DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM GRIESBACH, District Judge
In a previous action, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's determination that she is not entitled to disability benefits. In that case, which was decided by Magistrate Judge Callahan, Plaintiff obtained a remand because Judge Callahan concluded that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") had not adequately addressed the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician. Judge Callahan also questioned the ALJ's credibility determination. Following remand, a newly-assigned ALJ again determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. The present action is an appeal of that decision. For the reasons given below, I conclude that the ALJ's opinion is not supported by substantial evidence, and I direct the Commissioner to respond as to the appropriate course to take under the circumstances.
Many of the facts and relevant medical history are set forth in Magistrate Judge Callahan's opinion in Plaintiff's previous action. (No. 07-C-413, Dkt. # 24.) To summarize, Plaintiff suffered from a number of medical conditions including disc bulges and depression. This led to chronic pain that appeared largely uncontrolled by medication, in part because Plaintiff could not tolerate some medication; the pain also contributed to Plaintiff's depression. After Plaintiff's benefits claim was denied by the Commissioner, Judge Callahan remanded the appeal on the grounds that the ALJ had not properly considered the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Julie Wilson, and that the ALJ's credibility determination was not fully developed. On remand, a new ALJ conducted a video hearing and issued an opinion largely echoing the opinion of the first ALJ. Plaintiff, who appears pro se, argues that the ALJ made similar mistakes and that those errors justify a finding that she is eligible for disability benefits.
The proper weight given to the opinion of the claimant's treating physician is a common issue in Social Security appeals, and here it proves dispositive. On a state medical examination and capacity form, Dr. Julie Wilson wrote that Plaintiff's prognosis was "poor." (Tr. 255.) Plaintiff had the ability to stand and walk for only 1-2 hours per day, and an ability to sit for the same period of time. ( Id.) In addition, she was limited to working 4 hours per day, and this restriction was "permanent." (Tr. 256.) If fully credited, Dr. Wilson's opinion would mean Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security Act. The original ALJ, however, discounted Dr. Wilson's opinion significantly. First, he took issue with the fact that Plaintiff had not seen Dr. Wilson in two years. The ALJ also concluded that the lack of any current medication and Plaintiff's failure to seek recent treatment suggested that Dr. Wilson's opinion overstated Plaintiff's symptoms. Finally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's daily activities, including driving herself to the hearing and sitting in the waiting room, contradicted her claim of disability and Dr. Wilson's opinion.
SSR 96-8p defines residual functional capacity as "the individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis." A "regular and continuing basis" means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.
Judge Callahan remanded because he concluded the ALJ had "played doctor" by substituting his opinion for that of the treating physician, Dr. Wilson. (No. 07-C-413, Dkt. # 24 at 11.) Judge Callahan's decision offers a thorough analysis of the "treating source rule" and the steps an ALJ must take in considering the opinion of a treating source. In a nutshell, "[i]f a treating source's medical opinion on an issue of the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record, the adjudicator must give it controlling weight." SSR 96-8p. And even if the ALJ does not give the physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must give it the appropriate weight under all of the circumstances and explain why he is doing so. Judge Callahan found the ALJ's explanation for discounting the treating source opinion to be insufficient. It was true that Plaintiff had not seen Dr. Wilson in some two years, but that was due to an insurance issue the ALJ did not note. (See Tr. 249, noting that "because she could not see Dr. Wilson after she lost her insurance she has not been on Hydrocodone for several months.") In addition, the record is full of Plaintiff's visits to medical providers such as physical therapists, and there was significant evidence in the record that medication was not helping. (On one occasion she even received an epidural shot but suffered meningitis as a complication. This complication caused her doctor to avoid prescribing future epidurals.) Finally, Judge Callahan found that the ALJ had essentially cherry-picked facts, such as the fact that Plaintiff drove herself to the hearing, while ignoring other facts, such as the fact that she had to stop and stretch on her way there. Moreover, none of the facts cited by the ALJ contradicted Dr. Wilson's opinion.
On remand, the new ALJ also concluded that Dr. Wilson's opinion was entitled to little weight:
The claimant's medical records show that treating physicians responded with limited and conservative treatment. Such treatment is inconsistent with the medical response that would be expected if limitations were as severe as described by Dr. Wilson. The conclusions of this medical source appear to be based primarily on the subjective statements of the claimant. The underlying documentation from the treating source provided in the record fails to support the limitations indicated by Dr. Wilson (Exhibit 12F). The medical opinion of neurosurgeon Dr. Lyons regarding the claimant's condition is given significant weight, based upon supportability with medical signs and laboratory findings; consistency with the record; and area of specialization (Exhibit 13F).
(Tr. 417.)
Unfortunately, I must conclude that the ALJ's explanation for discounting Dr. Wilson's opinion again comes up short. First, although it is true that physicians employed "conservative" treatment, that does not necessarily mean the claimant's disability and pain were minimal. Conservative treatment might also be prescribed for a patient riddled with a fatal disease, yet that certainly does not mean the patient is not disabled. In Oakes v. Astrue, for example, the patient's physician "recommended against further surgery and suggested conservative treatment," but nevertheless concluded that his patient was unable to work due to her back condition. 258 Fed. Appx. 38, 40, 2007 WL 4455436, *1 (7th Cir. 2007). Although the ALJ rejected the treating physician's opinion, the Seventh Circuit reversed and concluded that the ALJ (and district court) had not given adequate deference to the treating source opinion or explained adequately why it should be discounted. Here, one of the opinions relied upon by the ALJ, that of Dr. Lyons, states that Plaintiff was not a surgical candidate. (Tr. 261.) As such, conservative treatment was called for. But the simple fact that surgery would not help Plaintiff does not mean her symptoms were not disabling, and to conclude otherwise (without more) is to "play doctor".
In some cases conservative treatment could be more telling. For example, if a patient claims horrible pain but is told to use only aspirin, it could be a sign that the medical provider lacks evidence to prescribe anything stronger. Or if conservative treatment were coupled with an optimistic medical prognosis, it could show that the claimant was improving. See, e.g., Bailey v. Barnhart, 39 Fed. Appx. 430, 436, 2002 WL 1401225, *7 (7th Cir. 2002) ("doctors had on numerous occasions reported that Ms. Bailey was benefitting from conservative treatment and that Ms. Bailey's complaints about pain and ineffective treatment intensified only after she had filed for disability benefits.")
The ALJ also concluded that Dr. Wilson's opinion was based on Plaintiff's subjective statements and found that the limitations Dr. Wilson imposed were unsupported by the medical evidence in the record. The ALJ did not provide any more than this conclusory explanation, however. That is, the ALJ did not explain why the medical evidence in the record failed to support Dr. Wilson's limitations, nor did she explain why she believed Dr. Wilson's opinion was based only on Plaintiff's subjective statements. The evidence is replete with physical therapy and other medical records, including evidence that Plaintiff has L4-5 disk bulging, hip problems, numerous prescription medications, and underwent multiple pelvic surgeries. As Judge Callahan noted, there were some 20 separate visits to medical practitioners from 2004 to 2006. Dr. Joyce Bauer, another treating physician, believed Plaintiff should see a neurosurgeon for her back, and prescribed numerous pain medications (including the epidural noted above, which caused complications). (Tr. 248.) Her physical therapist noted that Plaintiff has pain getting up and down from a chair and was "standing when I came into the room." (Tr. 249.) She was "very tender to the touch even with light touch along her lumbar spine . . ." ( Id.) Finally, a nurse practitioner noted that Plaintiff "has difficulty even sitting when she talks to me." (Tr. 252.) Based on this and other evidence in the record, it is difficult to see how the ALJ could conclude that the evidence "fails to support" Dr. Wilson's opinion. It is further impossible to discern why the ALJ believed Dr. Wilson's opinion was based largely on Plaintiff's subjective statements. This was not a case of fibromyalgia or some other kind of physical infirmity unconnected to any demonstrable physical cause. An MRI showed problems in Plaintiff's spine, bulging and disk dessication (e.g., Tr. 186, 190, 197), and the numerous treatments Plaintiff received (epidural injection, physical therapy, prescription painkillers) were not the product of a purely subjective vocalization of pain. In fact, nowhere in the record is there any suggestion by any of Plaintiff's numerous health care providers that Plaintiff was exaggerating her symptoms or that her stated symptoms were not consistent with the physical evidence.
The ALJ appears to have relied on the opinion of Dr. Lyons, a neurosurgeon, as being contradictory to Dr. Wilson. But Dr. Lyons does not express anything more than a hope that Leverance could get better with conservative treatment. The "medical opinion" cited by the ALJ is simply a cover letter to another physician in which Dr. Lyons states that "I feel confident that we will be able to get her over her symptom complex with vigorous conservative measures." (Tr. 261.) Without more, it is difficult to see how a single sentence of optimism from a cover letter written by one physician at the outset of treatment would be entitled to more weight than the explicit opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician after the "conservative measures" have been tried.
Nor has the Commissioner adequately explained why Plaintiff's credibility should be discounted significantly. First, although the ALJ did not mention it, there is evidence in the record that Plaintiff was not malingering or simply creating a record to bolster her benefits claim. Her nurse practitioner, for example, noted that Plaintiff was applying for Social Security so she could get some help to get therapy and then "go back to work." (Tr. 252.) Dr. Bauer noted that "Patient was cheerful here in the office. She is hoping she can get her back fixed so that she can return to gainful employment. Currently she cannot and I would certainly think it would be appropriate to do a repeat neurosurgical consultation . . ." (Tr. 248.)
Second, the ALJ's effort to discount the Plaintiff's credibility is unsatisfactory. The ALJ found that Plaintiff's activities "including performing household chores" were inconsistent with an inability to perform any work. (Tr. 417.) But the ALJ never explained how a claimant's ability to do minimal chores would undermine the assertion that she cannot work a full-time job due to her pain. Unless the individual is completely disabled or bedridden, every disability claimant will report doing some housework and the typical kinds of things one must do to get by. Thus, as Magistrate Judge Callahan noted in his earlier opinion, the mere fact that Plaintiff reported performing household chores does not undercut her claim of disability. (No. 07-C-413, Dkt. # 24 at 12.) (citing Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000) ("minimal daily activities . . . do not establish that a person is capable of engaging in substantial physical activity."))
In addition, the Commissioner's defense of the ALJ's credibility findings reflects a misunderstanding of the import that should properly be given to a claimant's daily activities. For example, the Commissioner argues that "if she were as disabled as she claimed, she would not be able to perform the daily activities that she has reported." (Dkt. # 14 at 10.) These activities include: living by herself, caring for pets, talking on the phone, using the computer and "read[ing] magazines and at least one book a month." ( Id.) It is unclear how these extremely modest daily undertakings (reading a magazine?) would undermine the Plaintiff's assertion that she cannot work a full-time job. In fact, her limited activities are exactly the sorts of pursuits one would expect someone who is disabled to engage in. In other words, the fact that her activities were so minimal supports rather than undermines the conclusion that Plaintiff is disabled. To say that a claimant is able to read and use a computer is merely to say that she is not a complete vegetable. But Plaintiff never claimed she was, and neither did Dr. Wilson. The question is whether she would be able to work a full-time job, and none of the activities cited by the ALJ speak to that question at all. Cf. Greiner v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 318 Fed.Appx. 564, 566, 2009 WL 613040, *1 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that claimant's "daily activities, such as repairing a car, lifting hay bales, and caring for horses, demonstrate that he is more capable than he claims.").
The ALJ found that "the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms." (Tr. 417.) Once this finding was made, it was incumbent upon the ALJ to explain why her testimony and statements were not credible. SSR 96-7p. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the ALJ's explanation is insufficient.
Based on the above, as well as the previous decision of Judge Callahan, it seems clear that the Commissioner is unable to legitimately discount the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician or explain why Plaintiff is less than credible. Federal courts "have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In a case like this, particularly when the Commissioner has had two tries already, it would likely not be fruitful to remand the case for further development, because nothing in the record would undermine the opinion of Dr. Wilson which, if credited, would mean Plaintiff is entitled to benefits. See, e.g., Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1210 (9th Cir. 2001) ("We have repeatedly held that a remand for further proceedings is unnecessary if the record is fully developed and it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to award benefits.") (citing Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990) (awarding benefits rather than remanding after ALJ improperly considered treating physician opinion)).
The question of remanding-versus-awarding benefits has not been briefed by either side, however. Accordingly, I will direct the Commissioner to address this issue in a short brief within fourteen days of the date of this order. In particular, the government should explain whether any additional issues need to be explored on remand or whether, in accordance with the above, I may simply direct the Commissioner to award benefits based on the record before me.
SO ORDERED.
s76 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 1996) (
citing In re Taxman Clothing Co.,
49 F.3d 310, 315 (7th Cir. 1995) (Posner, J.);
accord In re Angelika Films 57th, Inc.,
227 B.R. 29, 42 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998);
In re Keene Corp.,
205 B.R. at 696;
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.,
133 B.R. 13, 23 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).
As an initial matter, Vlahos's request to appoint a fee examiner is denied. Vlahos has conducted a meticulous and thorough review of the applicants' time records, and has attached marked up versions of the time records that key his objections to specific entries. The Court has also reviewed the time records. Under the circumstances, the appointment of a fee examiner would be an unnecessary expense.
B. The Dates of Retention
The beginning dates of each firm's authorized retention are the subject of dispute. As noted, Robinson Brog filed its retention application ten days after the petition date, and immediately sent it to the UST for her "sign off." The application and proposed order languished at the UST's office, and the retention was not signed until July 24, 2007, nearly six months after the commencement of the case. When the debtor sought to expand Wiley Rein's retention as special litigation counsel nunc pro tunc to July 23, 2007, the Court authorized the retention as of December 7, 2009, without prejudice to its right to seek nunc pro tunc retention to the earlier date. Vlahos argues that neither firm should be compensated for services or expenses incurred prior to their retention dates.
Sections 327(a) and 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provide that a debtor may retain professionals only with court approval. No service performed by professionals is compensable until the court approves such retention. In re Robotics Resources R2, Inc., 117 B.R. 61, 62 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990); In re Brown, 40 B.R. 728, 730 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1984); In re Sapolin Paints Inc., 38 B.R. 807, 817 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1984). In the Second Circuit, there is a per se prohibition against compensating professionals for services rendered prior to a retention order. See, e.g., Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie Benjamin (In re Futuronics Corp.), 655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 941 (1982); Smith v. Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam Roberts (In re Sapphire Steamship Lines, Inc.), 509 F.2d 1242, 1245-46 (2d Cir. 1975); In re 245 Assocs., LLC., 188 B.R. 743, 749 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995). "Nunc pro tunc approval should only be granted in narrow situations and requires that (i) if the application had been timely, the court would have authorized the appointment, and (ii) the delay in seeking court approval resulted from extraordinary circumstances." In re Keren Ltd. P'ship, 189 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir. 1999). "`Simple neglect' on the part of a debtor in failing to take timely action does not constitute the `extraordinary circumstances' necessary to justify nunc pro tunc relief." In re Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc., 352 F.3d 671, 679 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Land v. First Nat'l Bank of Alamosa (In re Land), 943 F.2d 1265, 1268 (10th Cir. 1991)); accord In re Carpenter, 392 B.R. 97, 105 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2008).
Robinson Brog satisfies the Keren standards, and is deemed to have been retained nunc pro tunc to the petition date. First, the Court authorized its retention when presented with the proposed order. Second, the delay in the execution of the retention order was due to extraordinary circumstances. Robinson Brog dutifully forwarded its application and proposed order to the UST within ten days of the petition date. Finding that the order had not been signed, it contacted the UST regarding its status. The UST advised Robinson Brog that the proposed order had been lost, and Robinson Brog submitted another copy. The UST eventually indicated its "no objection," forwarded the proposed order to the Court, and the Court signed the order on July 24, 2007. Robinson Brog proceeded diligently, and the delay in the execution of the order was due to circumstances beyond its control.
I reach a different conclusion regarding Wiley Rein. Although it also satisfies the first prong of the Keren test, it fails the second. Unlike the Robinson Brog order, the December 2007 Wiley Rein retention order struck the proposed provision that would have authorized the retention nunc pro tunc to July 2007, and indicated that a separate application for nunc pro tunc retention must be made. Despite being on notice, the firm did not take further action.
It does not follow, however, that all of the services rendered by Wiley Rein prior to December 7, 2007 should be disallowed. The original retention order authorized Wiley Rein to "assist in the defense of the adversary proceeding" with Global Crossing and "to advise the Debtor with respect to federal telecommunications-related issues in connection with issues that may arise in the Bankruptcy Court and any other court of competent jurisdiction in connection with anticipated litigation matters" Thus, the initial retention was broad, and overlapped with many of the services one might expect lead litigation counsel to perform. I note, in this regard, that Vlahos's objection on this score is a general one. Although he meticulously reviewed and identified perceived deficiencies with the applicants' time records in other areas, he did not identify any specific pre-retention time entry that should be disallowed. (See Vlahos Objection ¶ 13; pp. 24-25.)
The Court has nonetheless examined Wiley Rein's pre-December 7, 2007 services, and concludes that one specific area of services aggregating $7,936.50 in billed time should be disallowed. Wiley Rein lawyers apparently performed legal research and drafted a memorandum relating to the election of remedies or other state law issues under New York law. Some of these services are lumped with otherwise compensable services, making it impossible to allocate the time. Accordingly, the services depicted in the following table are disallowed: Date Timekeeper Service Time Amount Billed Disallowed ($) 9/16/07 BLR Draft memo concerning statutory and 1.50 817.50 contract research issues (1.1); email to B. Butler regarding same (.2); email to client regarding FRN/red light status (.2). 9/18/07 KBM Research elements of cause of action for 1.40 497.00 breach of contract under sample amended answer and counterclaim pleading format and review various documents in preparation for drafting of counterclaims (1.4). 10/26/07 CMH Research re election of remedies in New 3.0 975.00 York. 10/29/07 CMH Research re election of remedies in New 3.0 975.00 York. 10/30/07 CMH Research re election of remedies in New 5.50 1,787.50 York; draft memo re same. 10/31/07 CMH Edit memo re election of remedies in New 1.0 325.00 York (.7); calls re same (.3). 10/31/07 BLR Review and revise memo from C. Hilke 3.8 2,071.00 regarding election of remedies; review email from D. Vlahos; research service terms and conditions; email to L. Schwartz and F. Ringel regarding same; conference with B. Butler regarding same; call from F. Ringel regarding service terms and conditions; review draft discovery responses. 11/01/07 CMH Edit memo re election of remedies in New 1.0 325.00 York 11/01/07 BLR Revise election of remedies memo; .30 163.50 conference with C. Hilke. 7,936.50
C. Lumping
As Vlahos correctly observes, the Law Firms are guilty of lumping, i.e., aggregating time entries of more than 30 minutes that involve two or more distinct services but fail to identify the amount of time spent on each service. Where lumping exists, and subject to other possible objections, the Court has allowed 30 minutes of time, and disallowed the balance.
Schedule A identifies Robinson Brog's lumped entries. These entries reflect $115,077.51 of billed time, and $78,610.50 is disallowed.
Schedule B identifies Wiley Rein's lumped entries. These entries reflect $16,681.00 of billed time, and $14,131.00 is disallowed.
C. Absence of Time Records
The Vlahos Objection accurately notes that "[a]ccording to ECF," the Wiley Rein final application did not include detailed time entries for the services rendered on and after January 1, 2009. Instead, it was limited to a one page summary sheet listing fees and expenses totaling $99,459.32. (Vlahos Objection pp. 25-26.) Wiley Rein responds that it did serve complete billing records for this period with the copies of the application delivered to the parties and the Court, including Vlahos, in April 2009. (Response of Wiley Rein LLP to Objections of Equity Security Holder Dean Vlahos to Wiley Rein's Final Application for Allowance of Fees and Costs, dated June 19, 2009 ("Wiley Rein Response"), at 9-10) (ECF Doc. # 195.) As represented, the chambers copy includes these records. Furthermore, Vlahos never stated that he did not receive the 2009 time records; he only observed that they were not filed on ECF. While I do not condone Wiley Rein's failure to file time records that it obviously included in its final application and provided to the parties and the Court, it would be unduly harsh to deny all of the fees on this basis.
Nor has Wiley Rein explained why it did not file the missing records after the omission was brought to its attention.
I have nonetheless reviewed the time records, which consist of twelve pages and aggregate $96,102.00 in billed time, and conclude that $15,984.75 should be disallowed. First, many of the entries are inadequate in that they refer to telephone calls and emails, but fail to identify the subject matter of the call or email. See In re Citrone Development Corp., 16 B.R. 359 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989) ("[t]he failure to provide sufficient details to allow the court to perform its task of determining the nature and value of the time spent by the attorney for the debtor while engaged in those telephone calls compels a conclusion that they are not compensable."); In re Hudson, 364 B.R. 875, 880 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2007) ("[T]ime entries contain[ing] vague and inadequate description[s] [such as] references to telephone calls that do not make clear who the calls were with or the substance of the call . . . [or] references to a `memo of law' without any indication as [to whether] time is sought for researching and/or drafting of the memorandum nor the legal issues involved . . . make a fair evaluation of the work done and the reasonableness and necessity for the work extremely difficult, if not impossible.") The following table summarizes these inadequate entries, and the amount that is disallowed: Date of Timekeeper Reason for Disallowance Amount Service Disallowed ($) 01/06/09 HJG The entry fails to describe the subject of the 342.50 conference call with the client. 01/06/09 SJO The conference call with B. Ross, the client and 620.50 local counsel fails to identify the subject of the call. 01/09/09 BLR The telephone call from M. Greene, the conference 625.00 with B. Rein and the telephone call with D'Ercole fail to describe the subject matter of these communications. 01/13/09 BLR The telephone calls with D'Ercole and Schwartz 312.50 fail to identify the subject matter of the calls. 01/14/09 BLR The telephone call with J. D'Ercole fails to identify 187.50 the subject matter of the call. 01/22/09 BLR The telephone calls from Vlahos (0.3), D'Ercole, 437.50 Schwartz and Trache fail to identify the subject matter of the calls. 01/23/09 HJG The entry fails to identify the other party to the 342.50 conference. 01/23/09 BLR The calls from D'Ercole and Greene and the 625.00 conference call with Brandt fail to identify the subject matter of the calls. (The entry is also lumped). 01.25/09 BLR The entry fails to identify the subject matter of the 1,000.00 draft letter to Brandt and the email to D'Ercole. (The entry is also lumped). 01/26/09 DGT "Attention" to Vlahos's request does not adequately 72.75 describe the service, and only 50% of the time charged is allowed. 01/27/09 RWO The description "Work on Fee Application" is 40.00 vague, and only 50% of the time charged is allowed. 01/28/09 RWO The description "Work on Fee Application" is 200.00 vague, and only 50% of the time charged is allowed. 01/28/09 BLR The draft letter to the Court (0.4) fails to identify 437.50 the subject matter of the letter, and is disallowed. The subsequent entry (0.8) is lumped, and only 30 minutes is allowed. 01/29/09 RWO The description "Work on Fee Application" is 100.00 vague, and only 50% of the time charged is allowed. 02/06/09 HJG "Attention" to the fee application does not 342.50 adequately describe the service, and only 50% of the time charge is allowed. 02/10/10 HJG, BLR Each applicant traveled to, attended and returned 5,567.50 from a Court hearing. Each billed 8.5 hours, which include seven hours of travel time. The application fails to explain why two attorneys had to travel an aggregate of fourteen hours to attend a hearing particularly where one or more attorneys could be made available by telephone to answer any questions. The total billed by the attorneys is $11,135.00, and 50% of that amount is allowed. Total 11,253.25 Second, the following entries are reduced based upon lumping: Date of Timekeeper Reason for Disallowance Amount Service Disallowed ($) 01/08/09 SJO The first entry (3.4 hrs.) is lumped, and only 30 1,160.50 minutes is allowed. 01/14/09 SJO The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 109.50 allowed. 01/22/09 NEG The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 280.00 (First allowed. Entry) 01/22/09 NEG The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 70.00 (Second allowed. Entry) 01/22/09 BEP The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 105.00 allowed. 01/26/09 NEG The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 112.00 allowed. 01/26/09 DJM The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 39.00 allowed. 01/27/09 DGT The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 485.00 allowed. 01/28/09 BLR The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 1,687.50 allowed. 02/05/09 DGT The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 242.50 allowed. 02/06/09 RWO The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 200.00 allowed. 02/12/09 JLS The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 58.50 allowed. 01/23/09 NEG The entry is lumped, and only 30 minutes is 182.00 allowed. Total 4,731.50
Vlahos also contends that other time records submitted by the Law Firms suffer from defects involving vagueness and inadequate descriptions. (Vlahos Objection pp. 26-28.) As noted, Vlahos submitted marked up versions of the time records. It appears that he objects to every time record in which the verb "review" appears, contending that the word "review" is inherently vague. It obviously means "read" which is perfectly clear.
Many of the entries that Vlahos identified are parts of larger entries that have been substantially reduced based on lumping.
Vlahos's criticism of "attention to" some document or task is on firmer ground. It is impossible to determine the nature of the service or activity that "attention" purports to describe. The Robinson Brog records do not contain such entries, but the Wiley Rein records include a few. These entries aggregate $1,167.50, and 50% of these charges, or $583.75, will be disallowed.
See HJG (12/27/07 — $302.50); HJG (2/14/08 — $325); HJG (4/25/08 — $325); DGT (6/16/08 — $215).
D. Preparing and Defending Fee Applications
While the cost of preparing a fee application is compensable, the cost of defending one may not be. The Bankruptcy Code expressly covers the former. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(6) ("Any compensation awarded for the preparation of a fee application shall be based on the level and skill reasonably required to prepare the application."). Moreover, the professional must prepare and submit an application in order to get paid. Boldt v. Crake (In re Riverside-Linden Inv. Co.), 945 F.2d 320, 323 (9th Cir. 1991).
There is no parallel statutory requirement to defend against an objection to a fee application, or to receive compensation for the legal fees incurred in that defense. Furthermore, fee litigants, like other litigants, must generally bear their own legal expenses under the "American Rule." In re St. Rita's Assocs. Private Placement, L.P., 260 B.R. 650, 652 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2001); In re DN Assocs., 165 B.R. 344, 349-50 (Bankr. D. Me. 1994); see Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975) ("In the United States, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys' fee from the loser.").
Nevertheless, some courts have awarded the litigation fees and expenses incurred by the successful applicant out of fear that the failure to do so would dilute the fee award, and encourage parties to file frivolous objections. E.g., Smith v. Edwards Hale, Ltd. (In re Smith), 317 F.3d 918, 929 (9th Cir. 2002);Hennigan Bennett Dorman LLP v. Goldin Assocs. (In re Worldwide Direct Inc.), 334 B.R. 108, 111 (D. Del. 2005); In re Ahead Commc'ns Sys., Inc., No. 02-30574, 2006 WL 2711752, at *5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2006). Conversely, other courts have declined to award the fees where the objection was filed in good faith and the objecting party prevailed. In re Teraforce Tech. Corp., 347 B.R. 838, 867 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006); In re St. Rita's Assocs, 260 B.R. at 652. At least one court has expressed the concern that allowing the losing applicant to recover its legal fees would encourage meritless fee requests because the applicant could earn more fees opposing objections to its frivolous request. See In re Riverside-Linden Inv. Co., 945 F.2d at 323.
Finally, Vlahos is correct that the review and editing of time records — as opposed to fee applications — is not compensable. Outside of bankruptcy, lawyers presumably do not charge their clients for preparing time records.
Wiley Rein billed a total of $8,011.50 to the preparation of its employment applications, and this amount is allowed. The firm also billed a total of $35,264.00 to preparing and defending its fee applications, and this is a case in which it is appropriate to allow the defense costs to the extent sought in the final application. Although Vlahos interposed his objections in good faith, Wiley Rein has substantially prevailed, and denial of the defense costs would dilute its award. Thus, the fees sought in the final application for defending the fee applications are allowed except to the extent they have been disallowed on other grounds.
The fees must be reduced, however, as the time records are replete with entries indicating that Wiley Rein professionals billed the estate for reviewing and editing time records. In fact, BLR charged the estate in excess of $1,300.00 for these services just on June 12 and 13, 2008. Consequently, the Court will disallow $7,500.00 connected with the preparation of the fee applications. Robinson Brog billed a combined total of $22,794.50 under its first and second interim fee applications and its supplemental application in connection with its retention, fee applications and defense of its fee applications. Except in three instances, Robinson Brog did not charge the debtor for the preparation of its bills. These three instances result in a disallowance of $300.00. The balance of the objection is overruled, and $22,494.50 is allowed except to the extent that the corresponding time entries have been disallowed on other grounds.
Entries by RWO reflecting the review and editing of billing statements in 2008 include the following: February 6, 15, 22; March 27; April 2, 14, 15, 25; June 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18; September 25, 26, 30 and October 10. DGT billed similar services in 2008 on March 6 and 10, June 13 and September 22. Finally, BLR billed for reviewing and editing billing statements in 2008 on June 12 and 13 and December 24.
LS billed time for reviewing or editing bills in 2008 on April 18, June 9 and November 27. The aggregate time is 0.8 hours.
E. Use of Multiple Lawyers
Vlahos objects to conferences involving two or more lawyers, each billing for his or her time. (Vlahos Objection pp. 29-30.) He contends that "more than half of the [Robinson Brog] entries are cursorily described internal conferences, or conferences with Wiley Rein," that most of A. Mitchell Greene's entries on the first thirteen pages of time sheets constitute conferences without any subsequent action by Greene, and that "[t]he entire application of Robinson Brog has `conference' as its most predominate entry." (Id. pp. 30.) He also contends that Wiley Rein's application reflects many muli-lawyer internal conferences, and offers eight examples.
I do not take issue with the proposition that multiple lawyers billing for unnecessary conferences is unreasonable and should not be compensated. It does not follow, however, that two or more lawyers billing their time attending the same conference is per se unreasonable. In particular, the early stages of a chapter 11 case are often chaotic, require the performance of multiple tasks in a compressed time frame, and hence, necessitate frequent communication among lawyers in the same firm, between the lawyers and the client, and where required, between general and special counsel. Furthermore, lawyers inevitably meet and confer during the entire case regarding what must be done. The debtor decided to engage both general and special counsel in this case, and communication and coordination between the two sets of counsel is as necessary as it is inevitable.
That said, I disagree that a majority of the Robinson Brog time entries involve multiple conferences, or that conference entries "predominate" the firm's time records. The statement is hyperbole. Moreover, while it is true that the first thirteen pages of time records include numerous conferences involving Greene, they are relatively brief. Furthermore, many of the conferences are between Greene and his partner Lori Schwartz, and the entry identifies the subject of the conference. It was certainly more efficient for Greene to meet briefly with Schwartz to discuss matters and give directions, than for the two to exchange streams of emails. Finally, the entries list several conferences between Greene only and Vlahos. These do not implicate multi-lawyer billing. My observations in this case convince me that Vlahos was heavily involved in the strategy and execution of the strategy, and his involvement increased the number of conferences.
I have also reviewed the time records to determine if more than one lawyer unnecessarily attended depositions or court hearings. Except as noted above regarding the attendance of two lawyers involving the defense of the Wiley Rein final fee application, I have not found that either Robinson Brog or Wiley Rein overstaffed these specific matters.
F. Travel Time
According to Vlahos, Bennett Ross of Wiley Rein told him at the time the firm was retained that the estate would not be billed for travel time to and from Washington, D.C. According to Vlahos, this induced him to hire Wiley Rein. (Vlahos Objection 33.) Wiley Rein denies that any such agreement was made, and observes that the engagement letter does not refer to such an agreement. (Wiley Rein Response 14-15.) Nor for that matter does it appear in the retention application or order. As Wiley Rein has already reduced its travel time charges by 50%, (id. 15), no further reduction is warranted, and the objection is overruled.
G. Remaining Objections
Vlahos argues that the firms' applications lack the certification required by the UST Guidelines stating that the UST and the debtor have been provided with a statement of fees and disbursements twenty days after the end of each billing month. The failure to make the certification is harmless as Vlahos has had ample opportunity to review and comment on both firms' fees. Vlahos also contends that the time records are not broken down by project, although my examination of the records satisfies me that he is clearly mistake; both firms used project billing.
Next, Vlahos contends that the Court should disallow time charges reflecting the performance of ministerial or clerical tasks. (Vlahos Objection pp. 28-29.) He identified a few entries that involved either the preparation of a file or correspondence concerning court reporter fees. The time was minimal. It is often more efficient for a lawyer to spend twelve or eighteen minutes preparing a file, than to spend more time explaining the task to a secretary or paralegal and thereafter checking to make sure it was done right. The same holds true for communicating with transcript vendors. This objection is overruled.
Finally, to the extent not previously discussed, I conclude the balance of Vlahos Objection lacks merit and is overruled.
RECAPITULATION
The Court has disallowed a total of $78,910.50 of the fees sought by Robinson Brog. Accordingly, Robinson Brog is allowed a final fee of $571,592.00 in addition to reimbursed expenses in the amount of $20,175.28. The Court has also disallowed $46,136.00 of the fees requested by Wiley Rein, resulting in a final award of $1,008,166.50 in fees and $47,141.74 in expenses. The parties are directed to settle a proposed order that fixes the amount of the final fees and expenses, reflects the amounts that have been paid on an interim basis and sets forth the net amounts due.
The foregoing constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Schedule A — Robinson Brog Lumped Entries
Date Task Professional Hours Hourly Amount Amount Billed Rate Billed Disallowed 1/29/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.8 $450.00 $810.00 $585.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 4X, CONF. SCHWARTZ, WORK ON CHAPTER 11 PETITION 1/29/07 TELEPHONE LS 1.2 $300.00 $360.00 $210.00 CONFERENCE WITH VLAHOS RE INFO FOR SCHEDULES 2X 1/30/07 CONF WITH AMG; DCB 1.6 $415.00 $664.00 $456.50 SETTLEMENT CONF CALL WITH GLOBAL CROSSING [B007] 1/31/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.2 $450.00 $540.00 $315.00 CONFERENC WITH VILAHOS; CONFER LS RE: SETTLEMENT AND PROPOSAL 2/1/07 CONF WITH AMG DCB 3.2 $415.00 $1,328.00 $1,120.50 RE STATUS; RESEARCH RE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY; CONF WITH AMG 2/1/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 WITH BURGER, T/C DEAN, REVIEW CASE LAW ON LIMITATION OF DAMAGE 2/2/07 CONF WITH AMG; DCB 2.7 $415.00 $1,120.50 $913.00 REVIEWING AND RESEARCHING CASE LAW CITED BY DV 2/2/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, LETTER GLOBAL, REVIEW CASE LAW 2/7/07 TELEPHONE AMG 0.8 $450.00 $360.00 $135.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, SIMON, REVIEW ZONE LETTER 2/12/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, SCHWARTZ RE: CH 11 ISSUE AND SCHEDULE 2/12/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.8 $450.00 $810.00 $585.00 CONFERENCE WITH VLAHOS 4X RE ZONE AMENDING SCHEDULES 2/13/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.1 $450.00 $495.00 $270.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN VLAHOS RE SCHEDULES 4X 3/15/07 CALL FROM DV; DCB 1.2 $415.00 $498.00 $290.50 REVIEW ZONE LETTER; CONFERENCE WITH LS; CALL WITH DV. 3/16/07 CALL FROM DEAN; $1.00 $415.00 $207.50 $207.50 REVIEWING AGREEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE DCB 3/19/07 CALL FROM DV; $871.50 PREPARING FOR AND ATTENDING CONFERENCE CALL. DCB 2.6 $415.00 $1,079.00 3/21/07 REVIEWING DV 1.6 $415.00 $664.00 $456.50 DRAFT LETTER TO ZONE; CALL TO DV REGARDING REVISIONS TO LETTER. DCB 4/9/07 TELEPHONE LS 0.6 $300.00 $180.00 $30.00 CONFERENCE WITH VLAHOS RE 341 MEETING; GLOBAL ZONE 3X 8/27/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.60 $450.00 $720.00 $495.00 WITH DEAN, LORI, BURGER REVIEW AND REVISE ANSWER TO GLOBAL COMPLAINT 8/28/07 REVIEWING DCB 1.40 $415.00 $581.00 $373.50 COMPLAINT DRAFT ANSWER; CONF WITH LS CB; CONF WITH AMG 9/19/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH LORI SPECIAL FEE COUNSEL REVIEW AWS V. CC 9/21/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.00 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 WITH SCHWARTZ, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN AND SCHWARTZ, WORK ON REPLY TO ADEQUATE PROTECTION MOTION, CONFERENCE WITH GLOBAL 9/24/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 CONFERENCE WITH SCHWARTZ, REVIEW OPPOSITION PAPERS TO ADEQUATE ASSURANCE 9/26/07 REVIEW OF REPLY, AMG 1.00 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 CONFERENCE SCHWARTZ RE GLOBAL HEARING 10/4/07 REVIEWING DRAFT DCB 1.20 $415.00 $498.00 $290.50 DISCOVERY REQUEST; EMAILS TO LS RE REVISIONS 10/5/07 REVIEWING DRAFT DCB 1.40 $415.00 $581.00 $373.50 DISCOVERY REQUESTS; EMAILS; CONF WITH LS 10/11/07 CONFERENCE FBR 1.00 $360.00 $360.00 $180.00 WITH LAS REGARDING DEPOSITIONS AND SUBPOENAS FOR GLOBAL CROSSING EMPLOYEES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; REVIEW OF 30(B)(1) AND 30(B)(6) ISSUES 10/11/07 CALCULATING JMB 1.80 $130.00 $234.00 $169.00 AMOUNTS FOR SUBPOENA FEES; REQUESTED CHECKS; PREPARE LETTER TO DLS FOR SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS; TRAVEL TO DLS TO HAND DELIVER PAPERWORK 10/11/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.50 $450.00 $675.00 $450.00 WITH DEAN AND BENNETT 2X RE GLOBAL LETTER, CHANGING BILL RATES AND STRATEGY 10/11/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.50 $450.00 $675.00 $450.00 WITH DEAN AND BENNETT 2X RE GLOBAL LETTER, CHANGING BILL RATES AND STRATEGY 10/12/07 MEETING WITH LS JMB 1.60 $130.00 $208.00 $143.00 REGARDING SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED; PREPARED CHECK REQUESTS; EMAIL FROM LS THREE MORE SUBPOENAS TO BE PREPARED AND SENT BY MESSENGER FOR SERVICE. 10/12/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.00 $450.00 $450.00 $225.00 WITH SCHWARTZ RE SUBPOENAS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN SCHWARTZ RE STRATEGY 10/15/07 TELEPHONE LS 1.00 $300.00 $300.00 $150.00 CONFERENCE WITH VLAHOS RE DEPOSITIONS, DISCOVERY, ADEQ ASSURANCE PAYMENT; GLOBAL 3X 10/18/07 REVIEW OF FBR 3.20 $360.00 $1,152.00 $972.00 CONTRACTS AND FACTUAL MATERIAL RELATED TO CLAIMS; REVIEW OF MEMO ON APPLICABILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE RULE 10/29/07 CONFERENCE AMG 0.80 $450.00 $360.00 $135.00 WITH SCHWARTZ, BURGER, RINGEL, EMAIL DEAN, PREPARE CASE WITH GLOBAL, EMAIL DEAN 11/19/07 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $450.00 $360.00 $135.00 CONFERENCE WITH LORI REGARDINGDISCO VERY ISSUES, REPRODUCTION ISSUES, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 10/24/07 MEETING WITH LS JMB 1.30 $130.00 $169.00 $104.00 REGARDING SUBPOENA AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO BE SERVED; PREPARED LETTER TO DEMOVSKY LAWYER SERVICE; VERIFIED DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR NON-PARTY WITNESS FEE; REQUESTED CHECK AND SENT DOCUMENTS VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS TO DLS 11/2/07 PREPARATION OF FBR 2.00 $360.00 $720.00 $540.00 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION; SUPERVISION OF REORGANIZATION OF CLIENT'S E- MAIL PRODUCTION 11/6/07 CONFERENCE JDD 0.80 $360.00 $288.00 $108.00 WITH FR AND LS RE CCT ISSUES RE DISCOVERY ETC. AND READ AND RESPOND TO EMAILS RELATING TO SAME 11/7/07 CONFERENCE JDD 1.20 $360.00 $432.00 $252.00 WITH FR RE LEGAL AND DOCUMENT ISSUES; TC AND EMAILS WITH PARICK MURPHY RE CONVERSION; MEETING WITH PATRICK MURPHY RE CONVERSION 11/15/07 REVIEW OF FBR 1.00 $360.00 $360.00 $180.00 DEAN'S WEB SITE; REVIEW DOCUMENTS ON LINE; TEST SEARCH MECHANISM; E- MAIL TO AMG AND LS REGARDING PROBLEMS WITH SAME 11/29/07 REVIEW OF FBR 1.00 $391.91 $255.74 $95.90 LETTER FROM CHRISTMAS; CALL TO CHAMBERS REGARDING RESPONSE TO CHRISTMAS LETTER; CALL TO AMG REGARDING AVAILABILITY; REVIEW OF DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO BENNETT ROSS INQUIRIES REGARDING FACTUAL ISSUES 12/10/07 CONFERENCE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 WITH RINGEL AND LORI, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, PREPARE FOR COURT, REVIEW DEFAULT LETTER FROM GLOBAL 12/20/07 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, CONFERENCE WITH SCHWARTZ REGARDING PLAN AND 366/365 HEARINGS 12/26/07 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH LORI 3X, BENNETT, BOB, REVIEW AND REVISE OPPOSITION PAPERS, REVIEW EMAILS 6/9/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.60 $492.75 $1281.1 $1034.77 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, BENNETT 3X, REGARDING SETILEMENT, WILEY REPRESENTATION, DUANE MORRIS SUBSTITUTION 6/11/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.20 $492.75 $591.30 $344.92 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, REVIEW EMAIL REGARDING SETTLEMENT, REVIEW GLOBAL 10K 6/23/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, REVIEW EMAILS REGARDING OPERATING REPORT AND REFUND OF SALE, TAX ISSUES WITH GLOBAL 7/3/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.60 $492.75 $788.40 $542.02 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 3X, DEAN, LORI 2X REVIEW DECISION 7/14/08 REVIEW OF AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 AMENDED COMPLAINT, EMAIL DEAN REGARDNG CONFERENCE CALL 7/18/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, REVIEW EMAILS REGARDING SPECIAL COUNSEL 7/21/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, REVIEW EMAIL REGARDING SPECIAL COUNSEL ISSUES 7/23/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT, REVIEW EMAILS, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 7/24/08 CONFERENCE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 WITH FRED, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI, REGARDING 366 RETURNING DEPOSIT AND OPERATING REPORTS 7/29/08 CONFERENCE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 WITH LORI, BENNETT, REVIEW ANSWER 8/1/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH LORI 3X, REVIEW ANSWER AND ISSUES 9/3/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN REGARDING SETTLEMENT 9/8/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, MCSHANE 2X, REGARDING SETTLEMENT 9/12/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, REVIEW EMAIL, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MCSHANE 2X 9/16/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 CONFERENCE WITH LORI, BENNETT AND GLOBAL REGARDING SETTLEMENT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT REGARDING SETTLEMENT 10/8/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.50 $492.75 $1231.88 $985.50 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 3X, MCSHANE, REVIEW DAMAGE REPORT 10/10/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, BENNETT 4X, CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT AND MCSHANE 10/13/08 REVIEW OF WORK AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 ON DAMAGE REPORT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 10/16/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH MCSHANE, REVIEW FINAL DAMAGE REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT, CONFERENCE WITH FRED AND LORI REGARDING SETTLEMENT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X REGARDING SETTLEMENT 10/30/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, LORI AND BENNETT REVIEW REPLY BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH LORI 3X REGARDNG FILING OF REPLY BRIEF 10/31/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.60 $492.75 $295.65 $49.27 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI REGARDING SCHEDULING OF DISCOVERY 11/21/08 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X AND BENNETT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH LORI 11/25/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, BENNETT 2X, LORI REGARDING DISCOVERY, CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D. REGARDING DISCOVERY 12/3/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, D'ERCOLE AND BENNETT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. BRANDT 3X REGARDING DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENT ISSUES 12/4/08 TELEPHONE AMG 2.40 $492.75 $1182.60 $542.02 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D'ERCOLE, REVIEW EMAILS, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ANDREWS, BENNETT REGARDING STRATEGY, REVIEW DISCOVERY MATERIAL TURNED OVER BY GLOBAL 12/11/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH JOHN, BENNETT LORI REVIEW EMAIL REGARDING FINANCIAL REPORTING TO US TRUSTEE AND NEW COUNSEL 12/12/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, JOHN D'ERCOLE 3X, BRANDT 2X REGARDING COUNSEL ISSUE, MEDIATION EXTEND DISCOVERY TIME FRAME 12/15/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.20 $492.75 $591.30 $344.92 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BRANDT 3X, REGARDING SETTLEMENT 12/16/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.80 $492.75 $886.95 $640.57 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, BRANDT, BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI AND JOHN, REVIEW EMAIL REGARDING SETTLEMENT AND TRIAL PREPARATION 12/17/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.80 $492.75 $886.95 $640.57 CONFERENCE CALL WITH DEAN, CONFERENCE WITH J. D'ERCOLE, BENNETT, REVIEW FILE REGARDING SETTLEMENT 12/18/08 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH BRANDT, CONFERENCE WITH J. D'ERCOLE, NEW COUNSEL, DEAN REGARDING STRATEGY OF SETTLEMENT 12/19/08 REVIEW OF AMG 1.10 $492.75 $542.03 $295.65 EMAILS, CONFERENCE WITH J D'ERCOLE REGARDING ADMISSION SERVING DEADLINE; REVIEW STIPULATION ADJOURNMENT ON ALL DISCOVERY AND MOTION 30 DAYS 1/6/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.60 $492.75 $788.40 $542.02 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, LORI, JOHN D'ERCOLE BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI, JOHN D. REGARDING AMENDED ANSWER, LEAD COUNSEL, BROADVOX DISPUTE, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 1/8/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 3X, D'ERCOLE, LORI AND DUANE MORRIS MANISHIN, BRANDT; REVIEW OF DEAN EMAILS AND AMEND ANSWER, EMAILS REGARDING COUNSEL AND SETTLEMENT ISSUES 1/9/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH MANISHIN; DEAN BENNETT REGARDING COUNSEL ISSUE, CONFERENCE WITH LORI 1/12/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, MANISHIN, BENNETT, CONFERENCE WITH LORI AND JOHN REGARDING NEW COUNSEL OPERATING REPORTS 1/21/09 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.82 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT, BRANDT 2X REGARDING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE, NEW COUNSEL AND SETTLEMENT 1/23/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, BRANDT 3X, BENNETT AND D'ERCOLE, CONFERENCE WITH LORI REGARDING SETTLEMENT AND OPERATING REPORTS. 1/27/09 REVIEW OF ZONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 DRAFT COMPLAINT, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH D'ERCOLE 3X, BRANDT 3X, REGARDING DISCOVERY, EXTENSION OF TIME, NEW COUNSEL ISSUE 1/28/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.80 $492.75 $886.95 $640.57 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, JOHN D'ERCOLE 2X, BRANDT 2X, REVIEW MOTION TO AMEND, EMAILS, AND BRANDT LETTER 1/30/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, LORI, FRED REGARDING DAMAGE ISSUE, SALE OF CONTRACT R S AND BENNETT STATUS. 2/2/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.20 $492.75 $591.30 $344.92 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, LORI, JOHN REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL MOTION AND FEE REQUEST, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT REGARDING SAME 2/3/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, BENNETT 2X, BRANDT 2X REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER AND DEPOSITION 2/4/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, DEAN 3X, REGARDING SALE OF CONTRACT AND LETTER TO JUDGE REGARDING DISCOVERY 2/5/09 REVIEW OF AMG 2.50 $492.75 $1,231.88 $985.50 OBJECTIONS TO RETENTION OF NEW COUNSEL AND AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT AND WITHDRAWAL COUNSEL, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, DEAN 3X CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D. AND LORI, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. BRANDT 2X REGARDING OBJECTION 2/6/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.80 $492.75 $886.95 $640.57 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, CONFERENCE WITH LORI JOHN, BENNETT, REVIEW AND WORK ON REPLY PAPERS TO OPPOSITION TO COUNSEL WITHDRAWAL, RETENTION, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER 2/9/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2X, DEAN 2X, CONFERENCE WITH J. D'ERCOLE REGARDING REPLY AND SETTLEMENT OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL, RETAINER NEW COUNSEL, MOTION TO AMEND AND DEAN DECLARATION 2/10/09 CONFERENCE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 WITH DEAN, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRED RINGEL 2X, RESEARCH MOTION TO DISMISS 60 B(6), 105 AND CREDITOR DEAN FILING PLAN. 2/11/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.20 $492.75 $1,084.05 $837.67 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, CONFERENCE WITH LORI, JOHN D., RESEARCH MOTION TO DISMISS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BRANDT REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS 2/12/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, CONFERENCE WITH LORI JOHN DEAN FRED REGARDING OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, RESEARCH, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 2/13/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, JOHN D'ERCOLE, LORI, REVIEW MOTION TO DISMISS 2/17/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH LORI, FRED, DEAN, REVIEW REPLY PAPERS TO MOTION 2/18/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.00 $492.75 $492.75 $246.37 CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D'ERCOLE 2X, REVIEW OSC ON MOTION TO DISMISS, SMALL BUSINESS ISSUE ON CLAIMS AND EFFECTS OF DISMISSAL ON ADVERSARY SUIT 2/19/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH LORI 2X, FRED, JOHN REVIEW EMAILS REGARDING SMALL BUSINESS ISSUE; REVIEW OF AMOUNT OF CLAIMS; PLAN BY CREDITORS, HARDSHIP ISSUE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION OF ADVERSARY AFTER DISMISSAL AND SOL ISSUE 2/20/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 CONFERENCE WITH LEINWAND, LORI 3X, D'ERCOLE 2X, REVIEW OPPOSITION TO DISMISS ISSUES, AND SMALL BUSINESS CLAIMS ISSUES AND CREDITOR PLAN 2/23/09 CONFERENCE AMG 2.50 $492.75 $1,231.88 $985.50 WITH BOB, DEAN, LORI AND JOHN D'ERCOLE, REVIEW PETITION TO AMEND SCHEDULE AND REPLY BRIEF TO MOTION TO DISMISS, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN AND LORI 2/24/09 TELEPHONE AMG 3.50 $492.75 $1,724.63 $1,478.25 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 3X, CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D'ERCOLE, LORI REVIEW ZONE PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF DISMISSAL PREPARE REPLY PAPERS AND PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULES, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. SHAFFERMAN 2X REGARDING CREDITOR' S PLAN 2/25/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.80 $492.75 $1,379.70 $1,133.32 CONFERENCE WITH BOB, LORI, JOHN DUANE MORRIS REGARDING PLAN PREPARATION OF REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, WORK ON MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULED, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH UST DEAN AND LORI REGARDING SMALL BUSINESS ISSUE AND MOTION TO DISMISS 2/27/09 TELEPHONE AMG 4.00 $492.75 $1,971.00 $1724.62 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 4X, BENNETT, JOEL, CONFERENCE WITH LORI, FRED, BOB, AND JOHN REGARDING AMENDING SCHEDULES, MOTION TO AMEND OPPOSITION PAPERS 3/1/09 TELEPHONE AMG 3.50 $492.75 $1,724.63 $1478.25 CONFERENCE WITH JOHN D'ERCOLE 5X, LORI 6X, DEAN, REVIEW PLAN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, REVIEW OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 3/2/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.80 $492.75 $1,379.70 $1133.32 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN 2X, JOEL SHAFFERMAN 3X, CONFERENCE WITH FRED, LORI, BOB AND JOHN D'ERCOLE REGARDING PLAN AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, OPPOSITION PAPERS AND ZONE ANSWER AND DEFENSE TO DISMISS ON SERVICE ISSUES 3/3/09 TELEPHONE AMG 1.40 $492.75 $689.85 $443.47 CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT 3X, REVISE OFFER ON PLAN, CONFERENCE WITH FRED AND LORI 3/4/09 TELEPHONE AMG 2.00 $492.75 $985.50 $739.12 CONFERENCE WITH DEAN, CONFERENCE WITH BOB AND JOHN D. REVIEW REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 3/5/09 CONFERENCE AMG 1.50 $492.75 $739.13 $492.75 WITH LORI, CONFERENCE WITH BOB, FRED, JOHN D., REGARDING DISMISSAL MOTION, LETTER TO DEAN, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BENNETT REGARDING DISMISSAL 3/5/09 TELEPHONE LS 1.10 $319.67 $479.51 $319.67 CONFERENCE WITH AM 8X 3/5/09 TELEPHONE LS 0.80 $319.67 $351.64 $191.80 CONFERENCE WITH JDD 3/9/09 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.83 CONFERENCE WITH LORI REVIEW EMAIL REGARDING PURCHASE OF GLOBAL STOCK AND ORDINARY BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS 3/10/09 TELEPHONE AMG 0.80 $492.75 $394.20 $147.83 CONFERENCE WITH LORI3X, REVIEW DEAN EMAILS REGARDING 363 SALE AND STOCK PURCHASE OUT OF ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS 6/9/09 TELEPHONE LS 1.50 $319.67 $394.20 $147.83 CONFERENCE WITH AMG VLAHOS RE TRIAL ISSUES/W1LEY REIN/ SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 2X 4/7/08 REVIEW OF FBR 1.20 $391.91 $391.91 $195.96 REVISED MOTION TO STRIKE; OBTAIN HEARING DATE AND ARRANGE FOR SERVICE; RESPOND TO E- MAIL FROM BENNETT REGARDING STATUS 4/22/08 TELEPHONE FBR 0.60 $391.91 $470.29 $274.34 CONFERENCE WITH ROSS REGARDING GC RESPONSE TO CCT'S LETTER ON SANCTIONS; DISCUSSION OF ISSUE REGARDING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME; DISCUSS SCHEDULING MATTERS 11/20/09 REVIEW OF JDD 1.00 $374.68 $587.87 $391.91 EMAILS; REVIEW FEDERAL RULES RE DEFINITION OF DOCUMENT; EMALS WITH DEAN RELATING TO SAME 11/26/08 TELEPHONE JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 CONFERENCE AND EMAILS RELATING TO PREPARATION OF CCT'S DOCUMENT REQUEST 12/2/08 TELEPHONE JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 CONFERENCE AND EMAILS RE CCT RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUEST 12/3/08 TELEPHONE JDD 1.50 $374.68 $562.02 $374.68 CONFERENCES AND EMAILS RE PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUEST 12/8/08 TELEPHONE JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 CONFERENCE WITH DV RE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS; REVIEW AND REVISE DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND ARRANGE TO SERVE; READ AND DENS EMAILS TO BR 12/10/08 TELEPHONE JDD 0.80 $374.68 $299.74 $112.40 CONFERENCES AND EMAILS RE LETTER TO LATHAM RE DISCOVERRY DEFICIENCES; REVIEW OF LETTER 12/11/08 REVIEW OF JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 BENNETT LETTER TO BRANDT; TCS AND EMAILS WITH DV RE SAME; REVIEW AND REVISE LETTER 12/12/08 TELEPHONE JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1,124.04 $936.70 CONFERENCE WITH BR RE ISSUES IN CASE; LETTER TO BRANDT ETC.; TCS WIDEAN RE WILEY REIN STATUS AND LETTER TO BRANDT 12/16/08 REVIEW OF JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 CENTRAL OFFICE CASE AND TO W/DV RE SAME AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES 12/18/08 RESEARCH JDD 3.50 $374.68 $1,311.38 $1124.04 TELECOMMUNICA TIONS LAW RE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY DECISION AND REVIEW OF CENTRAL OFFICE AND TCS W/DV RE SAME 12/19/08 REVIEW OF JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1,124.04 $936.70 PROPOSED STIPULATION RE FIFTH SCHEDULING ORDER AND REVISE AND TCS AND EMAILS RELATING THERETO 12/19/08 OC W/AMGRE JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 LETTER TO BENNETT RE DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES; PREPARATION OF LETTER AND OC W/AMG RE LETTER; REVISIONS TO LETTER 12/29/08 PREPARATION OF JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1,124.04 $936.70 SUBPOENA TO EXPERT AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCES AND EMAILS RELATING THERETO 1/8/09 RESEARCH LEGAL JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 ISSUES RE AMENDING COMPLAINT AND TC W/BR RE SAME 1/9/09 REVIEW OF JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 WITHDRAWAL LETTER FROM WILEY REIN AND DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO SAME 1/21/09 REVIEW OF DRAFT JDD 1.60 $374.68 $599.49 $412.15 AMENDED ANSWER AND DISCUSSIONS RE SAME AND REVIEW OF EMAILS 1/22/09 TELEPHONE JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 CONFERENCES AND EMAILS RE AMENDING COMPLAINT AND OTHER ISSUES RE WITHDRAWAL OF WILEY REIN 1/23/09 REVIEW OF ZONE JDD 1.90 $374.68 $711.89 $524.55 TELECOM DOCUMENTS AND TCS W/DV RE SAME 1/24/09 REVIEW OF ZONE JDD 6.00 $374.68 $2,248.08 $2060.74 TELECOM FILE AND PREPARATION OF COMPLAINT 1/25/09 REVIEW AND JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 REVISE BRANDT LETTER AND EMAILS RELATING TO SAME; REVIEW OF ANSWER 1/26/09 REVIEW AND JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 REVISE LETTER TO BRANDT AND TCS AND EMAILS RELATING TO SAME 1/27/09 PREPARATION OF JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1124.04 $936.70 ZONE COMPLAINT AND OCS W/DV RELATING TO SAME 1/28/09 PREPARATION OF JDD 2.50 $374.68 $936.70 $749.36 MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ARRANGE FOR FILING AND SERVICE 1/28/09 PREPARATION OF JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ARRANGE FOR FILING AND SERVICE 2/3/09 READ JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 CORRESPONDENCE FROM DV RE EXPERT SUBPOENA AND TCS RELATING TO SAME 2/5/09 REVIEW OF JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 GLOBAL OPPOSITION PAPERS AND RELATED CONFERENCES 2/6/09 REVIEW AND JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1,124.04 $936.70 REVISE OMNIBUS REPLY AND RELATED CONFERENCES WITH BR, GM AND DV AND AMG 2/6/09 REVIEW OF DV JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 DECLARATION AND RELATED CONFERENCES 2/9/09 REVIEW OF DV JDD 2.50 $374.68 $936.70 $749.36 DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO WITHDRAWAL MOTION AND RELATED CONFERENCES 2/9/09 REVIEW AND JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 REVISE REPLY TO PAPERS IN OPPOSITION TO AMEND AND RELATED CONFERENCES 2/11/09 CONFERENCE JDD 0.80 $374.68 $299.74 $112.40 WITH LS AND FR RE AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES AND OTHER ISSUES RE MOTION TO DISMISS; REVIEW OF TRANSCRIPT 2/11/09 TELEPHONE JDD 0.80 $374.68 $299.74 $112.40 CONFERENCE WITH JAMES BRANDT RE MOTION TO DISMISS, MALDONADO DEPOSITION ETC.; SEND EMAIL TO AMG RE SAME 2/12/09 CONFERENCE AND JDD 1.20 $374.68 $449.62 $262.28 EMAILS WITH FR AND LS RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATING THERETO 2/13/09 TELEPHONE JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 CONFERENCE X2 WITH MIKE MIRANDO RE ADJOURNMENT OF MALDONADO DEPOSITION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; TC W/ ED MALDONADO RE ADJOURNMENT OF DEPOSITION 2/13/09 CONFERENCE JDD 0.60 $374.68 $224.81 $37.47 WITH LS AND FR RE DISCUSSION OF MOTION TO DISMISS; REVIEW OF CPLR RE. TOLLING OF LIMITATION FOR DISMISSED ACTION 2/18/09 CONFERENCES JDD 0.60 $374.68 $224.81 $37.47 AND CONVERSATIONS WITH AMG, JDD AND LS; REVIEW OF SEC FILINGS AND SEC REGULATIONS FOR SUCH FILINGS 2/19/09 RESEARCH LEGAL JDD 3.00 $374.68 $1,124.04 $936.70 ISSUES INCLUDING INHERENT AUTHORITY OF COURT AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND TCS AND EMAILS RELATING TO SAME 2/25/09 REVIEW AND JDD 4.00 $374.68 $1,498.72 $1311.38 REVISE OPPOSITION PAPERS AND RELATED RESEARCH 2/26/09 REVIEW AND JDD 4.00 $374.68 $1,498.72 $1311.38 REVISE OPPOSITION PAPERS AND RELATED RESEARCH 3/2/09 REVIEW OF ZONE JDD 2.50 $374.68 $936.70 $749.36 ANSWER AND RESEARCH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON ZONE AND OBTAINING A NEW SUMMONS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH LS RE SAME AND OTHERS 3/3/09 REVIEW AND JDD 1.50 $374.68 $562.02 $374.68 REVISE AND SERVE LETTER TO O'NEIL RE RESUMPTION OF SERVICE AND TCS AND EMAILS WITH DV RELATING TO SAME 3/3/09 REVIEW OF JDD 1.50 $374.68 $562.02 $374.68 GLOBAL REPLY BRIEF AND DISCUSSIONS RE SAME 3/3/09 CONFERENCE AND JDD 1.20 $374.68 $449.62 $262.28 EMAILS RE DV'S DECISION NOT TO FILE A PLAN AND FEE PROPOSAL 3/16/09 RESEARCH JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 RECOUPMENT / SET-OFF RE ZONE TELECOM AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION BY GLOBAL; REVIEW CONTRACT 3/17/09 REVIEW AND JDD 3.50 $374.68 $1,311.38 $1124.04 REVISE ZONE DOCUMENT REQUEST AND INTERROGATORIE SAND CONFERENCES RELATING THERETO 3/17/09 RESEARCH USUAL JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 COURSE OF BUSINESS CASES AND DISCUSSIONS WITH DV RELATING THERETO 3/18/09 CORRESPONDENCE JDD 1.50 $374.68 $562.02 $374.68 EMAILS WITH GM RE LETTER TO BERNSTEIN RE CONFERENCE; REVIEW AND REVISE LETTER AND ARRANGE FOR SERVICE 3/19/09 REVIEW OF DRAFT JDD 1.30 $374.68 $487.08 $299.74 OBJECTION AND TC W/DV RE SAME AND DEPOSITION ISSUES 3/20/09 TELEPHONE JDD 1.50 $374.68 $562.02 $374.68 CONFERENCE WITH DV RE DEPOSITION ETC. AND PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION 3/20/09 REVIEW AND JDD 2.00 $374.68 $749.36 $562.02 REVISE OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT RESPONSE AND TO W/DV RELATING TO SAME 3/23/09 PREPARATION FOR JDD 8.00 $374.68 $2,997.44 $2810.10 AND ATTEND DEPOSITION OF DV 3/26/09 CORRESPONDENCE JDD 1.00 $374.68 $374.68 $187.34 SENT ENCLOSING NOTICES OF DEPOSITION AND REVIEW AND REVISE SAME; TCS W/VERIZON RE SERVICE ADDRESS 3/30/09 REVIEW AND JDD 0.60 $374.68 $224.81 $37.47 REVISE BRANDT LETTER AND TCS W/DV RE SAME 3/31/09 REVIEW AND JDD 0.70 $374.68 $262.28 $74.94 REVISE LETTER TO O'NEILL AND ARRANGE FOR SERVICE; EMAILS AND TCS RE SAME WITH DV 3/31/09 REVIEW AND JDD 0.80 $374.68 $299.74 $112.40 REVISE BRANDT LETTER AND EMAILS AND TCS W/DV RE SAME Lumping Totals $115,077.51 $78,610.50
Schedule B — Wiley Rein Lumped Entries
Date Task Professional Hours Hourly Amount Billed Amount Billed Rate Disallowed 11/26/07 Review emails from D. BLR 2.30 $545.00 $1,253.50 $981.00 Vlahos regarding scheduling order; telephone B. Butler regarding same; review email and case law from D. Vlahos; email to D. Vlahos regarding same 11/27/07 Review research on BLR 3.30 $525.00 $1,798.50 $1,273.50 damages under Communication Act; draft memo to D. Vlahos regarding discovery of damages under the Communications Act; conference with B. Butler 11/30/07 Finalize letter to Judge BLR 3.80 $545.00 $2,071.00 $1,798.50 Bernstein regarding scheduling order; telephone call from F. Ringel regarding same; conference with D. Vlahos et al., regarding letter; emails to D. Vlahos regarding discovery; telephone call from D. Vlahos regarding damages. 12/03/07 Review of memo on AGM 2.10 $595.00 $1,249.50 $952.00 damages issues; conference with B. Ross re strategy for discovery and summary judgment motions claims documents for proof elements. 12/27/07 Review and analyze JCS 6.20 $270.00 $1674.00 $1,539.00 cases re bifurcation of trial; Draft Motion to Bifurcate Review and analyze cases re bifurcation of trial; Draft Motion to Bifurcate Review and analyze cases re bifurcation of trial; Draft Motion to Bifurcate 12/31/07 Confer with R. Butler re JCS 4.40 $270.00 $1,188.00 $1,053.00 edits to motion to bifurcate Review and revise motion to bifurcate Confer with B. Ross re edits to motion to bifurcate Review and analyze case re modification of contracts 1/22/08 prepare for and HJA 3.80 $405.00 $1,539.00 $1,336.50 participate in conference call with F.Ringel, D.Vlahos, B.Ross, J.Slattery, re: witnesses and exhibits for 1/28 hearing; preparation of exhibit binders; demonstrative exhibits; pretrial brief and logistics for 1/28 hearing (3.8) 2/13/08 Calls and emails DGT .6 $430.00 $258.00 $43.00 regarding fee application 4/28/08 Review Global Crossing HJA 4.20 $405.00 $1,701.00 $1,498.50 reply motion and research case law cited in same; summarize same for R.Bennett to use at April 29, 2008 hearing; begin reviewing post-trial brief. 5/07/08 Update limitation on HJA 2.00 $405.00 $810.00 $607.50 liability memorandum; research case law citations for Stephen Siwak, prospective expert witness. 7/17/08 Accept cite check NEG .8 $120.00 $96.00 $36.00 project for B. Ross, coordinate time frame for completion of project with D. Trache, begin researching cites on Lexis (.8 hrs). 7/28/08 Review case law, and MAH 8.7 $250.00 $2,175.00 $2,050.00 complete additional legal research. Complete draft and revise Motion for Sanctions. 7/30/08 Telephone call with B. DGT .7 $430.00 $301.00 $86.00 Ross and J. Gold re: stay violations. Review 8/4/08 Review authority re: DGT 5.50 $430.00 $2,365.00 $2,150.00 finality of appealed 366 order and prepare memo to B. Ross. Exchange emails re: same. Follow up research and detailed email re: additional cases to support argument that order is not final. Totals $16,681.00 $14,131.00