John W. Primomo, United States Magistrate Judge
The undersigned entered an Order (docket no. 57) dated April 8, 1997, in regard to a discovery motion that awarded fees and costs against plaintiff's counsel, Danielle Hargrove, in favor of defendant. Plaintiff's counsel appealed the April 8 Order to the District Court, which affirmed. Plaintiff's counsel has since filed a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned's award of sanctions. Docket no. 78. Upon consideration, the undersigned will grant in-part and deny in-part the motion for reconsideration, and impose sanctions as appropriate.
Danielle Hargrove was allowed to withdraw from this case. Docket no. 63. For simplicity, she will be referred to as plaintiff's counsel instead of plaintiff's former counsel.
Discussion
Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions (docket no. 48) and defendant filed a motion for protective order (docket no. 51). Those motions related to a deposition that was suspended by defense counsel because plaintiff's counsel had allegedly become abusive during the deposition. On April 8, 1997, the undersigned entered an Order (docket no. 57) that denied the motion for sanctions and granted the motion for protective order. The April 8 Order also approved awarding costs against plaintiff's counsel in favor of defendant. The April 8 Order required defendant to file an affidavit in support of the request for reasonable expenses and attorney's fees to support the request made in the motion for protective order for such expenses and fees. On April 21, 1997, defense counsel filed a declaration setting out the costs and attorney's fees incurred by defendant as a result of the discovery dispute. (Docket no. 62). Plaintiff's counsel did not file any objections or controverting affidavit with respect to costs and fees sought. See Local Rule CV-7(j)(2) (requires objection to be filed within 10 days). Instead, plaintiff's counsel appealed the April 8 Order to the District, which affirmed. Plaintiff's counsel has since filed a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned's award of sanctions.
Defense counsel filed an amended declaration (docket no. 77) in order to correct a typographical error.
Defense counsel filed an amended declaration in support of the request for fees and costs. (Docket no. 77). The declaration provides a detailed description of the activity of defense counsel in regard to defendant's motion for protective order, response to plaintiff's motion for sanctions, and reply to plaintiff's response to defendant's motion. The declaration states that 23.50 hours of defense counsel's time was expended in regard to the above described motions. plaintiff's counsel raised an objection in her motion for reconsideration to the amount of time that was spent researching the rule of evidence upon which the motion for protective order was based. In that regard, defense counsel claimed 3.5 hours for research related to the motion. Trial lawyers are ordinarily familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At times such as this, it is expected that research be undertaken in regard to the matters briefed for the Court. Although 3.5 hours seems reasonable, the undersigned will give plaintiffs' counsel the benefit of the doubt and reduce by 2 hours the amount of hours claimed. The motion for reconsideration should be granted in-part in that regard only because plaintiffs' counsel provided no other reasonable objections to the amount of hours claimed. The declaration also indicates that a professional hourly rate for matters involving similar litigation is $150 per hour, which the undersigned considers reasonable. Therefore, the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded will be 21.50 hours times $150 per hour, for a total amount of $3,225.00. The declaration states that the total amount of expenses incurred was $104.01, which is reasonable.
Plaintiff's counsel asserts arguments based on equitable considerations for the imposition of sanctions no greater that $500. Such a substantial reduction in the amount of sanctions would literally be at the expense of the Department of Justice. No reason has been given to justify the shifting of the financial burden caused by plaintiff's counsel. It was her conduct that necessitated the expenditure of valuable time of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling this case. Lost time cannot be regained, so that time will have to be compensated.
For the reasons set forth above, Danielle Hargrove, plaintiff's counsel, is directed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice $3, 225 in attorney's fees and $104.01 in expenses. Such payment must be made to defense counsel within 90 days of the date that this Order is filed with the District Clerk. The District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Danielle Hargrove.
It is so ORDERED.