S.D. Florida cuts commercial fee award, including for vague entries

What happened

Hogan Lovells sought fees under a contract fee clause in Infogroup Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. The court did not state totals. It found 16 timekeepers reflected significant overstaffing, recommended a blended hourly rate, and applied a 50% reduction to hours billed by five timekeepers, citing excessive billing, redundancies, vague entries, and redactions that made the time hard to assess. It also found entries lacking specificity and work appearing duplicative, and recommended reducing the fees on fees award.

What the court said

The billing records reveal numerous instances of excessive billing, redundancies, vague entries, and redactions that make it difficult for the Court to assess the validity of the time spent.

The court also reduced the award for: duplicative staffing, hourly rate reduced, excessive hours, duplicative staffing, fees on fees.

Why it matters

The ruling shows courts will cut hours when time records are vague, redacted, or duplicative, and will reduce rates and staffing levels on their own. It also shows fees on fees are scrutinized separately, so the quality of the underlying time records affects every part of a fee request.

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 S.D. Florida approves and attorney fee motions in Florida 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.