Lucas v. MGM Resorts International

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| EBONI D. LUCAS, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. [Docket No. 130] MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to calculate fees. Docket No. 130. The 13] motion does not include points and authorities, but see Local Rule 7-2(d), does not include 14] meaningful argument to justify the fees sought, but see Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 15] 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013), and does not include evidentiary support for the fees sought, but see 16] Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984) (explaining that “the burden is on the fee applicant 17] to produce satisfactory evidence” of the prevailing market rate); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 18] 424, 437 (1983) (“the fee applicant bears the burden of . . . documenting the appropriate hours 19] expended and hourly rates”).!_ Accordingly, the motion to calculate fees is DENIED without 20] prejudice. Any renewed motion to calculate fees must be filed by February 9, 2023. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: February 7, 2023

Nancy J.Koppe — 24 United Sta ES Ma gistrate Judge 25 26 ' The motion indicates that Defendants will provide support for the fee request in camera if ordered by the Court. Docket No. 130 at 2. No showing has been made that such information is properly submitted in camera, as opposed to filing it on the docket. Cf Garcia v. Service Emps. Int’l Union, 2018 WL 10730805, at *2 n.5 (D. Nev. Sept 21, 2018) (addressing disfavored status 28] of in camera submissions).