Gatore v. DHS, No. 15-459, 2025 WL 721804 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2025) (Walton, J.)
Gatore v. DHS, No. 15-459, 2025 WL 721804 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2025) (Walton, J.)
Re: Request for portions of documents termed “‘assessments to refer’” prepared by asylum officers in connection with individual plaintiffs’ applications for asylum
Disposition: Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees
- Attorney Fees, Eligibility: “Here, in light of the Court’s conclusion that the introductory paragraphs of [plaintiff’s] assessment must be produced, . . . there is no doubt that [plaintiff] has substantially prevailed in this litigation, and consequently, is eligible for attorney’s fees.”
- Attorney Fees, Entitlement: “[T]he Court need not conclusively determine whether [plaintiff] is entitled to attorney’s fees because, even assuming arguendo that she is entitled to such fees, for the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that it must ‘decline to award [her] any fees because [her] request is patently unreasonable[]’ . . . based on plaintiffs’ counsel’s total lack of billing judgment in this case, . . . despite repeated warnings from this Court and from other members in this District regarding the serious deficiencies of his billing practices.”
- Attorney Fees, Calculations: The court finds that “[t]here are at least three glaring deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ billing request, two of which are consistent with counsel’s deficient billing practices in other cases before other members of this Court.” “First, counsel’s ‘time records are vague, inadequately descriptive, or made in error[,]’ . . . and are therefore not ‘of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended[]’ . . . .” “Second, the plaintiffs’ requests suffers from ‘grossly excessive billing[,]’ . . . which runs counter to the Court’s obligation to ‘exclude hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary[]’ . . . .” “Third, and most troubling to the Court, plaintiffs’ counsel continues to request a significant award despite having failed to provide any evidence of an attorney-client relationship with any of the plaintiffs in this case other than with [plaintiff].” “And, as indicated above, at the Court’s most recent motion hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ pending motion for fees as to seven of the eight original individual plaintiffs, holding in abeyance the request for fees on behalf of [plaintiff] alone.” “However, plaintiffs’ counsel has provided little to no information in his latest motion for fees specifying whether the services included in the motion relate alone to [plaintiff] or also to other purported plaintiffs.” “Additionally, at least some of counsel’s billing entries clearly relate not only to the other original plaintiffs, but to individuals whom counsel sought to have added as plaintiffs.” “Given the unambiguous indication that the plaintiffs’ request extends beyond services provided to [plaintiff], and even the other original plaintiffs, the Court is left only to speculate regarding the full scope of the requested hours, despite having ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a motion only as to the original eight individual plaintiffs, and specifically those plaintiffs for whom he could establish a genuine attorney-client relationship.” “Therefore, any proportional fee reduction the Court would order instead of a full denial would be purely speculative.”
“The deficiencies described above continue to plague counsel’s requests for attorney’s fees despite multiple reprimands from other members of this Court, as well as this Court’s own denial without prejudice of counsel’s first two motions for attorney’s fees.” “However, rather than responding meaningfully to the defendant’s arguments, its notice of supplemental authority regarding the reprimands by other members of this Court, or the Court’s own concerns, counsel has continued to file fee requests with the same glaring deficiencies.” “Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ motion is ‘outrageously unreasonable[,]’ . . . and therefore, must be denied.” “And, because the Court ultimately denies the plaintiffs’ motion for fees in full and has granted the defendant’s motion to claw back records as to all but one plaintiff, the Court concludes that it will not award the plaintiffs any of the requested fees on fees.”