting Hedrick 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55821 TIME 9/24/2013 9/24/2013 Practice oral argument for motion set for Thursday Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 137.48 55823 TIME 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 Reread Vacek motion to terminate; reread our response motion; review 28 USC 1915 and recreation privileges protected by the consent decree # of entries = 2 (reread mot.; review statute and privileges) Reread mot. = compensable (.7 x .5 = .35) Review stature and recreation privileges not shown compensable. Total compensable = .7 x.5 = .35 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 39 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55826 TIME 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 Meet w/ White and Mitch re Hedrick hearing tomorrow Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 211.50 55829 TIME 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 Emails from White, Mitch re hearing tomorrow Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 55830 TIME 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 Prepare for argument; review jail handbook Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 200.93 55831 TIME 9/26/2013 9/26/2013 Commute to court; morning preparation for the hearing; meet w/ White and Mitch before the hearing Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 348.98 55832 TIME 9/26/2013 9/26/2013 Hearing on motion before Judge Burrel Berne, Cody Hearing Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 317.25 40 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 55834 TIME 9/26/2013 9/26/2013 Email w/ White and Mitch Hodrick visits w/ inmates not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 55836 TIME 9/27/2013 9/27/2013 Review Hedrick pleadings docket numbers 57, 58, 77: compare 57 consent decree to 109 and 110 consent decree: update RFP/INT thoughts Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 232.65 S5903 TIME 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 Develop outline of Oral Argument, re-read ail motions submitted, research J. Burrell background, case disposition study the case in preparation for oral argument Suliman, M. Research Hedrick 4,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 846.00 55904 TIMS 9/24/2013 9/24/2013 Anticipate questions that could be asked by the Judge, anticipate Suliman, M. Prepare Hedrick 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 359.55 41 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value responses/argument by opposing counsel 55905 TIME 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 Study Oral Argument material (consent decree, outline), Rehearse Oral Argument Suliman, M. Prepare Hednck 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 634.50 55906 TIME 9/26/2013 9/26/2013 Oral Argument in Federal Court (include preparation the morning of and full time spent in court) Suliman, M. Hearing Hednck 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 846.00 55947 TIME 10/1/2013 10/1/2013 Research for cases and claims about constitutional violations at jails: review Padron v. ICE; review WA Post article called Careless Detention re IGE detainees; review Bell v. Wolfish; search for DOJ investigations of jails Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 687.38 55950 TIME 10/1/2013 10/1/2013 Research secondary sources re conditions of confinement for pretrial and ICE detainees Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 42 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Siip Value 55953 TIME 10/1/2013 10/1/2013 Review Ashby deposition in Hedrick file to pg 45 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 169.20 55955 TIME 10/1/2013 10/1/2013 Discuss w/ White class membership; contact clerk's office at ED to locate tiles; review Dkt 57 to 77 for info about class membership, and any modifications to consent decree; draft email to Vacek re stipulation to dkt 57 as original copy of consent decree; speak w/ Taylor re calendaring and file locations Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 475.88 55957 TIME 10/2/2013 10/2/2013 Discuss work distribution w/ Mitch after meeting Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 10.58 55958 TIME 10/3/2013 10/3/2013 Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 43 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value Phone cali from Becky at clerk's office re obtaining records; email White re this issue, and search National Archives for Hedrick records clerica; 0.00 55959 TIMEE 10/3/2013 10/3/2013 Second call from clerk's office, call National Archives and left message re obtaining files clerica; Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 44 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Bill Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value and RFP; edit RFP and email reply to MS; review rules cited in RFP; research Yuba Sheriffs Annual Reports for other RFP ideas; review FRCP 34, review Rutter Guide re FRCP 34 55968 TIME 10/5/2613 10/5/2013 Write letter to Perry asking to meet an discuss his past complaint against Yuba Jail; emailed to Cappy for edits not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 56020 TIME Researched RFPs and reviewed different drafts of RFPs in preparation to write one Suliman, M. Research Hedrick 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 676.80 56021 TIME 10/4/2013 10/4/2013 Wrote the Draft of the RFP 12.5% shown compensable Total Compensable = 5.55 x .125 = .69 Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 5.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 56022 TIME10/6/2013 10/6/2013 Edited the RFP and prepared it for fin submission 12.5% shown compensable Total Compensable = .75 x.125 = .09 Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 158.63 56040 TIME 10/7/2013 10/7/2013 Review RFP from Mitch a second time reply to Mitch's email re RFP Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 74.03 56041 TIME 10/8/2013 10/8/2013 Email from White re letter to Perry not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 10.58 45 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56044 TIME 10/9/2013 10/9/2013 Finish reading Lt, Ashby deposition not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 56048 TIME 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 Email from MS re updated Hedrick RFP; review updated RFP 12.5% shown compensable Total Compensable = .55 x .125 = .07 Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 46 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56157TIME 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 RFP edits and revised for final submission 12.5% shown compensable Total Compensable = 2.5 x.125 = .31 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 Read Walls deposition to page. 148 read Rule 30, research Judge McBridge biography not shown to concern elevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 2.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 56166 . TIME 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 Review Pellett deposition; research consent decree for whether CRLA's- address must be provided to prisoners not shown to concern elevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56171 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Emails to National Archives; attempt to locate alternative email address for Archives after address given bounced back repeatedly clerical Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 56172 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Chock clinic email, and review notes from Hedrick meeting: research contacts for Yuba Public Defender; leave phone message to have Yuba PD call me # of entries = 2 (check email (clercal); review notes from Henrick meeting (not shown to concern relevant portions of decree) Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56175 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Speak w/ Brian Davis, Yuba County PD. by phone about jail Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 74.03 56176 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Copy letters from CRLA, organize letters by year; email from Taylor re fleet car lor tomorrow clerical Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 105.75 56177 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Write memo to file re conversation with Brian Davis; print memo and email to White and Mitch Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56178 TIME 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 Speak with Melanie Louie at Natl Archives about visit next Tuesday; emailed White and Mitch about possible visit to Archives clerical Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 49 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56283 TIME 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 Drafted and, submitted email to ACLU requesting assistance for Yuba County Jail Discovery Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.90 56286 TIME 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 Several emails to Cody/Prof White coordinating visit to Marysville and San clerical Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 50 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56323 TIME10/22/2013 10/22/2013 drive to San Bruno and National Archives; locate missing papers in Archive ftles; return to Davis, return fleet car, walk back to campus Berne, Cody Drive Hedrick 4.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 1364.18 51 Slip ID Dales and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 56325 TIME 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 Check that items retrieved from CRLA have been copied to H; drive; write draft of form letter to Yuba inmates requesting information about jail conditions # of entries 2 (check iterns have been copied (.45hrs); draft letter Entry 1: Check items have been copies = Clerical Entry 2: Draft letter = Compensable Total compensable = .45 hrs. Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 56330 TIME 10/25/2013 10/25/2013 Review and reply to Mitch's letter to all Yuba jail inmates requesting information about jail conditions Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 52 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference User Activity Client Reference Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56412 TIME 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 Reviewed all files from Archive visit Suliman, M. Review Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 95.18 56416 TIME 10/24/2013 10/24/2013 Drafted email to ACLU for discovery purposes and reviewed previous ACL emails Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 56417 TIME 10/25/2013 10/25/2013 Edited Cody's original letter to inmate, converted it to a flyer for distribution to inmates for discovery purposes Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 169.20 53 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value 56450 TIME 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 Create and email task list to Whits, and Suliman: review emails from White and Suliman re CRLA files and draft order not shown to concern elevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56455 TIME 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 Edit White's draft of letter to Yuba jail letters inmates; reply to Taylor email re jail letters not shown to concern elevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 54 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 58456 TIME 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 Summarize letters received from CRLA in a chart and email to White and Suliman; attempt to locate letter writer in jail or CDCR not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Summarize Hedrick 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56459 TIME 11/1/2013 11/1/2013 Create roster of all people at jail as of 11/01/13; make mailing labels and prepare 60 introduction letters to randomly selected detainees # of entries = 2 (create roster (1.7 hrs); make mailing label and prepare intro letter (1.7hrs). Create roster = clerical Make mailing label = clerical Prepare intro letters = compensable (1.7 x .5 =.85) Total Compensable = 1.7 x. 5 = .85 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 3.40 211.50 U 719.10 56460 TIME 11/3/2013 11/3/2013 Redraft reply letter to Perry and email to White and Suliman not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.00 211.50 U 71.91 56501 TIME 10/30/2013 10/30/2013 Reviewed Docket 98 statutes. Cody's research vague Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 56502 TIME 10/30/2013 10/30/2013 Final letter to inmates edit Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 55 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56702 TIME 11/6/2013 11/6/2013 Email from Suliman re Hedrick meeting; review order from ACLU Montana jail case Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 56704 TIME 11/5/2013 11/6/2013 Email trail from Suliman and White re Mexican consulate, research consulate worker names not related to relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56708 TIME 11/3/2013 11/3/2013 Read new draft for Perry reply letter not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56710 TIME 11/5/2013 11/5/2013 Read Cappy's email about ACLU in Montana concerning exercise. Researched outdoor recreation re: constitutional violation not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 148.05 58711 TIME 11/7/2013 11,072013 Check inmate names across different databases to find out if they are still located at Yuba County Jail Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56733 TIME 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 Review emails from White re Mexican Consulate and 28 USC 1715b; review email from Mitch re consulate meeting not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 56/35 11Mb 11/13/2013 11/132013 Research 28 USC 1715b not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 126.90 57 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 0.00 56737 TIME 11/13/2013 11/13/5013 Review letters from jail received in repiy to mass jail mailing; check custody status of letter writers and speak with White about letters Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 211.50 56738 TIME 11/13/2013 11/13/2013 Review emails from White and Suliman re upcoming jail visit Suliman, M. Revise Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 56739 TIME 11/13/2013 11/13/2013 Phone call w/ Wanda at Yuba Jail to schedule visit; email White and Suliman details of visit clerical Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 56815 TIME 11/10/2013 11/10/2013 Corresponded with CW about Consulate visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 56816 TIME 11/11/2013 11/11/2013 Began to draft a cover letter for the visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 56817 TIME 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 Called CW before consulate visit and discussed further guidance not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 56818 TIME 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 Prepared for the consulate visit, paperwork, copies of material to give them, etc. not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Prepare Hedrick 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56819 TIME 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 Mexican Consulate meeting (including transportation time) not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suiiman, M, Meeting Hedrick 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56821 TIME 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 Yuba County Jail visit Total compensable = 3.43 (see Entry No. 56929 (below) for explanation) Suiiman, M. Visit Hedrick 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 1 56929 TIME 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 Drive to Yuba Jail and back; interviews with Pasion and Holston 20,91 20.9 # of entries: 2 (Travel (2.5 hrs.); Interviews (5. 2.5 = 3.2)) # of interviews: 2 (Pasion (1.6); Holston (1.6)) 100% Travel time compensable (2.5) 25% Pasion compensable (.25 x 1.6 = .4) 33% Holston compensable (.33 x 1.6 = .528) Total compensable = 2.5 + .4 + .528 = 3.43 Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 21150 U 1205,55 6.86 59 Slip ID Dates arid Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance 56930 TIME 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 Write up Holston interview notes: begin writing Pasion interview notes # of entries = 2 (Holston (.55 hrs); Pasion (.55 hrs)) 33% Holston compensable (.55 x .33 = .1815) 25% Pasion Compensable (.55 x. 25 = .1375) Total Compensable = .1815 +.1375 =.32 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 56931 TIME 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 Write up Pasion notes; revise Hoiston and Pasion notes and email to White and Suliman # of entries = 2 (Holston (.35 hrs); Pasion (.35 hrs)) 33% Holston compensable (.35 x .33 = .1155) 25% Pasion Compensable (.35 x. 25 = .0875 ) Total Compensable = .1155 +.0875 = .2 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 56S32 TIME 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 Review Human Rights First Immigration facilities report Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 56934 TIME 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 Review email from Suliman re task list, Latham interview, Racktey interview; research CDCR prisoners held at Yuba Jail # of entries = 2 (review email (.2 hrs); research inmates (.2 hrs) 50% Rackley compensable; Rackley is 33% of"review email" sub-entry (.5 x . x .33 = .033) 100% inmate research compensable (.2) Total Compensable = .2 + .033 = .23 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5693S TIME 11/21/2013 11/21/2013 Schedule visit to jail w/ Wanda; email White and Suliman clerical Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 11/21/2013 11/21/2013 Email from Taylor and reply letter from Lentz not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 60 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance 56938 UME 11/21/2013 11/21/2013 Start drafting Holston declaration; find sample declarations, review local rules on declarations # of entries = 2 (start drafting (.275); find sample decl. and review L.R. (.275)) 33% Holston Compensable (.33 = .09075 100% other tasks compensable Total compensable = .09075 + .275 =.37 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 55940 TIME 11/2V2G13 11/21/2013 Finalize Holston declarations re exercise, library, anti medical # Decl = 3 1 Decl compensable (library) Total compensable = .33 x 1.25 =.41 Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 58941 TIME 11/22/2013 11/22/2013 Write Pasion declarations re exercise, ICE. library, and medical # Decl. = 4 1 Decl compensable (library) Total compensable = .25 x .7 = .18 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 56S42 TIME 11/23/2013 11/23/2013 Read letters from Villatoro and Banked not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 56943 TIME 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 Review HIPPA email from White; print declarations and sections of ICE detention standards manual; -unjam- printer; review ICE recreation and library standards # of entries = 3 (#1. "Review email" (.165 hrs) = not shown to concern relevant portions of decree; #2. Print (.165 hrs) = clerical; #3. Review ICE standards: (ICE recreation standards (.0825 hrs) not shown to concern relevant portions of the decree; ICE library standards compensable (.0825 hrs)) Total compensable = .08 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 56944 TIME 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 Drive to and from Yuba Jail: visit Holston and review declarations # of entries: 2 (Travel (2.5 hrs.); vist & review (5.1 -2.5 = 2.6)) 100% Travel compensable (2.5) 33% Holston compensable (.33 x 2.6 = .858) Total compensable = 2.5 + .858 = 3.36 Berne, Cody Drive Hedrick 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 55994 TIME 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 Review CWs email with human rights watch PDF attachment not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Suliman, M. Review Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 56995 TIME 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 Drafted Inmate interview notes not shown to concern relevant portions of decree (vague as to which inmates this entry concerns) Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 56997 TIME 11/22/2013 11/22/2013 Drafted Inmate Declarations not shown to concern relevant portions of decree (vague as to which inmates this entry refers) Suliman, M. Draft Hedrick 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 56998 TIME 11/23/2013 11/23/2013 Research Tort claim procedure for Inmate Rackley not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Researh Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 56993 TIME 11/23/2013 11/23/2013 Email Tort claim info to Professor and Cody not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57000 TIME 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 Yuba County Jail visit Total compensable = 3.36 (same trip as Entry No. 56944 on previous page) Suliman, M. Visit Hedrick 5.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1099.80 57001 TIME 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 Reviewed new letters (Vil latere, Blanked, Siiva) not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Suliman, M. Review Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 57022 TIME 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 Two phone calls to Wanda at jail to schedule visits, email info to White and Suliman clerical Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 157023 TIME 11/29/2013 11/29/2013 Update electronic versions of declarations for Holston and Pasion: read Suliman's letter to Rackley; read jail letters from Silva and Singh # of entries: 3 (update decl. (.15 hrs); read Suliman's letter (.15 hrs); read Silva and Singh letters (.15 hrs). Entry 1: 2 Decls updated: Holston (.075); Pasion (.075) ; 33% Holston compensable (.33 x .075 =.02475) 25% Pasion compensable (.25 x .075 = .01875) Entry 2: Not shown to be compensable since unclear whether relates to consent decree or tort claim procedure research referenced in Entry No. 56998. Entry 3: Not shown to concern relevant portions of the consent decree. Total compensable: .02475 + .01875 = .04 Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rata Info Bill Status Slip Value 57003 TIME 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 Draft letter for Mr. Rackley not shown to concern relevant portions of decree, since unclear whether relates to consent decree or tort claim procedure research referenced in Entry No. 56998. 57064 TIME 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 Sent clinic mail to Mr. Rackley not shown to concern relevant portions of decree, since unclear whether relates to consent decree or tort claim procedure research referenced in Entry No. 56998. Suliman, M. Conf Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 57089 TIME 12/3/2013 12/3/2013 Email from Taylor re letters from Vargas, Alvarez; read letters not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 57090 TIME 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 Write letters to Holston, Pasion re declarations: assemble packets of declarations to be signed by both: mas to both #of entries: 3 (write letters (.467 hrs); assemble packets (.467 hrs); mail (.467 hours). Entry 1: Write letters: Holston (.2335); Pasion (.2335) 33% Holston compensable (.33 x .2335 = .077055) 25% Pasion compensable (.25 x .2335 = .058375) Entry 2: Clerical Entry 3: Clerical Total compensable = .077055 + .058375 = .14 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 140 0.00 0.00 0.00 57091 TIME 12/6/2013 12/6/2013 Assemble materials for trip to jail; drive to jail with White, Suliman; interview Shannon Silva at jail; return to Davis not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 5.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 57178 TIME 12/13/2013 12/13/2013 Review notes from Silva interview: write three declarations for Silva from these notes: email declarations to White not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance 57170 TIME 12/15/2013 12/15/2013 Read letter from Patrick Perry re willing to meet; review declarations returned to CRC from Pasion and Holston # of entries: 2 (Perry (.1 hr) ; Review Decls. (.1 hr)) # decl. reviews: 2 (Pasion (.05); Holston (.05)) Perry not compensable 25% Pasion compensable (.25 x .05 = .0125) 33% Holston compensable (.33 x .05 = .0165) Total compensable = .0125+.0165 = .03 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 57225 TIME 1/12/2014 1/12/2014 Write three declarations and memere jail interview w/ Silva not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 2,15 0.00 0.00 0.00 57226 TIME 1/15/2014 1/15/2014 Read letter from Perry; review Pasion and Holston declarations # of entries: 2 (Perry (.1 hr.) ; Pasion (.05) & Holston (.05)) Perry not compensable 25% Pasion compensable (.25 x .05 = .0125) 33% Holston compensable (.33 x .05 = .0165) Total compensable time = .0125 + .0165 = .03 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 57227 TIME 1/9/2014 1/9/2014 Email from White re 1st class; read FRCP 35 and notes; read 12/12/13 Perry letter; read letters from Lopez, Wyman; research how an abcessed tooth is treated re jail letters about dental care; review letters from Cropsey. Bechtei; email Taylor re Cropsey letter not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 137.48 57228 TIME 1/10/2014 1/10/2014 Check custody status of writers of most recent fetters received from the jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 U 64 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57241 TIME 1/14/2014 1/14/2014 Print-Silva declarations; prim Perry authorization to visit form: call CDCR CCC re prison visit w/ Perry; call Yuba jail to schedule visit for this week speak w/ and email RT re CDCR visit w/ Perry clerical Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 222.08 57242 TIME 1/14/2014 1/14/2014 Email from White re new letters from jail; read new letters and check custody status not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 21150 U 57243 TIME 1/15/2014 1/15/2014 Email from RT re visit to CCC; call jail to add name to visit list vague; clerical Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 21150 U 31.73 57247 TIME 1/17/2014 1/17/2014 Travel to jail w/ CW and AJ: interview not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 5.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 65 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Bechtel and sit in on Cropsey interview have Silva sign declarations 57249, TIME 1/17/2014 1/17/2014 Write up interview notes from Bechtel interview not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 57250 TIME 1/19/2014 1/19/2014 Review Bechtel notes, write and edit Bechtel declarations re medical care and exercise yard not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 57296 TIME 1/17/2014 1/17/2014 interview clients at Yuba County Prison not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Meeting Hedrick 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57297 TIME 1/20/2014 1/20/2014 Reviewed Declaration material and drafted interview notes and two Declarations re; Cropsey not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Review Hedrick 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57435 TIME 1/21/2014 1/21/2014 Jassawalla, A. Conf Hedrick 2.20 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 465.30 66 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value Answer emails from Cody re Hedrick case arid edit Declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree 0.00 57484 TIME 1/20/20'l4 1/20/2014 write letter to Bechtel re declaration and filing tort claim, edit Bechtel letter email Bechtel declaration and letter to White and Anisa not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 190.35 57486 TIME 1/20/2014 1/20/2014 Write reply letter to Perry re meeting c 01/31/14 not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 57487 TIME 1/20/2014 1/20/2014 Create new roster of jail detainees, attempt to distribute names to receive mass mailing randomly amongst the pods Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 285.53 57489 TIME 1/20/2014 1/20/2014 review mass mailing letter template Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 67 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57499 TIME 1/21/2014 1/21/2014 reply to 01/08/14 Dymon letter, edit; email draft to White and Anisa Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 200,93 57501 TIME 1/21/2014 1/21/2014 review and mail Dymon letter not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57503 TIME 1/21/2014 1/21/2014 Emails w/ Anisa re Perry visit; email Anisa re Hedrick task list not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57504 TIME 1/23/2014 1/23/2014 Re-read Perry documents, including his letters, defendant's motion to dismiss and Read's declaration; review jail handbook included in Perry file and make notes for areas relevant to deposing Read not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.80 57506 TIME 1/26/2014 1/26/2014 Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 10:58 68 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Emails to and from Taylor re scheduling meeting w/ Perry not shown to concern relevant portions of decree 0.00 57509 TIME 1/29/2014 1/28/2014 Edit Declarations, write client letter, prep/mail elient materiale, reed Perry materia! and Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation manual not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 5.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 1110.38 57510 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Read Perry Declaration and draft Piping Declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 158.63 57511 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 Visit and Interview Perry not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Meeting Hedrick 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 1269.00 57555 TIME 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 Call CCC re Perry visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57556 TIME 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 Check Perry custody status; confirm meeting time w/ White not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Admin, Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 69 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57561 TIME 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 Read new Cropsey letter, and Herrera letter; look up translations of some words in Herrera letter not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 57562 TIME 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 Exchange messages w/ CGC litigation coordinator; set up Perry visit not shown to concern relevant portions ofdecree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 31.73 57563 TIME 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 Email Taylor. White, and Anis3 re Pert visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 21.15 57565 TIME 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 Read Perry 1 st and 2nd amended complaints, write declaration re the attack based on Perry's complaints; made it up to pg 5 of Perry's 2nd complaint not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 401,85 57566 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Berne, Cody Conf Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 211 50 U 10.58 70 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Emails w/ Anisa re Perry interview planning not shown to concern relevant portions of decree 57667 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Reread Newman's dismissal order of Perry suit and update and begin writing email to White and Anisa re additional deposition ideas based on Perry case not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 57563 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Finish first draft of Perry declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 116.33 57569 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Edit Perry declaration, three read-throughs and edits not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57572 TIME 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 Read through title 15 CDCR visiting regs. Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 95.18 57573 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 pick up UC car; drive to Lower Lake not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57574 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 Print directions to Konocti; re react Parry declaration printing = clerical; other task not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Prepare Hedrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 71 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57575 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 Meet w/ Petty not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57576 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 Return to Davis; drop off Anise; return US car; Perry papery not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57577 TIME 1/31/2014 1/31/2014 Write memo to file for Perry interview email to Wtiite and AJ not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Summarize Hedrick 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57665 TIME 2/3/2014 2/3/2014 Email Anisa re task list, ideas for task list not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0:10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57666 TIME 2/3/2014 2/3/2014 Email Anisa again re task list, and rear: Cropsey piping declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57867 TIME 2/3/2014 2/3/2014 Check jail custody status and email Sophie re undeliverable letters not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21,15 57668 TIME 2/4/2014 2/4/2014 Begin reviewing Perry file not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57670 TIME 2/4/2014 2/4/2014 Call Wanda to schedule visit; email info to CW, Anisa; print Bechte! declaration 179.78 # of entries: 3 (#1-2 scheduling visits; clerical; #3 Bechtel declaration: not shown to concern relevant portions of decree) Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 72 Siip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57672 TIME 2/4/2014 2/4/2014 Write letter to Perry/e- visit; print mailing labels not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 95.18 57675 TIME 2/5/2014 2/5/2014 Emails w/ CW re time extension and new jail letters Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 57678 TIME 2/5/2014 2/5/2014 Finish reviewing Perry does and writing notes based on the docs not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 380.70 73 Slip 10 Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57879 TIME 2/6/2014 2/8/2014 Research Perry via Westlaw not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 63.45 57630 TIME 2/6/2011 2/6/2014 Research .CA Penal Code 4001 for info on Perry housing; review notes of decision, treatises; research Penal Code 4011 re inmate medical not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 84.60 57662 TIME 2/8/2014 2/8/2014 Check custody status of letter writers not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.73 57683 TIME 2/8/2014 2/8/2014 Email Anisa and CW re new letters not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Ltr Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57584 TIME 2/8/2014 2/8/2014 Call Wanda to add names to visit list not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody TCL Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 10.58 37683 TIME 2/8/2014 2/8/2014 Read new tetters and attachments not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 274.95 74 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est; Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57740 TIME 2/10/2014 2/10/2014 Call Wanda twice to set up additional jail visit get details about visiting schedule clerical; visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody TCT Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57741 TIME 2/10/2014 2/10/2014 Emails w/ Anisa and White re additional people to visit and Cropsey questions not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U F37742 TIME 2/10/2014 2/10/2014 Read Cropsey piping declaration and email from Anisa not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57743 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Speak w/ Anisa about next steps case not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57744 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Pick up UC Davis car, drive to jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Beme. Cody Travel Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57745 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Interviews at jail w/ Sanchez Tyson and Pendergraph not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 834.50 57746 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Return drive to Davis not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 274.95 57747 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Write Tyson declaration re jail intercom not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57746 TIME 2/12/2014 2/12/2014 Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 75 Siip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate info Bill Status Slip Value Research on Yuba court website about how to search for oast cases 0.00 57749 TIME 2/12/2014 2/12/2014 Write Sanchez cleaning declaration and Tyson exercise declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 57750; TiiVlE 2/12/20,14 2/12/2014 Write Sanchez safety and cleaning declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 57751 TIME 2/13/2014 2/13/2014 Write three declarations for Pendergraph not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 57752 TIME 2/13/2014 2/13/2014 Review declarations for Sanchez, Tyson and Pendergraph and email declarations to White and Anisa not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 57754 TIME 2/13/2014 2/13/2014 Two phone calls to Wanda to schedule jail visit for Tuesday clerical; not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody TCT Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57755 TIME 2/13/2014 2/13/2014 Call and emails from White re picking up REP documents from Vacek Berne, Cody TCT Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 57756 TIME 2/14/2014 2/14/2014 Pick up UC Davis car, Drive to and Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 549.90 76 Siip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description from Yuba County Office and Courthouse User Activity Client Reference Units DHB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Siip Value 57758 TIME 2/14/2014 2/14/2014 Review documents obtained via RFP from Vacek 12.5% Unspecified RFP compensable Total compensable = .125 x 1.20 = .15 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 57759 TIME 2/14/2014 2/14/2014 Speak w/ Vacek at his office, pick up RFP documents 12.5% Unspecified RFP compensable Total compensable = .125 x .15 = .02 Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 57760 TIME 2/14/2014 2/14/2014 Search for cases at Yuba County involving jail; use county computers and speak with court staff Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 158.63 57761 TIME 2/17/2014 2/17/2014 Read Malone declarations written by Anisa not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Revise Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 57797 TIME 2/11/2014 2/11/2014 Yuba County Jail Visit and Interviews Not shown to concern relevant portions of decree. See Entries Nos. 57755-57746. Jassawalla, A. Travel Hedrick 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 57753 TIME 2/14/2014 2/14/2014 Draft Malone Declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 317.25 77 Siip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57837 TIME 2/18/2014 2/18/2014 Look up number of jail visits and interviews during this case and email results to White, Anisa clerical Berne, Cody Admin Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 42.30 57838 TIME 2/18/2014 2/13/2014 Talk to White re RFP documents and pick up car from fleet services # of entries = 2 (Talk to White re RFP (.1); Pick Up Car (.1)) 12.5% of RFP Compensable (.0125) Pick up car not compensable. See Entry No. 57840 (below). Total = .0125 Berne, Cody Talk Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 57839 TIME 2/18/2014 2/13/2014 Wait for Anisa, drive to jail, review RFF docs # of entries: 3 ((Travel) (1.25 hr); Wait (.075); Review (.075)). Travel & wait not compensable because visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree (2hrs). See Entry No. 57840 (below). 12.5% unspecified RFP review compensable Total Compensable = 125 x .075 = .01 Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 57840 TIME 2/18/2014 2/18/2014 Interview Azevedo, Susoeff, and have Penderqraph sign his declarations not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Visit Hedrick 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 57841 TIME 2/18/2014 2/18/2014 Drive to Davis from jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 57842 TIME 2/19/2014 2/19/2014 Copy Tyson declaration and submit declarations to be filed clerical/not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin, Hedrick 0.10 0 00 0.00 0.00 6 57843 TIME 2/19/2014 2/19/2014 Write and edit Azevedo declaration clerical/not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.55 0 00 0.00 0.00 33 57844 TIME 2/19/2014 2/19/2014 Write Susoeff safety declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.40 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 57845 TIME 2/19/2014 2/19/2014 Write and edit Susoeff drug use, not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 1.45 0 00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 306.68 78 Siip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description exercise, and revise safety declaration email ail declarations to White, Anisa User Activity Client Reference Units DHB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Vaiue 57846 TIME 2/20/2014 2/20/2014 Two phone calls with Wanda to schedule jail visit for next week Two phone calls with Wanda to schedule jail visit for next week clerical / not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody TCT Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57847 TIME 2/20/2014 2/20/2014 Emails w/ White and Anisa re jail visit next week not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 57849 TIME 2/20/2014 2/20/2014 Write letter to Susoeff and include info from LSPWC re suing a local public entity not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 57850 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Begin reading through RFP document; 1, 2, 3, 7, and 3/4 of 20 12.5% unspecified RFP compensable Total Compensable = .125x4.3 = .54 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 57865 TIME 2/18/2014 2/18/2014 Travel to Yuba County for Jail Interviews not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla. A. Travel Hedrick 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 634.50 57866 TIME 2/18/2014 2/18/2014 Conduct Interviews with Inmates Kiltior and Hernandez-Trujillo not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Visit Hedrick 3.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 697.95 57867 TIME 2/2 3/2 014 2/23/2014 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 4 50 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 951.75 79 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value Draft Declarations for Killion, Hernandez-Trujillo and Carranza 0.00 57894 TIME 2/24/2014 2/24/2014 Read letters from York and Love not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 50 U 57895 TIME 2/24/2014 2/24/2014 Read declarations from Hernandez-Trujillo, Killion, and Carranza; email comments to White and Anisa not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 50 U 57897 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Texts, emails w/ White and Anisa re jail visit not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 50 U 57898 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Review RFP 15, 17, 18 12.5% RFP compensable Total Compensable = .125 x .5 = .06 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 50 U 80 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 57901 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Drive to jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Travel Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.80 57902 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Meet w/ York, Susoeff and Azevedo not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 348.98 57903 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Drive back from jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Travel Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.81 57904 TIME 2/26/2014 2/26/2014 Print and mail letter, packet from LSPWC to Susoeff not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 52.88 57905 TIME 2/28/2014 2/28/2014 Email from White re conversation w/ Vacek about time extension Berne, Cody Admin. Hedrick 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 21.15 57906 TIME 3/2/2014 3/2/2014 Research power to modify consent decree; read Rule 60b5; review Home v. Flores and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffok County Jail; write notes about research Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 391.28 57953 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Meet with Killion and Hernandez-Trujillo to sign Declaration not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Visit Hedrick 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 264.38 57954 TIME 2/27/2014 2/27/2014 Write letters to Malone and Carranza Declarations not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 57955 TIME 2/25/2014 2/25/2014 Travel to Yuba County for Jail Jassawalla, A. Travel Hedrick 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 793.13 81 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Interviews and Wait for Ctionts at the Jail not shown to concern relevant portions of decree 58014 TIME 3/3/2014 3/3/2014 Read brief in Barrington Lyon v. ICE not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 58015 TIME 3/3/2014 -3/3/2014 Read letter from Carranza not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 58017 TIME 3/5/2014 3/5/2014 Organize joint statement of facts task w/ Anisa; copy jaii policy manual and alt signed declarations 12.5% Joint Statement Compensable Total compensable = .125 × 1 =.13 Berne, Cody Admin Hedrick 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 253.80 58019 TIME 3/6/2014 3/6/2014 Write draft of undisputed facts re hygiene, library, and yard 33% of sections drafted concern relevant portions of decree (library) Total compensable = .33 x 7.2 = 2.38 Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 7.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 56020 TIME 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 Read dkt 125-1, 125. and 126 retime extension requests to court Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 31.73 58021 TIME 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 Draft part of iCE section of undisputed facts not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Slip Value 58023 TIME 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 Read Johnson Setter not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 58024 TIME 3/8/2014 3/8/2014 Finish draft of ICE section of undisputed facts; revise and edit my half of the undisputed facts and email draft to White and Anisa # of entries: 2 (finished ICE section (2.10 hrs); "edit my half" of undisputed facts (2.10hrs)) Finish ICE section = not compensable 33% of "edit my half" compensable (see Entry No. 58019) Total compensable = .33 x 2.10 = .69 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 53075 TIME Team Meeting and Prep Documents for Writing a Statement of Facts not shown to concern relevant portions of decree since access to legal materials (library) section already written Jassawalla, A. Meeting Hedrick 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 58076 TIME 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 Draft Statement of Facts for Hedrick not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 50 58081 TIME 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 Speak w/ White re Vacek phone calf undisputed facts 12.5% undisputed facts compensable Total Compensable = .125 x .05 = .01 Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 58082 TIME 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 Begin reading Anisa statement of facts read through medical reports in RFP 14 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 211.50 190.35 58084 TIME 3/12/2014 3/12/2014 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Research Hedrick 0.80 0.00 0.00 83 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Siip Value Research medical and use of force experts 0.00 58085 TIME 3/13/20.14 3/13/2014 Emails from White re facts sent to Vacek 12.5% undipsuted facts compensable Total compensable = .125 x.4 = .05 Berne, Cody Admin Hedrick 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 58088 TIME 3/13/2014 3/13/2014 Talk about fact statement strategy w/ Anisa, White 12.5% undipsuted facts compensable Total compensable = .125 x.3 = .04 Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58087 TIME 3/14/2014 3/14/2014 Write reply letters to Susoeff and Tyso not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Meeting Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 58088 time 3/14/2014 3/14/2014 Discuss which ice standards apply not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 5808B TIME 3/14/2014 3/14/2014 Read medical incident reports in RFP 14 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Review Hedrick 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 58092 TIME 3/10/2014 3/10/2014 Writing Statement of Facts for Hedrick Case not shown to concern relevant portions of decree since access to legal materials (library) sections already written Jassawalla, A. Draft Hedrick 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58095 TIME 3/14/2014 3/14/2014 not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Review Hedrick 3,00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 634.50 84 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description Read Through Medical Incident Reports User Activity Client Reference Units DN8 Time Est. Time Variance 0.00 Rate Rate Info Bill Status Siip Value 58096 TIME 3/14/2014 3/14/2014 Revise Statement of Facts, 2000 ICE Report not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Jassawalla, A. Revise Hedrick 2.50 0.00 0.00 211.50 85 Slip ID Dates and Time Posting Status Description User Activity Client Reference Units DNB Time Est. Time Variance Rate Rate Info Bill Status Slip Value 58244 TIME 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 coordinate w/ Anisa re 60b: reply Berne, Cody Admin Hedrick 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 52.38 58246 TIME 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 Outline my portion of 80b argument not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.90 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 58247 TIME 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 Write exercise 60b section; begin writing safety section not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 1.70 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 58248 TIME 4/2/2014 4/2/2014 Continue working on safety section not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 1.10 0.00 0.00 211.50 U 58249 TIME 4/2/2014 4/2/2014 Write hygiene and safety sections not shown to concern relevant portions of decree Berne, Cody Draft Hedrick 0.90 0.00 211.50 U