E.D. California cuts environmental fee award 33.6%, including for vague entries

What happened

The Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard sought $1,049,280.03 in fees and costs. The court awarded $697,148.64, a reduction of $352,131.39. It cut one timekeeper's rates by 10%, deducted 8.4 hours for duplicative intra-office conferences, and deducted 10.3 hours from Mr. Carlon for vague entries. It then applied a 10% reduction to the lodestar for duplication not readily identifiable in the billing records and a further 10% for limited success.

What the court said

the Court will deduct 10.3 hours from Mr. Carlon’s total.

The court also reduced the award for: hourly rate reduced, duplicative staffing, duplicative staffing, limited success.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that vague time entries can draw a specific hours deduction, separate from across-the-board cuts for duplication and limited success. Courts will parse individual timekeepers' records and reduce hours entry by entry before applying broader percentage reductions to the lodestar.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Name the task, the document or person involved, and the purpose.
• Avoid stock phrases that could describe any day in any matter.
• Keep privileged detail general, but specific enough to show the work.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the E.D. California approves and attorney fee motions in California federal courts.

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.