Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01262
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO A. FERNANDEZ, individually Case No.: 20cv1262 JM(SBC) and as a representative of the class, 12 ORDER REQUESTING Plaintiff, 13 ADDITIONAL BRIEFING v. 14 CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for 18 Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Award (Doc. Nos. 316, 316-1), 19 the court has determined that supplemental briefing would be beneficial. 20 On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion 21 for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Award (Doc. Nos. 316, 316- 22 1) seeking: (1) an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund, 23 $14,625,000; (2) reimbursement of Class Counsel’s out-of-pocket documented expenses 24 in an amount not to exceed $898,296.75; (3) reimbursement to the Settlement 25 26 27 28 1 Administrator for the costs associated with notice and claims administration, in an amount 2 not to exceed $2,135,228; and (4) $20,000 as a service award.1 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a court to “award reasonable attorney’s 4 fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law of by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 23(h). Under the “common fund doctrine,” “a private plaintiff, or his attorney, 6 whose efforts create, discover, increase or preserve a fund to which others also have a claim 7 is entitled to recover from the fund the costs of his litigation, including attorneys’ fees.” In 8 re Apple Inc., Device Performance Litig., 50 F.4th 769, 785 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 9 Vincent v. Hughes Air W., Inc., 557 F.2d 759, 769 (9th Cir. 1977)). The fundamental 10 purpose of the doctrine “is to spread the burden of a party’s litigation expenses among 11 those who are benefitted.” Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 12 (9th Cir. 1989). In sum, Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement of the out-of-pocket 13 costs they reasonably incurred investigating and prosecuting this case. See In re Media 14 Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Mills v. Electric 15 Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 391-92, 90 S. Ct. 616, 24 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1970)); Staton v. 16 Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 974 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 Regarding the approximately $900,000 sought in costs, the court has simply been 18 informed that “the bulk of these costs were for expert fees, however they also encompass 19 deposition-related costs (e.g., court reporters, videographers, and transcripts), jury 20 consultant fees, mediation expenses, filing fees, legal research, travel-related expenses 21 (limited to coach-class airline tickets), document hosting, meals (excluding alcohol) and 22 hotels, service of process, and expenses related to copying, shipping, and scanning.” (Doc. 23 No. 316 at 30.) The declaration of E. Michelle Drake filed in support of the motion 24 provides a table summarizing the categories of costs as follows: 25

26 27 1 The court is inclined to award proper recoverable expenses, a representative service award, and administrator costs from the common fund, and award attorneys’ fees from the 28 1 2 Expense Category Total 3 Testifying Expert Fees $552,546.85 4 Consulting experts and outside counsel $209,012.29 5 Transcripts $60,796.29 6 E-Discovery Hosting $22,181.66 7 Mediation Fees $21,000.00 8 Computer Research $15,664.01 9 Travel $5,764.22 10 Service Fees $3,689.05 11 Filing & Misc. Fees $3,401.71 12 Printing & Copying $2,439.70 13 Delivery & Postage $709.21 14 Docusign $91.76 15

16 Total $897,296.75 17 18 However, very little information has been provided to the court to substantiate this request. 19 Accordingly, Class Counsel is instructed to submit a detailed declaration answering the 20 questions posed below and attesting to the accuracy of any itemizations of material 21 information. 22 • Testifying expert fees request – provide: (1) each expert’s name; (2) the hourly rate 23 or other basis of payment; and (3) purpose for which each expert was hired. 24 • Consulting experts and outside counsel – provide: (1) each consulting experts and 25 outside counsel’s name; (2) the hourly rate or other basis of payment; and (3) 26 27 28 1 purpose for which the expert and outside counsel was hired and their area of 2 expertise.2 3 • Transcripts – provide: (1) the name of the deponent; and (2) cost of deposition (per 4 videographer, transcript, etc.). 5 • E-Discovery Hosting – provide: a cost breakdown as to how the $22,181.66 was 6 arrived at. Is this amount a percentage of a flat charge of all e-hosting by Class 7 Counsel’s firm or is it itemized charges in relation to an individual account for this 8 case? 9 • Computer Research – how is this $15,664.01 expense not already subsumed within 10 the hourly rates being billed for attorneys “researching”? Why should these costs 11 be considered a taxable cost rather that part of the attorney fee award? See Kelley v. 12 Sears, Roebuck, & Co., No. CV-01-1423-ST, 2004 WL 1824121, at *5 (D. Or. Aug. 13 10, 2004) (quoting Frederick v. City of Portland, 162 F.R.D. 139, (D. Or. May 26, 14 1995), discussing Haroco, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 38 F.3d 15 1429, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1994)) ("The added costs of computerized legal research is 16 normally matched with a corresponding reduction in the amount of time an attorney 17 must spend researching."). See also Jones v. Unisys Corp. 54 F.3d 624, 633 (10th 18 Cir. 1995) (costs for computer legal research are part of the attorney’s fee, not a 19 20 21 2 The declaration of Ms. Drake refers to a jury consultant (Doc No. 316-1 ¶ 24), but the 22 court’s independent research indicates that jury consultant fees are disfavored. See, e.g., 23 New Form, Inc. v. Sabina Corp., 2:02-cv-02296-FMC-Ex, 2008 WL 11336584, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2008) (disallowing request for jury consultant fee reimbursement). See also, 24 Ryther v. KARE 11, 864 F. Supp. 1525, 1534 (D. Minn. 1994) (“The court concludes that 25 defendant should not be taxed $2,579.30 in fees charged by a jury consultant who helped plaintiff develop the juror questionnaire and assisted in jury selection.”); Jorling v. 26 Habilitation Servs., 1:03cv00073-WOB, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44005, at *38 (S.D. Ohio 27 July 14, 2005) (“A jury consultant is obviously not an attorney, paralegal, or legal assistant whose time falls within the rubric of ‘attorney fees’ for purposes of the fee-shifting 28 l taxable cost); Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399, 409-410 (7th Cir. 2 2000) (same). 3 e Travel — provide: (1) the names of people traveling, destination, and purpose for 4 travel; (2) cost of airfare; and (3) cost of lodging. 5 Class Counsel’s declaration, along with any other pertinent information that would 6 || explain the costs requested, must be filed on or before May 1, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: April 16, 2024 . Plea tah 10 n. Jeffrey. Miller nited States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28