Opinion
Civ. No. 99-2747, SECTION: "R" (4).
November 21, 2000.
On October 19, 2000, the plaintiff, Harris Marshall d/b/a Marshall Land Clearing ("plaintiff") filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (doc. #21), seeking to recover fees in the amount of $1,555.80, for six hours of work performed by his attorney, John O. Brown, in filing a Motion to Compel, which was granted by the Court on November 13, 2000 as unopposed. I. Analysis
See Rec. doc. #25, November 13, 2000 Minute Entry.
In the Fifth Circuit, the adequacy of a claim for attorney's fees is determined by computing the "lodestar" figure. The Court must determine the reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation and the reasonable hourly rate for the participating attorneys. See Louisiana Power Light Co. v. Kellstrom. 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 862 (1995). The lodestar is then computed by multiplying the number of hours by the reasonable hourly rate. Id.
The party seeking attorney's fees bears the burden of submitting adequately documented time records. See Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court should use the submitted time as a benchmark and exclude any time that is "excessive, duplicative or inadequately documented." Id.
A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 (1984). The applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is in line with prevailing market rates. See NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1987). The hourly rate awarded by the Court must be supported by the record. See Cobb v. Miller, 818 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir. 1987) (the magistrate judge erred in arriving at a reasonable hourly rate because he drew on his own experience gained as a result of over twenty five years of service at the bar). The district court may not simply rely on its own experience in the relevant legal market to set a reasonable hourly billing rate. Powell v. Co, missioner, 891 F.2d 1167, 1173 (5th Cir. 1990) (reversing hourly rate set because the court "did not explain any evidentiary basis for its determination that the hourly rate should be limited . . .").
In the instant case, the plaintiff requests an award of $1,555.80 for six hours of work expended on filing the Motion to Compel. Thus, the plaintiff proposes an hourly rate of $259.30. In support of his motion, the plaintiff simply attached the affidavit of his counsel John Brown, in which he attests that the defendant has failed to respond to the requested discovery. The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to the Court of the reasonableness of the hourly rate requested. Nor has the plaintiff submitted his counsel's contemporaneous billing records for the Court's review. See Local Rule 54.2. In the absence of the required information, the plaintiff has not met his burden.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff, Harris Marshall's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (doc. #21) is hereby DENIED.