Major v. Treen Findings and Recommendations

    1VV,

uN r rE D r r^*,{gip3b=i[d+t'olhr
EASTE RN "' frtl; 

u'tt'iT 
ltftn

,

1ll'i/,u

BARSARA MAJORS, ET AL

VERSUS

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

NUMBER: 82-LL9Z

SECTION: C(5)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Ttris litigation arose as a class action euic inetituted by five (5)

black plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all of rhoee siailarly
siEuated. PLaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief restraining u8e

of the realignment of the sEate's congressional districts brought abouE as a

result of Act 20 of the 1981 firsc extraordinery session of the Iouisiana
legislacure. Ttre basis of plaintiffsr clain for relief was EhaE Acr 20 was

designed and had the effect of cancelling, mininizing or diluting minority
voting strength by dispersing a black population najoricy in Orleans parish

into two (2)' congressional districEs.

on October 18, 1983, judguenr was enEered by a Ehree (3) judge panel

composed of united sEates circuit Judge Henry politz and uniEed States

District Judges Fred J. Cassibry and Robert F. Col1ins. Ttre court found in
plaintiffs' favor that Act 20 inpermissibly resulred in dilution of minoriry
voting scrength. Act 20 was declared illegal and unenforceable and Ehe

defendants were enjoined from Eaking any action Eo enforce its provision.
Tfie court further determined EhaE t.he Louisiana legislature was to be

given reasonable oPPortunity to confecE a neq, plan for che election of members

Eo che United States House of Representatives. On February 6,19g4, a hearing
was conducEed Eo deEermine if an appropriate remedy had been arrived ac by

U -.T 
^E rlj.'ru



PAGE 2

all. the parEies. By thet titre, a ProPosed remedy had been agreed upon and the

court ordered Ehat this remedy be presenEed to the AEtorney General of the

United Staces for approval.

AE thaE February 6, 1984 court hearing, iE was deteruined Chac the Ehree

(3) judge panel would not be needed for che determinaCion of the atEorney fee

issue. Counsel were ordered Eo attenpt co resolve t,his matter anicably and Eo

subuit an affidavic as Eo tine and expenses as a sEarting point. Ttre partiee,

ultimacely being unable Eo reach a figure Ehat both sides could egree uPon as

aggorneys' fees for Ehe handling of this matter, caused plaintiffsr motion for

an award of attorneysr fees and expenses to be referred to the Magistrate for

hearing along with Findings and RecormendaEions'

Ttre record reflects Ehat. six (6) attorneys, only five (5) of whom are

lisced as counsel of record, have submitEed affidavits totaling almost

twency-six hundred (2600) hours plus expenses incurred in Ehe handling of

litigation which conmenced on March 26, 1982 and culminated on APril 5, 1984

when defendants voluncarily disnissed their moEion Eo aPPeal to Ehe Uniced

States Supreroe Court. By February 6, 1984, in compliance wiEh Ehe order of

Ehe Ehree (3) judge panel, Ehe defendants submiEted Eo Ehe court Ehe proposed

remedy in che above captioned BeEter, namely Act 2 of the second exEraordinary

session of che 1983 Louisiana legislature. From that point forward, the only

litigaCion which has occurred in the above capEioned EaEter pertains to Ehe

issue of attorneyst fees. For Ehe approximaEe E\renEy-six hundred (2500) hours

of legal work which counsel has invesCed in this litigation, Ehey seek

approximar,ely Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000.00) Dollars in legal

fees. This figure is in stark contrasc Eo a sun of approximately Eighty

Thousand and no/I00 ($80,000.00) Dollars which was paid to counsel for che



PAGE 3

defendancs, Mart,in L.C. Feldman,

plaintiffrs Exh. 29 and 30).

in both fees and cosE reimbursenent. (See

Ihe court rejects Che fee claim by the plaintiffs' attorneys as

excessive. Such an award would be inequitabte and burdensone Eo the Eax

payers of the SEaEe of Louisiana as rcell as an un!'arranted windfall Eo counset

for the plaintiffs herein. Bolden v. Citv of MobiIe, UniCed SEaEes District

Court, Southern District of Alabarna, Civil Action No. 75-297-P'

congress has provided that aEtorneys'fees and coscs will be awarded Eo

prevailing ptainriffs in civil rights case!, unlese special circumstances would

render an arcard unjust. 42 U.S.C. s1973(1)(e), 1988. In deteroining whaE

consticuEes Ehe reasonableness of fees and expenses, Ehe court must. apply Ehe

facEors arciculaied in Johnson v. Georgia Highwav Express, 488 F.2d 7I4 (5th

cir. L974). Johnson applies what is known as t.he todestar method and Ehen

adjusrs Ehis figure upward or downward on uhe basis of Een (10) other faccors

enunciaged therein. The lodescar figure is obtained by deteruining t,he nuuber

of hours reasonably spenE on Che case by plaintiffs' attorneys and a

reasonable hourly rate for those services. Ttrese Cwo (2) facEors are Ehen

mulCiplied Eo arrive at Che lodesEar anounE. Ttris approach has consistently

been approved by Ehe FifEh Circuit and t.he UniCed SEates Supreme Court as

we11. Henslev v. Eckerhart,46I V.5.424, I03 S'CE' 1933, 75 L'Ed'2d 40

(I9S3); Copper Liquor, Inc. v. AdolPh coors co., 524 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.

r980).

To begil the Johnson analysis, it will Eherefore be necessary Eo first

articulate the fees and exPenses soughE by counsel for plaintiffs herein' The

court will differentiaEe the fees and expenses soughE in connecEion with the

handling of the principal litigation as opposed Eo Ehose soughE in connection



PAGE 4

lriEh Ehe handling of this ootion for at.Eorneys' fees. Ttre plaintiffst claim

for atEorneys! fees are as follows:

FEES AITD EXPENSES RE PRINCIPAL LITIGATION

ATTORNEY TOTAL HOURS ITOURLY RATE TOTAL FEE TOTAI" EXPENSES

SEanley A.
Halpin

C. Lani
Guinier

R. James
Ke Llogg

Sceven
Scheckman

Williarn P.
Quigley

Aruand
Derfner

Total
Lodestar

57 3 .25

591.10

5 r0. 20

2r4.70

483.43

28.0

$160.00

$160.00

$ 135. 00

$125.00

$ r25.00

$175.00

$ 9l,72o.oo

$ I 10, 576. 00

$ 68,877.00

$ 26,837.50

$ 60,428.75

$ 4,900.00

$1,863.51

$15, 187. 52
3, 220. 00

-0-

$32,240.46

-0-

-0-

2502.48

t. Ms. Guinier seeks $3,220.00 for
studenE, on various tasks performed
80.5 hours work aE $40.00 Per hour.

$363,339.25

t.ime spent by Ms. Janice McCaughan, a law
under her direccion. Tttis sum rePresentes

Ttre plaintiffs also request a multiplier of Ewo (Z) wtrictr

aEEorneys' fee award on the principal litigation of Seven

Ttrousand Sixty-Two and 50/100 ($738,062.50) Dollars.

In connection with plaintiffs' claim for aEEorneys'

with this moEion Eo esEablish Ehe a,Dount of fees due and

consEitutes the amounE sought by counsel herein:

would give a total

Ilundred Ihirty-Eight

fees in connection

owing, Ehe following



PAGE 5

FEES AND EXPENSES RE DETERI'{INATTON O!' 4IrgRnEY5 FEES

ATTORNEY TOTAL HOURS HOURLY RATE TOTAL FEE TOTAL EXPENSES

SEanIeY A.
Halpin

C. Lani
Guinier

R. James
Ke 1 logg

SEeven
Scheckman

William P.
Quigley

Arnand
Derfner

Larry
I'lene fee

Total

73.75

60. 0

46.25

34.6

39.55

25.9

266.7

$ 150. 00

$ 160. 00

$135.00

$ r25. 00

$125. 00

$175.00

$120.00

$1I,800.00

$ 9,600.00

$ 6,243.75

$ 4,325.00

$ 4,956.25

I 4,532.50

$32, 004. 00

$ 437.40

$ 1,815.80

-0-

-0-

-0-

I 229.65

$ 16, 187. 84

546. 85 $63,461.50 $ 18, 670. 69

Again, Ehe plaintiffs' request a multiplier of Ewo (2) which would give a

total attorney fee awgrd in connection with Ehe motion Eo assese fees of One

Ilundred Twenty-Six Thousand Nine llundred Twenty-Three ($126r923.00) Dollars.

Counsel for plaintiffs therefore seek a toEa1 figure of Eighc Hundred

Sixry-Four Ttroueand Nine Ilundred Eight-Five and 50/f00 ($864,985.50) Dollars

in fees alone for cheir coupleEe handling of this litigation, almosE ten (10)

times Ehe amounE paid by the defendant Eo Judge Feldman in connection wich his

work and the work of his law firm.

A. Ttre Johnson factors considered individually - calculation of Ehe fee.



PAGE 6

1. The tiue and labor required. As shown in the above charts, Ehe

plaintiffet request, conpensation for Ewo thousand five hundred Ewo and 48/100

(21502.4$ hours of atEorneysr tine in connecEion with the principal

litigation. This tine is documenCed by affidavics supplied by counsel, their

depositions and testimony before Ehe courg. By comparison, the defendantsl

aEtorneys expended a Eotal of 854.75 hours on Ehe case '

Wtrile Ehe defendant does not contest Ehe accuracy of counsel's affidavit

as to the nuober of hours expended, defendant does conEest Ehe necesaity for

Ehe investment of so ouch Eire. More specificially, defendant argueg

duplication of effort auontst couneel, boEh pre-trial and during Ehe Erial,

perforoance of non-lega1 work by an eEEorney when same could have been

performed by clerical staff or paralegals, the disproportionality of tine

spent in preparation for courE as. comPared wiCh Eime spent in trial, Ehe

exceseive nature of conference and telephone calls, the inclusion of working

time with Eravel Eime and Ehe inclusion in billable hours of non-rorking

Eravel Eioe. Addigionally, Ehe. SEace objects to being charged for counsel's

cime which was devoted Eo Ehe aduinisErative proceeding under Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act which formed no part of chis litigation, which according Eo

Ehe SEate's calculaEions, amounEs Eo trro hundred seven and 40/100 (207.40)

hours of alEorneYsr time.

plaintiffs' aEEorneys Eesrified by affidaviE and direcE Eestimony aE Ehe

hearing that in their professional opinion this Eime was boEh reasonable and

necessary for Ehe ProPer rePresencacion of their ctient's interesC in this

titigation. As a general rule, Ehe sEate6ent of counsel as Co his independenE

professional judgmenE on how Eo best, represent his client carries greaE weighE

with the court. NeverEheIess, the court r1ust, independentty scrutinize Ehe



PAGE 7

hours and examine Ehe objections of che defendant in order to objectively

arrive aE a fee which is fair, just and equiEable not only Eo counsel for

plainriff but Eo the citizens of Ehe SEaEe of Louisiana who ultinately bear

Ehe burden of paying for Ehe mistake of the legislature '

The court finds Ehar nor all of Ehe Eime claioed by the plaintiffsr

counsel is properly compensable. More specificially, Ehe court finds Ehat Ehe

tine billed by Armand Derfner \ras noE neceesrary to plainciffsr prevailing in

this litigation and should be disregarded in its enEireEy. Mr. Derfner,

aluhough certainly a noced exPert in the field of civil rights and civil

rights litigation, was noE even counsel of record in Ehese proceedings. Wtren

one is noE enrolled as counsel in Ehe litigation for which acEorneys'fees are

soughE, Ehe court must look wiEh some disbelief as Eo the necessicy of the

services rendered. Mr. Derfner rdas conta"a"i Uy r". Guinier Eo eiEher consult

wiCh her or perform certain limited duties in connection wiCh this

litigation. There has noE been proof satisfactory Eo Ehis courE EhaE Mr.

Derfner's efforEs were necessary in plaintiffs' prevailing herein.

With regard go Ehe Eime claimed by Ehe other atEorneys, the court siroply

is of Ehe opinion EhaE Ehe same result would have been reached had fewer hours

been spenE. As was stated in Hensley v. Eckerhart, suPra,

"The district court also should exclude from
this initial fee caluclation hours thac were
noE rreasonably expended.r Cases mav be
oversEaffed, and the skill and exPerience
of lawvers varv widelv. Counsel for t,he

@ make a good faith
effort Eo exclude from a fee requesE hours
EhaE are excessive, redundant, or oEhertrise
unnecessary, jusE as a lawyer in privace
pracEice ethically is obLigaced Eo exclude
such hours from his fee submission. 'In
Ehe private sector, "billing judgment" is
an importanE componenE in fee setcing. It
is no less importanE, here. Hours EhaE are
noE properly bilLed to one's clienE also
are noE properly billed Eo one's adversary
pursuant Eo staEuEory auEhority. "t



PAGE 8

Henslev. suDra. 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct.

-'

Fi9Ig-+6GEaEions onitted. ) (Enphasis
added. )

Ihe court is therefore of Ehe oPinion Ehat an -across the board reduction

is appropriate because Two Thousand Five ltundred 1\ro and 48/100 (2,502.48)

hours need noE have been sPenc pn PreParing and conducting Ehis litigation' A

review of che entire record indicates to Ehe court Ehat a fifty (50) per cent

across the board reducEion is in order because Ehe number of hours requested

by counsel for plaintif fs is manifestly excessive. Copper Liquor, 8.,

-:3E3.; AssociaEion for Recarded ciEizens of North Dakota v. olson, 713 F.2d

1384 (8Eh cir. 1983); Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 335 (2nd Cir' 1979), cert'

granted,444U.s.824,1ooS.Cc.44,62L.Ed.2d30(L979)affirued;@

their brief focused on certain particular iteus which are argued to be

excludable. The court sees no value in discussing individual iEems since an

across the board reduction is being utilized herein. Ttre courE simply feels

50% of. Ehe time expended could have accmplished Ehe same result'

The appropriateness of an across Ehe board reducEion is likewise

supported when one considers the hours billed by counsel for defendant, MarEin

L.C. Feldnan. Eighr llundred Sixty-four and 75/LlO (864.75) hours were billed

by Judge Feldman and his aesociates. The court is not suggesEing that the

Eime spenE by counsel for the defendanE is a controlling facCor in Eerms of

Iiniting t,he number of hours for which plaintiff's counsel may seek

reimburseuenE. But it is Eo be weighed and considered and is a comparaEor in

determining whaE work was necessary as well as indicating where work was

performed in an expeditious fashion. tlarkless v. Sweenv Independent SchooL



PAGE 9

!1,g , 608 F.zd 594 (5rh cir. 1979). IE appeare from the record that five

(5) larryers tere acEive in the trial of this Eatter'on behalf of the

plaintiffs. For the tro8t pert, Judge Feldnan and one associate handled this

tsetEer on Ehe part of t.he defendants. Ttre fecE EhaE plaintiffst counsel

should have chosen to work with five (5) t,eau meobers is within Eheir

discrecion buE the citizens of Ehe SEate of Louisiana should not have Eo bear

che financial burden of that decision.

Ttre aforenenEioned across the boerd reduction shall be made after a

deduction of all hours billed by attorneys in connection with the

administrative proceeding under $5 of Ehe Voting Rights Act. On June 18,

Lgg2, Willian Bradford Reynolds, Ehe head of the civil rights section of the

Departnent of Justice, informed Ehe State of Louisiana Ehat he sould not

object Eo the Louisiana Congressional RedistricCing Plan. Prior to Ehat

deciaion, and begween the months of Deceuber, 1981 and June-, 1982, two hundred

lavcn and 40/lOO (207.40) hours were expended by counacl in their tttcsPts to

have Ehe Justice DepartmenC withhold preclearence of Act 20. Their actions

lrere unsuccessful in this regard.

Ttris pre-clearance, while essential Eo Ehe placing into effect of the

redistricting legislation, is an adruinistrative procedure seParaEe and

independent fron this litigation process for declaratory judgment and

injunctive relief. Regardless of whecher the plan was precleared by the

Attorney General, the plan reoained vulnerable to attack on Ehe Pert of

plaintiffs. Morris v. Gressette,432 U.S.491, 97 S.CE.24Ll 53 L.Ed.2d 506

( 1977 ).

42 U.S.C. $1973(1)(e) provides thaE aEtorneys' fees are Eo be awarded co

a prevailing party in any action or proceeding to enforce ghe voCing



PAGE 10

guarantees of Ehe FourteenEh or Fifteenth Amenduent' Ttris court is of the

opinion Ehat the sEatuEe is not referring to aduinistrative Proceedings under

$5 of the Act whereras here, Ehe Parties lrere unsuccessful' RaEher it refers

to succeseful litigation only under $2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gerena-Valenrin v. Koch, 739 F.2d 755 (2nd Cir. 1984); Poaada v. Lamb County

&& 716 F.2d 1056 (5rh Cir. 1983). llorsever, even if att,orneys' fees for acts

in the administrative preclearance Proceduree were aPPropriate, and this nas

nog so held in Poeada, suPrg, the Parties seeking the fees would have to be a

prevailing p8rry. Ttre plaintiffe did not prevail before the AtEorney General

in the preclearance proceeding. Neither can the court say thet the taeks

performed in connection with Ehese adoinietrative proceedings under $5 were

crucial or at all helpful io Ehe ulEioate litigation under !2. Ttrerefore,

t,hese hours rri11 be disallowed in their entirety'

Ttre court thus finds thag Ehe plaintiffs should receive ettorneys'fees

for a total of 1,235.30 hours divided as follows:

PRINCIPAL LITIGATION

ATTORNEY IIOURS

Stanley A. Halpin
C. Lani Guinier
R. James Kellogg
Steven Scheckman
Willian P. Quigley
Armand Derfner

285. 38
342.90
255.00
206. 50
146.02

0

case such as Bolden v.

occasion Eo Ehe United

district level and did

2. NoveIEy and DifficutEy of the Questions. Ttris litigation did not

present unduly novel or difficult issues. It is not a

Citv of Mobile, suPra, which Eraveled on more t'han one

SEates Supreme Court. This case was tried once et Ehe

noE proceed past that Point.



PAGE [I

At Ehe Eine Ehet this suit was insEiEuted, the burden of proof in

titigation such as Ehis was established in the case of Citv of Mobile v.

I , 446 u.S. 55, loo S.cr. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980). within a oatEer of

months Ehereafter, Congress amended $2 of Ehe VoEing Rights Act, in order Eo

legislatively over rule Che Bolden case. In so doing, the burden of proof

esrablished in whire v. Register, 412 U.S. 755,93 S.Ct. 3332 37 L.Ed.2d 314

(lglD and Ziurner v, t'lqEeiltreq, 485 F.zd 1297 (5ttr Cir. 1973) were

reinstaced. fire srandard in White and !!g is substantially lower insofar

as burden of proof is concerned than it was it @,suPra' Bolden required

Ehat Ehe plaintiff show inEenE on the part of the legislature Eo discriminate;

whereas, White and Zirnrrer merely required that a resulE of discrimination be

established regardless of what che intent of the legislature lras in enacting

Ehe questionable sEatuEe

As noged in the brief furnished by the SEate, SEan Halpin, one of the

atEorneys seeking fees herein, was lead counsel in Zimer v. McKeithen, suPra'

and, as such, muet be considered intinately faniliar with the burden of proof

necessery on plaintiffs'part, having met EhaE burden in prior Iitigation.

AlEhough rhis is noE Eo indicate Ehat, any voting righEs litigacion is simple,

what ic does indicate is that Ehere is no reason Eo enhance or mulEiply Ehe

award given Eo counsel herein because of the difficulty or novelty of the

issues involved in chis piece of litigation.

3. Th" R.qgigi!S-.@ill. This court certainly recognizes that

rhere is a heavy burden on counsel for plaintiff in voting rights litigation

because counsel represents an entire class of citizens on an issue fundamenEal

t.o the democraEic process. Certainly, there is no basis upon which to



PAGE i2

criticize any of Ehese attorneys in this lirigation for the quality or

sEenderd of the work which Ehey puE forward. Neicher is there any reason Eo

reward then \riEh a tnultiplier because Ehere sae noEhing extraordinarily taxing

in the a6ounE of skill which Ehey need put forEh Eo ProPerty represenE cheir

clients.

As has been noted above, the issues herein were noE unduly novel nor

extraordinarily difficult. Atl of these actorneys had prior experience in

voting rights caaes frou which Ehey could easily dral Eo assisE them with this

litigation. Ttris factor, Eherefore, does not suPPort an enhancemenE of

plaintiffs' attorneys' fees herein-

4. Preclusion of Other Euplowent. As was succinctly staEed by the

district court in the fee hearing opinior, in p\!g, "when an aEtorney decides

Eo handle a case, he necesearily precludes some ot,her ernploymenE because of

Eime constraints. Ttris preclueion is reflecCed in any fee". In Ehe insEant

case, however, t.he court is of the opinion Ehat counsel suffered no relevanE

preclusions becauee Ehis is the type of litigation that Ehese aEtorneys relish

handling. AI1 of chen hold themselves out to be experts in the field of civil

rights and civil righEs litigation. No one forced Ehese lawyers to Eurn cheir

Eime and attenEion Eo Major v. Treen. Ttrey wholeheartedly chose to devoEe

Eheir time and aEtention Eo Ehis project.

Mr. Halpin and Ms. Guinier were, during che tine of the principal

lifigation, employees of organizaEions dedicaEed Eo Ehe PreservaEion of civil

righEs and civil liberties. As such, preclusion does not aPPly Eo Ehem.

Loewen v. Turnipseed, 505 F.Supp. 5L2 (tl.O. Us 1980). It is noE even

suggesEed Ehat Ehe organization with which each is associated was precluded

from oEher employment as a resulE of this case.



PAGE 13

In addition, shorrly before Ehe institution of chis litigation, Messrs.

Quigley and Scheckuan had only recenEly entered che private Practice of law as

pertners. fire court hae heard of no significant work oPeo to theee attorneys

during Ehe same time period that Maior v. Treen was licigated frou which Ehey

were precluded as a result of Eheir efforts herein. Neither can Ehe courE

pinpoint, as far as Mr. Kellogg is concerned, any specific or large client or

fees nhich he has lost as a result of his activities in this litigation.

Again, this factor does noE suPPort Ehe granting of a oultiplier to

counsel.

5. The Cuatonarv Fee. In che affidavite annexed to plaintiffsr uoEion

for an award of aEtorneyst fees and exPenses, each ettorney states hie

background and givee a brief reaune of the work he has performed Eo date.

R. Jamee Kellogg graduated from the Columbia UniversiEy School of Law in

May, L976. Since graduacion, Mr. Kellogg has been, as he states,

"overwhelmingly devoted to civil rights and civil liberties isgueg" in his

practice of las. lle has been a staff aEcorney for the American Civil

Liberties Union and Ehe Louisiana CenEer for the Public Interests. He has

served aa a consultant to the New Orleans Legal AssisEance CorporaEion,

Northwest Louisiana Legal Services, North Louisiana Legal Services, Acadiana

Legal Services, SouEheast Louisiana Lega1 Services and New Mexico Legal

Services. In addition, he has been affiliaced as counsel in various civil

rights and civil liberties litigation with the N.A.A.C.P. Lega1 Defense Fund,

the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, the Nacional Prison Project,



PAGE 14

the llental llealth Law Project, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and

many other such incerested groups.

Mr. Kellogg advises thet ninety (902) Percenc of his litigation

experience has been in Ehe federal court systen on civil rights and civil

liberties issues and chac aE the time he litigated Major v. Treen he had been

involved in approximately ten (10) voting rights cases. l{r. Kellogg seeks an

hourly raEe of One Hundred Ttrirty-Five (9135.00) Dollars Per hour in

connecEion with Ehe work he perforrned herein. l'1r. Kellogg he8 stated Ehat his

responsibilitiesi..@weretheday-to-dayoPerationofthecase,

handling of rhe motion practice aspect of this c88e, and acting as suPervisor

of trial preparation and overall coordinator of the efforts of counsel'

It is obvious that all of !1r. Kellogg's activiEies, although necessary

Eo achieve an orderly result, rrere not lega1 work. Under Ehe circumetances '

Ehe courr is of Ehe opinioo Ehat an hourly race of Ninety ($90.00) Dollars Per

hour would adequaEely coupensate l,Ir. Kellogg for the work perfotmed. Mr.

Kellogg functioned in the capacity of an associaEe counsel as oPPosed Eo leed

counsel herein. The above raEe is conutrensurate Eo what loca1 firms would bill

for an associaters time.

Steven Scheckman graduated frm Tulane University School of Law in 1978.

Thereafter, he has engaged overwhelningly in civil rights and civil liberties

issues. Mr. Scheckman states Ehat he was a sEaff aEEorney for the New orleans

Legal Assistance Corporation from 1978 uhrough 1981 aE which time he entered

private pracEice of law as a partner in the firm of Quigley and Scheckoan.

Mr. Scheckman was likewise a member of the Board of Directors of Ehe American

Civil Liberties Union on whose behalf he has litigated'

Mr. Scheckman advises EhaE he has been either lead or co-counsel in

Iitigation involving the institutionalized in local and sEate juvenile

facilities and adult penal institutions. Mr. Scheckman advises Ehat his



PAGE 15

special eophasis in civil rights and civil rights litigation surrounds the

rights of juveniles and juvenile taw, the mentally handicapped and prisoners.

In this litigation, Ilr. Scheckmen states Chat it wae his role Eo

establish the legislative history applicable herein, t,o analyze and review all

docr.ruents received in discovery and Eo deterfiine how they uight be used at

trial. AddicionalIy, he interviewed various exPert wit,neeses. Ttre court is

of rhe opinion rher a fee of Eighty ($80.00) Dollars Per hour would adequately

coEpensate Mr. Scheckman for the work performed'

Ur. Williao p. Quigley graduated in 1977 frou the loyola Law School. Ile

has served as the general counael for che American Civil Liberties Union in

Louisiana and, in addition, has been counsel Eo various other public int'erest

and civil rights groups, including Ehe Louisiana Chapter of the Southern

Chriscian Leaderehip Conference, the Louisiana Coalition on Jails and Prisons,

the New Orleans Pubtic lloueing Tenants, Inc. He has been co-counsel wiEh the

N.A.A.C.p. Legal Defense Fund and with the National Housing Law Project on

federal litigation.

At present, h. Quigley is associated erich Mr. Scheckman in che privace

pracEice of 1aw. In connection with this litigation, Mr. Quigley was involved

with the legislacive history of the Voting Righcs Act and q,iEh Ehe $5

submission Eo Ehe JusEice Department. Mr. Quigley advised in connecEion r,riEh

other EatEers which he handlee EhaE he aEtemPts to obtain an hourly fee rate

of begween Sevenry-Five ($75.00) and One llundred Twenty-Five ($125.00) Dollars

per hour. The court is of the opinion Ehat a fee of Eighty ($80.00) Dollars

per hour would adequately coEPensaEe !1r. Quigley for Che work performed.



PAGE 16

C. Lani Guinier is presently enployed as assistanE counsel for the

N.A.A.C.P. Legal Ilefenee and Educacional Fund, a non-Profic corporaEion

originatly founded in 1940 to furnieh legal assisEance in cages involving

claims of racial discriuinetion and deprivation of conetitutional rights.

Ms. Guinier graduated frou Yale Law School in 1974 and eince EhaE Eime hae

specialized in civil rights and conscicutional litigation. She has served as

special assiaEanE Eo Ehe head of the Civil Rights Division in the United

StaEes JusEice DepartmenE, where she helped reorganize the voting rights !5

unit. Ms. Guinier states that since April, 1981, she has worked primarily on

voting rights caaes aa a staff attorney aE Ehe Legal Defense Fund.

Insofar as her activities in connection with this Eatter, Ms. Guinier

tesrified rher she was reeponsible for drafting all pleadings, anending the

original complaint filed herein, drafting all pre-trial findings and

conclusions of law, drafting the pre-trial memorandum along with Mr. SEan

Halpin, drafting the poet Eria1 findings and conclusions of law, su"'-arizing

all teetimony EhaE caDe ouE, of the trial accuraEely and succincEly, and

formulating Ehe strategy to overcome Ehe advanEage to Ehe defendanE as a

result of preclearance of the Act by the JusEice DePartnenE. Along wich SEan

Italpin, Mg. Guinier worked wiCh the experEs to obtain Eestimony responsive Eo

the new standard under !2. AddiEionally, she cross-examined C'overnor Treen

and, in general, worked Eo establish Ehe lack of fairness of the AcE sought, Eo

be overEurned. Ms. Guinier seeks an hourly rate of One Hundred SixCy

($160.00) Dollars per hour for the work which she has performed in connection

with chis maEter.

There is no doubC Ehat Ms. Guinier is a very well-Crained, highly

qualified professional in the area of civil rights. Ilowever, the court is of

Ehe opinion r,har an hourly raEe of One Hundred Ttrirty-Five ($I35.00) Dollars



PAGE 17

per hour will adequately coapensate Ms. Guinier for the work performed in

Ehis mat,ter.

Sganley A. Halpin, Jr. graduated froo Tu1ane Law School in 1955. Prior

Eo t,hat Eime, he had received a PhD in potitical science from George

Washington University having rritten his doccoral dissertation on the Voting

Righrs Acr of 1965. Shortly after his graduaEion from law schoot, Mr. Halpin

began litigating voting and redistricting cases in Louisiana and since thaE

rioe hae lirigated over fifty (50) state, counEy and local redistricting

Eat,ters. Mr. Halpin has stated EhaE he waa either lead counsel, or, in moeE

cases, sole counsel during those efforEs.

Froru 1971 rhrough Lg74, Mr. ttalpin licigated as lead counsel the EeEEer

of Taylor v. McKeirhen, 333 F.Supp. 452 (r. O. La 1971); af.f.. 457 F-2d 795

(5rh cir. 1g71); remanded, 407 u.s. 19t)92 S.Ct. 1980, 32 L.Ed.2d 648 (1972);

4gg F.2d 893 (5ttr Cir. L974). From 1974 through L976, Mr. Halpin served as

lead counsel on behalf of black intervenors in Che BacEer of Beer v. United

SraEes, 374 F.Supp. 357 (e.p. La L974), 425 U.S. 130, 96 S.CE. L357, 47

L.Ed.Zd 629 (t976). In addirion, Mr. Halpin was inEirnately involved in the

EatEer of Zi,nmer v. McKeithen,485 F.2d L297 (5tn Cir. 1973) nherein Ehe so

called Ziursrer facEors importanE in redistricting litigation hrere established.

There is no doubt in this courr's mind EhaE Ehe experEise of Mr. Halpin

alone working wiEh one or two co-counsel would have been sufficient to

litigate this entire marEer. IE is obvious that. Mr. Halpin had his hands on

every aspecE of this case cortrnencing witn his examinaEion of census daEa and

st,at,isEical evidence for purPoses of analyzing the act for PoEenCiaI

discrimination, and continuing with meeting with experts, gathering daEa and

facts, discussing and confecEing sEaEegy, updaEing research on Ehe Zirnmer



PAGE 18

factors, researching black particiPaEion in the political process and

analyzing the effects of pasE discriuination and rePresenEation on the PresenE

political spectruu as well as refining Ehe Easks of the various exPerEs. IE

is obvious Ehat Mr. I{alpin noE only brought his talenEs as an aEtorney Eo Ehis

litigation but also his considered talenEs as a political scientist. Wtrereas

it appears thaE Ms. Guinier did much of Ehe reduction of ideas to paper, iE

does appeer thet It. Italpin fomulated the sEructure and the direction chat

this lit igst ion lras Eo take .

As with l,ts. Guinier, ouch of Mr. Halpin's work PreParaEory to trial was

non-legal in efforr. An hourly race of One tlundred Ttrirty-Five ($f35.00)

Dollars per hour sill be adequate compensaEion for Ehe expertise which he

brought Eo chis maEter

Ttre court is of Ehe opinion EhaE the above hourly raEes are in line with

Ehe customary fees paid in Ehis area for comparable legal work.

6. Fixed or Contingent Fee. Ttre plaintiffs' attorneys handled this

EatEer on a conCingency fee basis. ThaE is Co say EhaE counsel received no

monies from their clients during this lirigation Eo comPensate Eheo for Ehe

services rendered. Ilad Ehey noE prevailed, Ehey would have been unable Eo

have collecEed any fee as a resulE of their efforts. As was stated in

v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5tn cir. l98t):

ttlawyers who are Eo be comPensated only in Ehe event
of victory expecE and are enciEled co be paid more
when successful than Ehose who are assured of comPen-
saEion regardless of the result. This is neither
less nor ruore appropriate in civil righcs licigation
than in personal injury caaee. The sEandard of
coltrpensaEion musE enable counsel to accepE apparently
jusE causes wiE.hout. awaiEing eure winners." AE P. 1382

Jones



PAGE 19

Ttrerefore, one of the rlost inportant factors Eo be considered is what

precise[y was Ehe riek of plaintiffs' failure in this particular litigation.

Once the standard of proof was changed to elininate Ehe aspect of intent

which had been enunciated in the Bolden case, the risk of loss on Ehe part of

plaintiff was greatly dininished. This legislative overruling of p!5!9g by

Congress occurred early on in this litigation and from that point forlrard the

plaintiffs had a large degree of control over their risk of loss in Eetms of

how well and articulacely Ehey could present the facts of the EatEer to the

court.

In this insrance alao, the plainciffs nitigated their risks of a large

a6ounE of productive time by one et,Eorney being invested in this litigation by

working in a teau fashion. Ttris was not a question of one lead aEtorney and

. one or Erro a8aociaEes investing all of their time in one file. Part of the

reaaon Ehat more than ose atEorney, in this case five (5) larryers being

actively involved, r{es to spread the risk. In granting attorneysr fees Eo all

of the individuals actively involved in this litigarion as Ehis court is

doing, there is no reason to add a nultiplier to further comPensate Ehese

larryers when none of che individuals involved spread Ehemselves precariously

thin in order to conduct this battle.

7. Time Limitations Imposed by the Client of Ehe Circurnstances of Ehe

Litigarion. The record reflects that this litigation proceeded along a

reasonable time t,able and Ehe court sees no undue constraints imposed upon

counsel eirher by che client or Ehe circuusEances of the litigation in

bringing Ehis matEer Eo trial. Ttrerefore, no fee enhanceBent is warranEed



PAGE 20

based on Ehis fector.

8. The Auount Involved and the Results Obtained. Ttre relief requested

in rhis lirigation ereE lhar AcE 20 of the 1981 legislature be declared

unconstiEutional and Ehat the SEate be enjoined frou atteEPting to place it

into effect. Ttre purpoee for which this relief rcas sought eres Eo have a

fairly proportioned congreasional districc for the State of Louisiana which

would noE dilude or minirnize Ehe vote of the black citizens locaced in chat

districc. plainriffs indeed achieved a One llundred (1002) Percent victory in

t,haE respect. The stat,e was forced Eo reconsider and pass additionat

legislacion demarcsEing the various congressional districcs in the Orleans,

Jefferson and St. Bernard Parish area. The resulEs obtained by the plainciffe

were imporgenE and significanC and support a subsEant,ial fee for the results

obtained.

9. The Experience, Reputation and Abilitv of Ehe AttorneYs. The

plaintiffs' aEtorney!, have an exceltenE reputaEion and considerable experience

in the area of civil rights litigation. Ttre background of each of Ehese

pracriEioners has been listed with greaEer specificity in an earlier portion

of this opinion. All of the attorneye appearing before Ehe court displayed

excelleng skill and competence and deserve C.o be justly conPensated for Ehe

turning of these Ealents Eo a Eatter of extreue public importance.

However, Ehe court does not feel thac a multiplier should be added to the

fee of every practiEioner of good repuEaEion who addresses himself to a

rrorthwhile public cauge. Ttre court is of the opinion t.hat while Ehese

aErorneys engaged in this litigation Ehey suffered no seCback to their

practices, no loss in standing in t,he courunity nor have Ehey experienced any

other negative reacEion E,o their representaEion which uright need to be



PAGE 2I

co'pensaEed for by rnultiplying the fee which they receive. Ttre court sees no

reason to seE a fee on any basis other than hours sPenE and reasonable

conpensation therefor.

10. Undesirabilitv of the Case. There has been testinony to the fact

rhat civil rights type litigation is undesirable to private aEEorneys. Ihere

is much Eo be said in suPPort of fhis propoeition. llonever, for these

pargicular lawyers, who have built their reputations and practice on civil

rights litigation, who hold themselves ou! e8 specialisCs in this area, this

type of case is noE only noE undesirable bug mosE adventageous.

Mr. Ilalpin and.Ms. Guinier at time of trial were both aasociated with

organizaEions entirely devoted ro advanceuenE of civil rights. Messers.

Kellogg, Quigley and Scheckman, although private Practitioners in other areas,

take pride in the civil rights work which Ehey have done. Ilowever, Ehis court

finds ir difficulE when one actively and freely chooees the area of law which

one wanEs Eo practice to say EhaE, becauee one has chosen a field unattracEive

to another individual, one should be rewarded beyond che Eime one exPends aE a

reasonabte hourly rate. FurEheroore, with regard Eo this litigation and given

Ehe circumsEances peculiar Eo New Orleans, thaE being that Ehe majority of iCs

citizens are black, it would appear t,haE these aEtorneys acted on behalf of

the majority rather E,han on behalf of che minority inEeresEs in beconing

involved with this litigation. The courE cannoE, Eherefore, say Ehat, having

represenled the inEerests of.the majority of the citizens of the area, these

lawyers will suffer econonic loss by Eheir inability to attract clients wich

other Eypes of licigat,ion from Ehe cormunity as a whole. Again, this facEor

\rarranEs no enhanceloent of the fee requested by counsel.



PAGE 22

I1. The Length of rhe Relationship with the client. Plaintiffs'

acEorneys had no prior relationship with che client. Neicher are Ehese

cliencs likely Eo generate any addiCional fee paying work; therefore, an

aEount greater than Ehe fee which one night charge to a regular overhead

paying client would be in order in connection with this factor.

L2. Awards in Sioilar Cases. The court has reviewed the appropriaLe

jurisprudence wirh regard to fee awards in voting rights licigation. The

following constitutes a synopiis of ceses inforroative on this issue:

Graves v. Barnes, 7OO F.Zd 220 (5ttr Cir. 1983), also known as White

v. RegeEter, supra, involved legislative redistriccing in the SEate of Texas.

Ttris litigetion spanned over a decade and included Ewo trials, nine reported

opinions and two crips Eo Ehe United Scates Supreme Court. IE was extremely

cooplex in nature involving eighc urban legislative districts wherein there

were uulEi-members. A t,oEa1 lodestar of fifty-three hundred (5300) hours was

awarded to counsel in the fee hearing for a EoEal fee before Ehe nulciplier of

Four tlundred ForEy-Four Ttrousand Five Hundred Sixteen and 50/100 (S444,516.50)

Dollars. A multipler of Erro was added to Ehis fee and a grand EoEal of Nine

Hundred Forty Ttrousand Eight Hundred Eighteen ($940,818.00) Dollars in fees

and expenses was awarded Eo counsel. A1Ehough a multipler eras awarded herein,

Ehe court specificially stated that a conEingency mult,iplier should not be

awarded in aI1 cases. The court went on Eo state Ehat when Ehe lode star is

based on presenE hourly rates raEher than on raEes applicable when the

services were rendered, any resulting disadvanEage Eo counsel because of delay

is largely elininated.



PAGE 23

connor v. flqrer, 519 F.Supp. L337 (S.O. Ms 1981) involved fifteen yeers

of effort Eo reepportion the Mississippi legislature. it included problems

aeeociated with oulti-meober districEs and t.he necessity of fragoenring

rradicional political boundaries in order to achieve population equality.

There was a sEate wide inpact Eo this litigaEion which resulEed in a complete

reorganizaEion of Mississippi's system of legisletive elections.

In Connor v. WinEer, a lode st,ar of one Ehousand two hundred sixty-nine

a1.d, 215 hours was alloned and a toEal fee and exPense award of SevenEy-Seven

Ihousand Six Hundred Eighceen and 75/L}O ($77, 5I8.75) Dollars grant,ed Eo

counsel. No nultiplier wes allorred in this inecance.

Farnham v. Barnes, 57L F.Supp. 45 (D RI 1983) involved state etide

redistricting in Ehe sEaEe of Rhode Island. Ttre matter involved thirty-six

legislative districts which litigation generated chree published opinions. A

lodestar of one Ehousand fifty-seven (Ir057) hours rres granEed Eo counsel aE

One Ilundred ($tOO.OO) Dollars per hour. Thereafter, a nultiplier of uen (102)

per cenE was added Eo granE counsel a Eotal fee of One llundred Sixteen

Ttrousand Two llundred Sevenry and no/ldO ($ttO,27O.0O) Dollars. In thac

litigation, Ehe court specifically voiced Ehe opinion chaE a multipler should

be appled with care because of the incongruity inherent in a mulciplier, Ehat

is, although Ehe public interest has been vindicat.ed by counsel, the

multiplier nevertheless makes the public P8y for that vindicaEion.

Rybicke v. sEare Board of Elections, 584 F.SuPP. 849 (O.C. III 1984)

involved rhe 1981 tegislative redistricting plan Eo Ehe Illinois SEate

Assembly. In that matEer, there were Ehree (3) SrouPs of plainCiffs, and

three (3) reporEed opinions affecting one hundred seventy-seven (177)

legislacive seats.



PBGE 24

In Rybicke one, the evidenEiary hearing wenE on for nine days, with

twenty-five witnesses and two hundred exhibits. That matter involved the

atleged discrimination against suburban votere by disproPortionately

concentrating porrcr in Chicago and in addition it involved a second issue of

alleged dilution of black voting sErength, i.e., the p!!g issue. A11 Ehree

plaintiffs had separate and distinct interesEs, each group having cheir oqln

counsel. Fees were awarded by Ehe court. to Eso of the t,hree grouPs and no

nultipler was alloned. A lode star of Two tlundred Fifty-Five Ttrousand Seven

Hundred Ninery-Five end 25lLOO ($255,795.25) Dollars in fees, Eogether with a

cost reiubursemeng of Seventy{ne Ttrousand Three Hundred SevenEy-Eight and

lO/100 ($71,378.10) Dollars was awarded by Ehe court'

Mader v. Crowl, 505 F.Supp.484 (u.o. Tn 1981) involved Ehe

reapportionment plan for the Tennessee State Senatorial Districts. Four

hundred Elrenry-trro and 2lLO (422.2) hours aE Seventy-Five and no/lO0 ($75.00)

Dollars lrere arrerded to counsel without a multiplier.

In Re Illinois Congressional District Reapportionment, 704 F.2d 380 (7th

Cir. 1983). In rhis matt€r.r 8 cotal of nine hundred fifteen (915) hours at

rares varying from Fifty-Five Eo One llundred Sixty-Five ($55.00 to $165.00)

Dollars per hour were allowed by the court. A EoEal fee of One Hundred

Twenty-Eighr Thousand Tno Hundred Fifteen and no/100 ($128r2f5.00) Dollars was

awarded counsel as Ehe lode star aloount. A bonus of Ewency Q07.) PercenE \ras

added Eo this figure with the court specifically noting EhaE a large

nultiplier should not Iightly be granted.



PAGE 25

Brooks v. A1lain, _ F.supp.- No. GC 82-80 & 81{K-0 (U-p. l'ts

I9g5) involved rhe fee award for rhe Mississippi congreseional Redistriccing

case. firis case reapportioned three of llissiesippi'e congressional districts

after E\ro three day Erials and Cwo aPPeeLs to Ehe Supreme Court' In @p,

plaintiff was awarded a lode star of One llundred Ten Thousand 1\ro llundred

Ttrirty-Seven and 50/IOO ($1fO ,237.50) Dollars for one Ehousand two hundred

sixry-rwo aod. 315 (L,262.35) hours. A fifty (502) Per cenE oultiplier rraa

allorred on a Portion of ghe hours requeeEed by one aEtorney and a tocal

cmpensaEion of One Eundred Forty Ttrousand Eight Huudred Five and ao/100

($I40,805.00) Dollars tas allorpd.

Burron v. Ilobbie, CA 81-617{ (U.D. Al f983) involved the staEe wide

legislative reapporrionoent of a hundred forty (140) seats in the Alabaua

legislarure. Seven (7) of Ehe district,s involved had probleus regarding

proper representaEion of blacks. A lodestar of approximately one thousand

seven hundred (1r7OO) hours was allowed Eo counsel for a EoEaL award of One

Ilundred Fifty{ne Thousand Five llundred Seventy-Five and no/100 ($151, 575.00)

Dollars. No mulripler was granEed-

Bolden v. Cirv of Mobile, CIL 75-279-P (S.D. AI 1983) \{as a landmark case

in Ehe voting righgs area. It is the decision rendered herein which PromPEed

Congress Eo amend secgion 2 of the Voting Rights Act Eo legislatively overrule

Ehe jurisprudence esEablished afEer two (2) trials, several instances of

appeallate review and eight (8) years of litigation. A total of four thousand

eighr hundred rwenry-five and Tlto (41825.7) hours and a lode star of Four

Ilundred Forry-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Three and no/100 ($444,843.00)

Dollars was allowed Eo counsel. A multiplier of two was granted in this case'



PAGE 25

Ilaving reviewed cmprehensively the above jurisprudence, Ehe court is of

the opinion that Erro thougand five hundred Ewo and 48/100 (2,502'48) hours

originally requested by counsel in connection wirh chis principle litigation

is exceesive and EhaE total hours of one thousand two hundred thirty-five and

3O/1OO (1,235.30) hours, which the court, is allowing herein, is well suPPorted

by the t,eachings in che aforementioned litigations. The court further noces

with regard to plaintiffsr request for a oultiplier in regard Eo Ehe

attorneyst fees Ehet [ultipliers are granted only under unueuel

circuustencee. fire standard for grent,ing a ruultiplier is succincEly stated in

Bluu v. Srenson, _ U.S. _, lO4 S.Ct. 154f (1984) wtrerein the court

noted as follows:

ttNeiEher complexity nor novelty of the issues, therefore,
is an aPPropriate factor in deeermining wheEher to
increase the basic fee award...The quality of represenla-
tion oay justify an upward adjustment only in the rare
cese lrhere the fee applicant offers specific evidence Eo

shoir [1] Ehat Ehe quality of service rendered was superior
to EhaE one reasonably should exPect in light of the
hourly raEes charged and [2] that Ehe success was excePtiona'l
...Because acknowlegn-nt of the rresults obtained' generally
will be subsuned within other facEors used Eo calculate a

reasonable fee, it norroally should noE provide an independenE
basis for iucreasing the fee award...Nor do we believe Ehat Ehe

number of persons benefitted is a consideraEion of significance
in calculaEing fees under $1988."

Bluu, supra, _ U.S. at _' 104 S.CE. 1549, n. 15-

This court refuses to granE a multiptier as requesEed by counsel for

plaintiffs.

B. Expenses requested by counsel in connection with principle

litigation.

Steven Scheckman requests reinbursemenE for expenses tocaling Thirty-Two

Thousand Two Hundred Forty arrd 42/IO0 ($32,24O.42) Dollars. Of this amount,

che following amounts were not initially dispuEed by the SEaEe and had been

st.ipulat.ed as reasonable :



PAGE 27

I. Expert and Professional AssisEance
Richard Engstrom
74.25 hrs at, $I00.00/hr

Joseph Logsdon
32.00 hours at $100/hr

Raphael Cassiuere, Jr.
34.00 hrs at $100/hr

Shirley Laska
13.0 hrs at 925/hr . 9325.00
Expenses - $56.49

Mapuakers and SuPPliee

PhoEographer

II. DepoeiEions

A. Treen
B . llainke 1

C. Henderson
D. SelIe
E. Logsdon
F. Cassiuere, ChehardY
G. Lenis, EngsErou
H. Morial

III. Express Mail

$ 7, 425. o0

3, 200. 0o

3, 400. 00

381.49

3, 5oo. oo

350.00

356.40
99. 90

161.90
276. 14

70. 00
143.90
128. 30
t46.40

400.00

TOTAL EXPENSES $ 20, 339. 43

llowever, in lighr of the recent holding of the Fifth Circuit i. .ry

Champion InEernational Corp., slip opinion 83-46f6, filed June 2, 1986 the

SEate now contests all of those iEems listed as exPert wiEness fees above. In

EhaE opinion, Che appellaEe court ordered district courts "to apply Ehe rule

announced t,oday to all pending cases". Accordingly, as to exPert wiEnesses

Engstrom, Logsdon, Cassimere and Laska, all expert fee charges over and above

Ehe normal court attendance fee of Thirty and no/100 ($30.00) DoIIars per diem

shall be disallowed. Since Ehe work billed on behalf of these exPerts does

noc esEablish thac a court appearance or deposicion was involved, no amount

will be awarded on Ehese claims.



PAGE 28

As the StaEe doeE not contesg Ehe reasonabiliCy of any other above listed

amoungs, Ehere ie no necessiEy to discuea Ehese iEems further other Ehan to

order EhaE EheY be Paid.

Ttre folloring fees subnicted by Mr.

contesEed bY the State:
ITEI.I

Scheckman are additionallY being

AMOUNT

l.IiEness Feee for Depositions of M. Landrieu,
E. Bruno, L. t{atermeier, $30.00 each incurred
Lzl LEI 82

PayuenE co Metropolitan Agency for eerving
depoeition subpoenas and providing ruileage
incurred LZlL3l82

Deposicions of U. Landrieu, E. Bruno, and L'
Idateroeier incurred' L2/ 23 I 82

Kinko's copying for exhibiEs incurred 2128183

Fees for exPert Gordon llenderson

Traver 
TorAL ExPENsEs

$ 90.00

255. 00

475.00

555.03

9,325.00

I ,200 .00
$1 1,901. 03

Ttre firet four above expenses are objected Eo by the State on Ehe same

grounds, that being, failure to comply wich this court's discovery order prior

to the daEe established by the court. 0n March 26, 1985, this MagisErate

entered an order directed go plaintiff mandating that the defendant be

furnished with any documenEation supporting exPenses other Ehan expert witness

fees claimed in this Eatter. Ttris documenEation rras Eo be furnished to Ehe

defendanE on or before April 2, 1985. ThaE order specifically sEaEed EhaE

failure Eo make such docr.rmenE production by April 2, 1985 would preclude

introducEion of Ehe documenteEion supporting Ehose exPenses at Ehe rime of

rrial.



PAGE 29

plaintiff did not uake document production until April 1l' 1985 and

therefore is in violation of this courEts order. Accordin8lY, all of the

first four iunediately hereinabove listed exPenses are IIHIIED'

With regard Eo the fee of Gordon Henderson, Ehe State did not initially

congesE Ehe hourLy raEe of that expert but did conEest EhaE he needed to

devote Ehe amount of tine which he has bil.Ied t,o Ehe case. In light of $,

eupra, the SEate norr confests Ehat the entire anount is payable ae being

excessive of tha3 alloned by statuEe. Again, t,he Itrirty and no/f00 ($30.00)

Dollar per dieo alone will be allowed on Ehis exPert's bill if it rere for a

court appearance of depoeition. Since this wae not epecified, no amount will

be allowed here.

Lasrly, defendanEs except to the fuII Twelve Hundred ($1,200.00) Dollar

travel expense claimed by Mr. Scheckmen on Ehe grounds that the expense is

unidentified in Eeros of tirne the expense \ras incurred as well as Ehe reason

Eherefore. More succinctly steted, Ehe SEaEe does not believe EhaE Mr'

Scheckman has meE his burden of proof in connecEing this expense as a

reasonable and necessary exPense connected with this Iitigation' Ttre courE

concurs with the SEaEe in this respecE. The court does not consider.EhaE Ehis

expense has been verified as relating Eo maEters concerned with this

litigation. Henslev v. Eckerhart' suPra; CopPer Liquor, Inc. v' Adolph Coors

Co.. suDra.

Accordingly, of the sums requesEed by Mr. Scheckman' E,he total of Five

Thousand Nine llundred Ttrirty-Tlro ar.d 941 I00 ($5,932.94) Dollars will be

alloted as reimbursable exPenses.

Ttre following consgituEes the iternized expenses of SEanIey A. Italpin in

connection with the principle litigaEion:



PAGE 30

2128183
thru 3/f3l83

L/ 18183
ctuu Ll24/83

LTlL7l82
rtrru l2l L9182

ITEI'I

Trial and TraveI Expenses
Parkingr gas, ground EransPortaEion
CrediE card food exPenses
Rental car
Gas
Air fare

Deposition Travel ExPenses
Food, parking, misc.
RenEal car
Airfare
Credit card food
Gas

Travel to New Orleans for caee PrePera-
tion
Food, parking
Gae
Airfare

Long Distance Telephone Calle
TOTAL

A1'IOUNT

$349. 50
L34.62
200.00

52.45
I90. 00

141.95
L35.49
215.00

70.24
23.72

116.70
23.94

210. 00

N/C
$1;T6T6',I

. Ttre major probleo sith all of Ehese expenses aPPears to be largely the

failure on Ehe part of Mr. Halpin Eo produce a receipt or other documentation

Ehat Ehe expense was incurred. For exaple, regarding parking, gas and ground

r,ransportaEion expenaes incurred by Mr. tlalpin flou 2128/83 thru 3/13/83 Ln

Ehe atnounc of Three llundred Forty-Nine and 5Ol100 ($349.50) Dollars, only Four

and 45/100 ($4.50) Dollars has been documented by way of a receipt. For the

s e Eime period with regard to the Fifty-Two and 45lLO0 ($S2.45) Dollars in

gas reimbursepent sought by Mr. Halpin, only receiPts for Fifteen ($I5.00)

Dollars in gas have been Produced.

Regarding deposition travel expenses incurred fron 1/18 through L|24183,

again receipts present a problem on Mr. Ilalpin's food, parking and

miscellaneous expense requests of One llundred Forty{ne and 95/100 ($141.95)

Dollars. In that instance, receipts have been produced for only Ninety-Nine

and 50/l0O ($99.50) Dollars of Ehe requested amounE. For Ehe time period,



PAGE 3I

December 17, 18 and 19, L982, receiPEs have noE been forEhcoming Eo suPPort

One llundred Tnelve and 70/100 ($1f2.70) Dollars of Ehe requesEed one Hundred

Sixreen end,7O/1OO ($ff5.70) Dollars in food and parking sought by Mr. tlalpin

nor have receipts been forEhcoming to support Ten and 94/100 ($10.94) Dollars

of rhe requesred Twenty-Ttrree and 94/L00 ($23.94) Dollars in gaa reimburseuent

sought by Mr. Halpin.

Ttre courg is of the opinion Ehat defendants' position of calling for

strict proof of expense Eoney incurred is well founded. Ae receiPts are not.

available Eo support and corroborate the incurring of the aforeuentioned

expense, the anount eought will be reduced Eo EhoEe sume for rhich a receipt

has been provided.

WiEh regard Eo Mr. Ilalpints request for reimburEeuenE for food expensee

incurred frou February 28, 1983 through uJrch 13, 1983 in the amount of One

Itundred Thirry-Four and 62/L}O ($134.52) Dollars Ehe reasonableness of the

cosg ia dispured by the Stete. Of thec amount, Ttrirty-Seven and 45lL0O

($37.45) Dollars is attributable to a oeal at Chez Helene rescauranE and Ehe

remainder Eo one meal at Brennan's. Ihe bill at Chez Helene indicaces Ehree

peopte rrere present, i.e., Mr. Ha1pin, Ms. Guinier and Mr. Scheckman. The

bill at Brennan's is silent as Eo who rdas present. Of the anount requested,

Ehe EoEal suu of Thirty Seven arrd,451200 ($37.45) Dollars will be allowed on

the Chez Helene bill. Ttre bill is not exorbitant and Ehere is no basis Eo

determine how much is aftributable Eo each person. On Ehe Brennan bill,

Ttrirty and no/IOO ($30.00) Dollars will be allowed ag sufficienE for a

reasonable meal. AII other anounEs are disallowed.

Ihe State does noE object Eo the reasonableness of the Two Hundred

($200.00) Dollars sought by Mr. Halpin for rental car exPense nor Ehe One

Hundred Ninery ($190.00) Dollar airfare reimbursement likewise requesEed.



PAGE 32

WiEh regard Eo Ehe deposicion Eravel expenses incurred January 18 through

24, 1983, Ehe SEaEe does noc object Eo the reasonableness of the Two llundred

Fifteen ($2I5.00) Dollare airfare reimbursemenL sought by Mr. Halpin.

llowever, Ninety and 33/100 ($90.33) Dollars of Ehe One Hundred Ttrirty-Five and

49llOO ($135.49) Dollars sought for rental car reimburseEent is objected Eo on

the basis Ehat Mr. tlalpin was not needed excePE for January 21st and 22nd in

connecEion with Ehese deposiEions. Ttre court will not second guess the wisdorn

of counsel with regard to reuaining for Ehe extra four days in question herein

and Ehe ful! amount of Ehe rent,al car reimbursemenE soughE by Mr. Halpin will

be granted to hin.

Of Ehe SevenEy and, 24/100 ($70.24) Dollars credit card food reimbursement,

expense for this sane Eime period, i.e., January L8-24, 1983, Ehe St.ate

objecrs Eo Twenty-One and 08/100 ($2t.08) Dollars of same on Ehe grounds EhaE

this amount is at.Eribucable to a meal eaten by Mr. KeIIogg for which Mr.

Halpin paid and now seeks reimbursement. Since l'1r. Kellogg, being a naEive of

New Qrleans, would not have been enEiCled Co a Per diem, t,he SEate seeks

disallowance of a prorated amount of the cotal bill which it allots co Mr.

Kellogg's food consumption. Since t,here is no basis upon which to assume Ehat

Mr. Kellogg consumed a fulI meal as opposed co a Seventy-Five ($.75) Cent

glass of ice Eea and since fhis bill is noc exorbiEanE, Ehe court orders

reimbursement of Ehe fult amounc Eo Mr. Halpin.

Of the Twenry-Three and 721L00 ($23.72) Dollar gas reimbursemenE sought

by Mr. Halpin, lhe State objects to Fifteen and 79/100 ($15.79) Dollars on Ehe

grounds Ehat I1r. Italpin was noE needed in New Orleans excePt for two of the

six days in quesEion. Again, Ehe court will not second guess Ehe wisdom



PAGE 33

of counsel on what aEounts t,o a non-consequenCial expense. Mr. Ilalpin will be

reimbursed for che fulI amoutrc sought on Ehis item.

t{iEh regard Eo }tr. Italpin's expenses for December 17, 18 and 19, 1982,

the Four ($4.00) Dollars for shich receipts have been furnished Lhe StaEe as

to food and parking will be allowed. Despite the fact Ehat the StaEe urges

that Mr. Halpin wa8 noE needed in New orleans aE Ehis Eime, Ehe court will not

second guesB counsel on such a nou-consequential arounE. Ttre sme raEionale

holds for rhe gas reinbursenent sought by counsel. Ttrirteen ($13.00) Dollars

in receipts have been furnished Eo Ehe State and this enounE will be allowed

Eo ur. Ealpin. Accordingly, the following anounts will be awarded to Mr.

IlaLpin in conection wich the expenses which he has eought'

DATE
212SlFcnru
3/ L3/83

1/18/83 thru
L/24/83

ITEM
Triat anffir.vel Expenses

A}OUNT

Parkingr Bae, ground EransPorEation $ 4.45
CrediE card food expenses 67.45
Rental car 200.00
Gae 15.00
Airfare 190.00

Deposition Travel Expenses
Food, parking, uise.
Rental car
Airfare
CrediE card food
Gas

L2lL7/82 ct.ru Travel Eo New Orleans for Case
L2/19/82 Preparation

Food, parking
Gas
Airfare

Long Distance Telephone Calls

TOTAL

99. 50
135.49
215. 00

70.24
23.7 2

4.00
13. 00

0

N/C

$ I ,037. 85



PAGE 34

C. Lani Guinier requests reimbursement for exPenses coEaling Eighteen

Ttroueand Four llundred Seven a11d 521100 ($I8r407.52) Dollars in connecEion with

rhe principle litigaEion. Of this amounE, the folloning items were not

initial.ly disputed by the State and had been stipulated as reesonable.

DATE AI.IOI'NT ITEM

LlLOls3

L/ 12183

3lLLl83

6/e/83

3/Lr/82

7 I14183

3128183

$32.00

19.00

10.27

3r.00

3, 558. 28

50. 00

38 1. 49

1,654.90

1, I26. 85

658 .63

llotion and Brief to
Kellogg by Federal
Express

Supplenentary af f idavit
to Joes Kellogg, Eeq.,
by Federal Erprese

Trial uaterial to Lani
Guinier by UPS

Findings of Fact &

ConcLusione of Law,
Purolator, to Jamea R.
KeIlogg, Eeq.

Coapeneation to G.
Henderson for analysis
of data

Court cost

Shirley Laska, expert
witness fee

Gordon llenderson,
expenses only for
deposicion

J.H. Echezabal,
trial Eranscript

Trial transcripE

4/8/83

5/26/83

TOTAL $ 7,532,42

In light of $, supra, Ehe SEate now contests and seeks disallowance of

Ehose amounEs attributable Co experts Henderson and Laska over and above Ehe

emount allowed by sraEute. 28 U.S.C. $1821. Ttre clear dictate of $' suPra,

supports defendancs' position.



PAGE 35

As the SEate does not contest Ehe

anounEs, there is no neceaeit,Y Eo

order that Ehey be paid.

Itre following fees submitted

SEaEe :

reasonabilicy of Ehe other above listed

discuss these items further other than Eo

by Miss Guinier are being contested by the

AI,'OUNT

I 626.00

92.25

146.00

703. 95

I , 896. 67

508. 05

35.65

478.59

535.75

10.00

L,289.07

34.00

166. 78

ITEU

Conference with co-counael and plaintiffs in
New Orleans (LC) in Deceober, l98I

Travel Eo D.c. Eo revier Juscice Dept. files (LG)

in June, L982

Travel co D.C. Eo revien DOJ files (tG) in December,
1982

Hearing on Pre-Erial l'!otione, Depositions, Trial PreP'
(LG) in January, 1983

Trial prep. and Trial (tC) in March, 1983

PoBE-Erial brief, Review exhibits, confer c,ith co-
couneel New oileang (Lc) in May, 1983

Local taxis (LG) in June, f983

Ilearing, New Orleans (l,C) in June, 1983

Ilearing, New Orleans (NBI.r) in June, 1983

Local taxis (Lc) in July, 1984

Photo copying at .15 cents Per Page from January, i983
through January, 1984

Postage paid on opposition to inEervention forwarded
Eo WiIliarn Quigley on December 12, 1983

Long distance Eelephone calls frm November L2, 1982

chrough June 5, 1984



PAGE 36

ITEU

Legal printing paid for July 14, 1983

Service of subpoenas by Associated InvesEigatorg
paid for FebruarY 16, 1983

Expenses of expert Gordon llenderson in connection
with his deposition paid for March 28, 1983

Expenses of expert Gordon llenderson in connection
with trial paid on MaY 31, 1983

AMOUNT

$ 53. s0

86. 65

I , 654. 90

I, 002. 19

Servicee of Janice McCaughan froo May 14, 1983 through
May 29, 1983 - 80.5 hours time at $40.00 per hour 3,220.00

TOTAL $6,017.24

WiEh regard Eo c,he first of the hereinabove contested expenses, EhaE

being uhe Six Hundred Twenty-Six ($526.00) Dollar iEeu incurred in December,

1981, rhe court disallowe One llundred Eleven and 71l100 ($lI1.7I) Dollars for

lack of a receipt to documenE this expense. Receipts have been presented in

Ehe amounr of Four Hundred Fifty ($450.00) DoIIars for air fare and Sixty-Four

and 291100 ( 964.29) Ootlars in connecEion wich hocel expendiEures, boEh of

which Ehe courE finds Eo be reasonable. Accordingly, an amount of Five

Hundred Fourreen and 29ll0O ($514.29) Dollars will be allowed reimbursable to

Miss Guinier on behalf of che N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund. The SEate has

argued Ehat these Eotat exPenses should be disallowed on Ehe grounds thaE



PAGE 37

tliss Guinier had no need Eo meet witn plaintiffs or with co-counsel herein.

Ttre fact is, however, that Miss Guinier was presenE aE the meeEing and was a

very uoving force in connection with this licigation. Ttre court has handled

Ehe question of duplication of Eime and hours sPent aE an earlier sEage of

this opinion. Certainly plaintiffs might have carried forward wich this

litigacion in a different fashion buc thac \ras noc done and this expense rras

incurred in bringing Ehis oaCEer to fruition. Accordingly, the SEaEers

argu[eng witl be disregarded and Che aforenenCioned sum awarded.

Ttre Ninery-Tr{o aod, 251100 ($92.25) Oollar expense in connection with

Eravel ro Washington, D.C. Eo review JusEice Departmenc files in June of 1982

will be disallosed in its entirety. There have been no receipts submiEted by

Miss Guinier ro establish smounEs incurred in connection with this trip. Only

a legal defense fund expense report filled out by Miss Guinier and submitted

Eo her employer has been enEered into evidence. There are no receipEs t.o back

up Ehe expenses listed on Ehe form. Moreover, Ehese sums lrere incurred in

connection with Miss Guinier's meeEing wiCh Che DepartmenE of JusEice

regarding Ehe Louisiana Congressional Subruission under Section 5. The court

has disallowed all legal time Eo aEtorneys in connection with che Section 5

proceedings. A11 expenses will be disallowed also.

As Eo Ehe December, 1982 cravel, food and lodging expenses regarding Miss

Guinier's Erip to Washington, D.C. to review DepartmenE of JusEice files, Ehis

enEire sum is disallowed. No receipEs have been produced Eo suPPort Ehe

payoenE of any sums. The same resulE will be reached as to Ehe Eravel, food

and lodging expenses claimed by Miss Guinier in Ehe amounE of Seven Hundred

Ihree and 95lioo ($703.95) Dollars in January, 1983. Again, no receipEs



PAGE 38

were produced Eo substantiate Ehese sumlt requested'

Of Ehe One Thoueand Eight Hundred Ninety-Six and 67/L00 ($1'896.67)

Dollars requesEed for food, transportat,ion and lodging in connection with the

trial in March, 1983, Eight Hundred Sixty ($860.00) Dollars of Ehis amounE

will be allowed as receipts have been presented to document Ehis sum.

Ttre State has argued Chat Ehis amount should be further reduced because Miss

Guinier lras not needed for uore than six (6) days in New Orleans in connection

with the trial, since the Eiue expended by her was duplicitive of thac sPenE

by other counsel. Ttre court rejects this arguuenE insofar as legitiuaEe

expensen incurred at a Eioe when she was in New Orleans and working on this

litigation are concerned. Ttre duplicative nature of the hours of counsel

herein have been handled aE an earlier point in chis opinion by way of an

across-che-boards reduction of coupensable cime.

Ttre Five Hundred Eighr and 05/100 ($508.05) Dollars expendiEure for food,

Eravel and lodging ro New Orleans in May of 1983 requested by Miss Guinier

will be denied in its entireEy. This travel was in connection with confecEing

Ehe posE-trial brief, reviewing exhibirs and conferring with co-counsel as Eo

other posr,-Erial pleadings. Included in this auounE is One Hundred

Twenry-Ttrree and 51/100 ($123.51) Dollars in hotel bills paid to che Radisson

p1aza llotel in Raleigh, North Carolina. Ttre court can discern no conexiEy

between Miss Guinier's stay in Raleigh, NorEh Carolina and this litigation.

This amounc will be denied in its entirety.

Three llundred Eighry-One ($381.00) Dollars of Ehe aforementioned aEount

represenEs air fare from New York City to Raleigh Durham on May 3, 1983 and

from Raleigh Durham to New Orleans via AtlanEa on May 5, 1983. It likewise

includes air fare from New Orleans back Eo New York on May 8, 1983. Assuming

in Miss Guinier's favor Ehat Ehis trip was, in facE, a necessity in connecEion



PAGE 39

with this litigarion, obviouely Ehe whole anount of Ttrree llundred Eighty-Eight

and no/100 (9388.00) Dollars rras not attributable Eo Major v. Treen. It is

obvioue that the stop loede by Miss Guinier in Raleigh Durha waa in connection

withanoEher1itigationwhich9hewashand1ing,naoe1y,@,

totally unrelated Eo the present rnetler before the courE. Mise Guinier has

made no aEteEpt Eo suggest or prove to the court Ehe cost of round trip air

flighg frm Raleigh Durham Eo Nes Orleans and back to Raleigh Durham which

would be the cosE of air fare reasonably attributed Eo Major v. Treen. Since

it is Miss Guinierts burden Eo eetablish the anount for which she should be

reimbursed, this clain may not be adjudicated unEil Us. Guinier provides the

court wirh credicable proof aa Eo Ehe amount which should be allocated Eo Ehat

porEion of her air travel from Raleigh Durham to New Orleans and back Eo

Raleigh Durhan. Ms. Guinier will be allowed to so suppleoent, the record.

Ttre requesE for reimburseoent in connecEion with fees paid to local t,axis

in June of 1983 shall be disallowed in its enEirety for Ehe failure Eo Present

receipts Eo document these exPenses.

The Four Hundred Seventy-Eight and 59/100 ($478.59) Dollars requesE for

food, travel and lodging expenses incurred in June of 1983 in connection with

the heering in New Orteans shall be allowed in its entirety. Ttre SEaEe has

argued Ehat someone ocher than Miss Guinier could have argued rhis motion.

The court will not substituEe its judgnent for the strategic judgment of

counsel viewed wittr trinasight. Ttre full amount of this clain will be allowed.

Ttre clairn for Five Hundred Ttrirty-Five and 75/l0O ($535.75) Dollars for

food, Eravel and lodging on behalf of Napoleon B. Williams incurred in June



PAGE 40

19g3 will be disallowed in its entirety. Mr. Wi11i:I6s rdas noE counsel of

record; he was not actively involved in this litigeEion nor was he necessary

to a proper representetion of plaintiff's claims. Ttris anount shall be

disalloned.

As wifh other claims where there has been a lack of receipt furnished Eo

Ehe SEaEe to subsEanEiaCe the amount expended, the claio for reioburseEenE for

local taxi farea in July, 1984 will be disallowed'

Miss Guinier requests reiobursenenE on behalf of the legal defense fund

for photo eopying in the anount of One Thousand I\po Ilundred Eighty-Nine and

O7llOO ($1,289.07) Dollars. *rirty-Five and 55/100 (935.55) Dollars of Ehat

aEount sill be disallosed for lack of a receipc Eo substantiate t,he expense.

In addition, the SEace argues Ehat a further Three llundred Ttrirty-Two and

IO/lOO (S332.10) should be disallowed as represenEing exceesive or unnecessary

photo copying. Ttre court will a1low Miss Guinier to be reimbursed on behalf

of the legal defense fund in Ehe anount of One Thousand Two llundred

Fifty-Three and 52/LOO ($1,253.52) Dollars. The nuuber of photo copies made

herein should not necessarily be Iirnited Eo Ehe number needed for-service on

counsel. According to Miss Guinier's affidavit, it was necessary thaE Ehis

phoco copying be done and Eherefore the legal defense fund will be reimbursed

in this arDount.

Insofar a3 Ehe postage necessary Eo nail the oPPosition Eo the

inrervenEion ro Mr. I{illin Quigley in the amount of Thirty-Four ($34.00)

Dollars is concerned, t,his amount will be disallowed. There have been no

receipts Eo subsEantiate this amount provided Eo Ehe SEaEe Eo verify che

expense. As there are no receipEs Eo substantiate the full one Hundred



PAGE 4I

Sixry-Six and 78/1OO ($165.78) DoIlars on the long distance reimbursemenE

soughE on behalf of the legal defense fund, the full amounE of this requesEed

reiobursemenr wilt nor be granted. Ninety-Three and 70/100 ($93.70) Dollars

will be granted as having been verified expenditures. The enEire prnounE

requesred for legal printing which ras paid on July 14, 1983 in the anounE of

Fifty-Ttrree and 5O/1OO ($53.50) Dollars will likewise be denied for failure Eo

produce a receipt to subeEantiate Ehe sum sought '

Eighry-Six and 65/1OO ($86.55) Dollars reimburseEent is requested in

connecEion with the payoenc of Aesociated Investigators for service of

subpoenas. Ttre State objeccs to this expense on Lhe grounds Ehat there is no

record or itemized receipt of who was served' for what PurPose the service t aa

needed or when the service rraa accouplished. T'he court noEes EhaE at the tiue

a requisiEion was requested from the legal defense fund by Miss Guinier Ehe

charge eras categorized es .one for special research rather Ehan for service of

subpoenas. Since the court is unsure ag t,o who was Co be served, when Ehe

service eres to be accooplished .and 
for what purposes service was sought,

thereby making it impossible to det,ermine wheEher this amounE was a necessary

expense, this auount will be disallowed in ics entirety'

Reimbursement in the amount of One Ttrousand Six Hundred Fifty-Four and

9O/IOO (91,554.90) Dollars is soughE in connection with the expenses of Gordon

lienderson, expert witness, on March 28, 1983 in connection with his

deposirion. Six Hundred Seventy{ne arrd 92/100 ($671.92) Dollars of this

aEount will be discarded as no receipts were produced Eo subsEanEiaEe the sumg

claimed. Of Ehe aroounts for which receiPEs were produced, Six and no/100

($5.00) DoIlars in ground transportation has been stipulated as reasonable by

Ehe Sgare. Five Hundred Twenty-Four and no/100 ($524.00) Dollars in air fare



PAGE 42

is requested. llowever, Ehe record reftects EhaE this sum lras expended by Mr.

llenderson for purposes of traveling frou New Orleans co Cincinnati to Dayton,

Ohio by first class inetead of by coach. Ttre courE is of the opinion thaE

there should be some reimbursenenE for Ehe aoount of this air fare, buE on Ehe

basis of a coach Eicket a8 opposed to a first class ticket. Ttrerefore, Miss'

Guinier, on behalf of Ehe legal defense fund, will have the option of

presenting Eo Ehe court soDe EyPe of proof by way of affidavit frou Delta Air

Lines, Inc. aa go the cost of a coach ticket from l'Iew Orleans to Cincinnati Co

Dayton, Ohio during Ehe relevant tiBe period. The ful1 amount of !tr'

Henderson, s bill et che Roya1 Orleans will be allowed which is Four Eundred

Ninereen aad, 23/ 100 (94rg.23) Dollars as well as the restaurent bill at Gins

Mee ltong RegEauranE for Itrirty-Eight and 751L00 ($38.75) Dollars- The court

is exercising its discretion to allow reimbursement for the exPenses of out of

Eowr witnesses. Daeher y. Mutual Life Ins. co. of N.Y., 78 F.R.D. 142 (S'D'

ca 1978).

Expenses in rhe amount of One Thousand Two and 19/100 ($1,002.19) Dollars

paid to G. Gordon llenderson in conection with his crial aPPearance before this

court is sought. Said reimburseEent, occurring on May 31, 1983, is denied in

iEs enEiret,y. No receipts have been produced Eo substanEiate Ehe amounE

requested.

Lastly, reiubursemenE ie sought for the services of Janice McCoughan, a

laur sEudent working at Ehe behest. of Ms. Guinier on certain asPecEs of this

litigation. After review of this Eime sheet, the court does not feel chis

work was necessary to pl.aintiff's prevailing herein. Liberal amounEs of time

have been allowed counsel of record in this litigacion Eo ProPerly represenE

cheir respective clients. This itero wiIl be disallowed.

Of Ehe contested amounts Eherefore, Che following constiEuEes t'he

expenses allowed Eo Ms. Guinier on behalf of the Legal Defense Fund:



PAGE 43

rrEl't REQUESTED BY LDF FOR TRAVEL, FOOD AND lgpGrNG

conference with counsel and plaintiffs in New orleans
Decenber, l98l

Travel to Washington June, 1982 Eo review Justice
Departueut files

Travel to t{ashington, D.C. Deceober, 1982 to review
Justice Department files

llearing on pre-trial mocions, depoeitions and trial
preparacion JanuarY, 1983

Trial preparetion and trial March, 1983

Post-trial brief, review of exhibits, confer wiEh co-
atcounsel in New Orleans MaY, 1983

Local taxis June, 1983

Ilearing l{ew Orteans, June, 1983

Ilearing ldew Orleans (Napoleon B. Willias), June, 1983

Local Eaxis JulY, 1984

Photo copying

Postage in connection with transPorting opposiuion
Eo inEervenEion co willian Quigley

Long distance Eelephone cal1s

Legal printing

Associated Investigators for service of subpoena
February, I983

Gordon Henderson expenses for depoeition, March 1983

plus an undeEermined amounc for airfare

Expenses - E. Gordon Henderson in connection with trial
May 31, 1983 plus an undetermined auount' for airfare

Servicee of Janice McCaughan from llay 14, 1983 ehrough

MOUNT ALLOI{ED

$ 514.29

-0-

-0-

-0-
860. 00

Undeteroined
present

-0-
478.59

-0-
-0-

$1,253.52

-0-
. 93.70

-0-

-0-
453. 98

-0-

-0--T3;U6-4.d5-May 29, L982



PAGE 44

Ttre court will now turn atEenEion Eo the request of plaintiffs'counsel

for aEt,orneysr fees for Litigating the above caPtioned motion to assess fees.

Again, 88 E,o each aEtorney, the i@ factors will be considered

individually.

1. The Time and Labor Required.

Miss Guinier seeks Sixty (60) hours Eime at One llundred Sixty and

no/100 ($160.00) Dollars per hour for a Eotal fee of Nine Ttrousand Six llundred

and no/Ioo ($9r500.00) Dollars. t{irh regard to the iEelBized statement, of

agrorney tine designated in Appendix A on plaintiffsr exhibit 8 for the

tine period July 27, 1984 through Octobet 24, 1985, Ehe court disallowe all

telephone conversations with Ur. Quigley and Mr. Kellogg re aEtorneys' fees.

Mr. Quigley and ttr. Kellogg did not represent Miss Guinier in the attorney fee

hearing and such discussione betrreen co-plaintiffs are not productive Eo

uoving rhis oaErer forward expeditiously. Three and 9/100 (3.9) hours

wi1l rherefore be disallowed from this billing and 6lLO (.6) hours allowed

which represent a telephone call with Larry Menefee, counsel for Miss Guinier,

in connection with this oatter on October 24, 1984. On Miss Guinierts

statement of atEorney tine from lt&rvember 18, 1984 Ehrough March 29, 1985,

Ehe courE makes the following allowances:

SERVICES RENDERED

Conservation with Larry Menefee 11:30 co 12:05 re
on Eo produce on 1llL9/84

Preparation for deposicion on at,Eorneys' fee moEion
7:30 to 9:30 p.rn. on LL/20/84

Review time slips, eEc. for deposition Ll/21184
AII other tine billed on Lll2L/84 i,s disallowed'

Telephone conversation with Larry Menefee It:31-
to 12 noon - discussion re deposition on 11 126184
AII other itemsizations on this date are disaltowed.

HOURS ALLOWED

.6

2.0

1.0

.4



PAGE 45

SERVICES RENDERED

EnEriee f,or LLl27l84 of .4 hours. A1l of these entries are
disregarded

Trave1 Eo Weshington' D.C. to dePosition and preparation
on plane od LLl28/84

Met with Larry Menefee for forry-five minute deposition by
Kendall wick 1-l/2 hours on ll /29184

Reviewed and correcEed deposition L2/LL/84

lleeting with Quigley and I(ellogg LZlL3l84
Disaltoned in its entireEY

ConversaEion re aEtorneys' fees with Annand Derfner
LzlL9l84. Disallosed in ics entirely

ftrirty oinuces reviewing Larryrs draft rootion setEing
caee for Judge Ll23/85. Disallorcd encirely

Conversation with Larry and Richard Laweon re aEtorneysl
fees l/30/85.

conversation with Larry Menefee re defendantrs motion Eo

produce. Revierred LarryIs leEter 3lLSl85

Production of docuoenEs for defendants PursuenE to court
order 3/18/85

preparation of response Eo defense ooEion for production
of docnoedts 3/22185

Preparation of resPonse Eo defense tnotion Eo produce
docuoenEs oo 3125185

Conversation with Menefee re production of documents in
response to defenee motion on aEtorneyst fees 3/25185

Preparation of resPonse to defendantsr request for docurnenEs

per court order 3126/85

Conversation with Larry Menefee re PreParation of response
to defendants' requesE for production 3l27lg5

Conference with Bill Quigley and Steve Scheckman re
preparation of response Eo defendants t requesE Eo Produce
ort 3/28185. Disallowed entirely.

Conversation with SEan Halpin re deposition of Martin Feldman
3124/85. Disallowed encirelY.

IIOURS ALLOIIED

.0

3.0

2.3

I.0

0

0

0

.4

.5

1.8

2.5

I.9

.3

2.1

3.0



PAGE 45

SERVICES RENDERED

Attended depoeition of Gervis Leonard frou 9:15 to
11:45, travel frou Gervis Leonard'e office Eo legal
defenge fund office and discusaed strecegy re
department of juatice depoeition from l1:45 to 1:00 p'n'
ot 4124/85. Disalloned entirely.

Conversation with Larry Menefee re hearinS od 4129185

ConversaEion with SEan llalpin re Martin Feldman de-
poeition. Disallowed entirelY.

PreparaEion of supplemental affidavit and exhibits
nork on 5lL/85

Review of Gervis' cloeing staEenenE 5lL/85

Preparation of suppleuental affidavit and preparaEion
for hearing on 512185

conference sich co-counset and expert re hearing before
Magistrace and Eravel and reviewing defense objectione
and exhibitg on 515/85

Ilearing before t'lagistrate and various conferences Eith
coungel oa 516/85

Court appearence 5/7 185

TIOURS

0

.4

0

1.9

0

2.7

0

10. 0

8.3

TOTAL 49.3

I{iIlian Quigley requests compensation for Ttrirty-Nine and 65/100 (39.55)

hours in connection with his activity in connection with assessment of

aEtorneys' fees. By way of supplemental affidaviE, Mr. Quigley has specified

the acciviEy, Ehe daEe and the time for which he seeks reinbursement. The

following consEiEutes Ehe activicies for which the courE grants !'lr. Quigley

compensat ion:



PLCE 47

DISCTIPIrOT O? AGTIVITT

Prcperrtion of rttoro.Jrrr f,cce rffidavic froo
rccordo 2l9l*
Dcporicioo pr.p.rrGiot, drporirioo rnd cctinS. rith
l{onofre, rc: dircryexT Ll7lE5

Ltttr Eo courG eod. lcttcr Eo l{.n.fce , rc: chengc of
rddrcr L|LS|EJ

Prrprrrcioo oC .rD.rE effidrvito-rnd lrtccrr to trP.rcl'
p6i6eti,m of rrpgl,mt.l .:?.n ., gl|...tch rffidrvitr
4lJl8'

Bcccivcd rnd rrvicr'Iouiriror objcctionr Eo bourt

tclophoe coof*lect rith Lrrry ltnrfcrr r.3 ca.tirroy
5ltl85

t{aatiog rittr ell counlcl, rG: ctiel PrGP.rrEios 513185

Trirl rnd. triel prcp.a.cion rGi orhibic r.P., docuocn-
trtion for houra 516185

Trirl tl7lt5
Prcperecion of effidevi.t co Scrta tlL0l85

Prcparatioa of effidrvit for State 5128185
TO?AL

TI}G AIJOI|ID;

5.75

2.5

.I

Bccrivcd rnd rrvicu, Iouieirne iatcrrogrtoricr md lctter
fror connul 3lLTl85 '7

?rrtritt cocfrrlacr' rna r.tint sith' cogoccl rr36dinS triel
pr.p.r.tioa 3/30/85' Z'5

I.t
1-2

-5

r.2

10.0

r.00,

r.5

3.5

-r3r
In ell oghcr r.rpGct., the rctiviEice for rtrich !ft'. Quiglay reeke

reirbursaueuE tre HIID.



PAGE 48

Steven Scheckman seeks reimbursenent for an added 34.5 hours in

connection with the fee petiEion. The following consEiLutes the iEeme for

which che court allowe reimbursement to l{r. Scheckman:

WORKED PERFORI'{ED.-Preparatioffid Eioe sheet frou records
L/ L9 /85

Deposicion aE AEtorney General's office L/7/85

Analyeis for Attorney Menefee of number of depositions
with nuobers of attorneys for each party and number of
exhibits, including subparts and letEer re sane to
Menefee 2/13/85

Prelininary review and analysis of State's objeetiona Eo

our atEorney's fee request 4/9185

Attorneys fees trial and preparaEion for trial 516185

AEEorneys Fees trial (I did noc attend Ehe entire day)
5/7 /85

preparaEion of suppleuental affidavic and Eime sheet 5lLLl85

Preparation of testiuony by review of State's objection to
ny fee request, detail analysis of sEacefs exhibits A-K and

outline of other Eestimonial topics of inportance 5/ffl85

Actorney Fee trial 5lL4/85

Preparation of affidaaviE re: Staters objeccions Eo uy fee
reque8r,6/2/85

TOTAL

TIOURS ALLOIIED

2.0

2.0

.8

.9

1I. 0

2.0

.7

2.0

4.2

3.5T

In all other respects, Mr. Scheckmants requests for conPensation in connection

with the fee hearing is IIENIED.

R. James Kellogg 46.2 hours in compensable tirne in connection wich che

aEgorney fee liCigaEion. Ttre following consEituEes Ehe items which will be

allowed Eo Mr. Kellogg:



PAGE 49

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY

PCT Patricia Bower re: aEtorney's fees 3/L9184

t{eet sith Ms. Boners 412/84

Phone calls with Boners and Srinier 419184

Phone call crith Menefee, Lani, Bill and Steve 6/L5184

Phone iall to Menefee 9/6/84

Phone call frou nenefee LL/20184

Depositiod Ll7 /85

Reeponse Eo requesc for production of documents
pursuent to court order 3lL0l85

rbid 3/12185

Letter Eo Menefee re: request for producEion 3ll3l85

Review Louisiana inEerrogatories and leEter from counsel
3l L7 /8s

Phone caLL from Menefee 3129/85

Preparation for testiuony; treet with Larry, Frank, Stan,
etc. 5 14185

Review depoation, and PrePare Eeetiaony; aEEorneys feee
hearing 515185

Fees heari.ig,5l6l85

Fees hearir.g 5lL4l85

Preparation of effidavit of objectiona 5/22/85

Preparation of supplemenEal fees application 6/6/85
TOTAL

HOURS ALI,O9IED

.25

I.50

.50

.50

.25

.50

1.00

2.00

2.00

.25

1.25

.25

2.00

10.50

7. 50

3. 50

3. 50

I .50

-.75-

In all oEher respects t.he services for which Mr. Kellogg seeks

reimbursement wilI be disallowed.

Armand Derfner requests a Eotal of 25.9 hours coupensable time in

connection wich Ehe atEorney fee hearing. Since Mr. Derfnerrs claim has been



PAGE 50

disallot ed on ghe main litigation, his tine in connecEion with the fee hearing

will likewise be disallorrcd in its entirety'

In connection with Ehe motion for aEEorney's fees, SEanley llalpin has

requested conpensagion for sevenEy-Ehree and 75/LOO hours (/3'75) hours' 0f

EhaE requesEed eEounE, Ehe following tioe will be granted to l'tr. Ilalpin as

compensable: ITEU HOURS ALLOIIED

Response Eo defendantrs discovery regarding leee,
doclment producEion, interrogatories . LL/L9/84

Response to defendanErs discovery, documents to be

provided. lll24184

Preparation for Feldman deposicion, review of materials
produced by discovery from Felduanrs firn. 412Ol85

Preparation for Feldman deposition. 4/24/85

Preparation for testimony, review of defendanErs
objlctions to specific cine icems (1.5); prepare with
Itenefee, review maEerials (2.0) in preparation for
hearing. 515/85

Hearing before MagistraEe regarding fees; testimony of
Strickier, Leonard, Etc. (5.5); Italpin EesEimony (3'0) '
517 l8s

DicEaEion of supplemental affidavic in response Eo

defendanE's objections H, I, J, K. 5l18/85

Dictation of supplemental affidavit in response Eo

defendanEts objection L (expenses) and remainder of
affidavic. 5/L/85

Confer wich 1,. t'lenefee Q.25); deposition of S. Halpin
re fees (3.0). LLl27/84. A11 oEher items billed for chat
date are DEIIIED.

preparaCion for Feldman deposiCion, reading and analysis
of Leonardrs deposition Q.5); deposition of Judge
Feldrnan (2.0). 5l I/85. A11 other iEems billed for thaE

daEe are DEIIIED.

2.25

1.75

I. 75

1.75

3.5

8.5

2.75

r.25

5.25

4.5

Hearing before Magistrate regarding fees (6'0) ' 5/6/85
AII other irems billed for EhaE daEe are DEIIIED. 6'0

Preparacion for hearing and hearing (4.0). 5/L4/85
All other iEems billed for chat daEe are DENIBD. 4'0

TOTAL 43.25



PAGE 5I

All other items requested by Llr. Halpin will be DEXIED.

Larry ltenefee, counsel represenEing the aforemenEioned at,Eorneys in this

moEion Eo assess fees, requesEs cmpensat.ion for a toEal of two hundred

sixty-six ar.d TllOO (266.7) hours in conneccion with Ehe fee litigation. The

SEaEe has acknowledged Ehat iE has no objection Eo the number of hours billed

by Mr. Menefee for his Iegal work other Ehan Ehose hours incurred for Eravel.

Ttre court concurs with the defendant in this regard. There has been no

showing of necessicy to hire out of Eoqrt counsel to handle che attorney fee

EaEEer. CompeEenE counsel were presenE in New Orleans who could have been

employed or aIEern8Eively Messers. Kellogg, Quigley or Schecknann could have

handled chis aspecE of the case. Accordingly, thirty (30) hours will be

disallowed from the Ewo hundred sixty-six ar.d 7/100 (266.7) hours requesced by

Mr. Menefee, this being Ehe number of hours billed by Mr. Menefee which were

incurred for Eravel time. Chrapliwv v. Uniroval, Inc., 670 F.2d 760 (7Eh

Cir. 1982).

Ihe reason Ehat Ehe courE has disallowed all other iEems requested by

counsel oEher Ehan Ehe above are several fold. First, counsel on the main

demand exercised E.heir discretion and hired Mr. Menefee, a stranger to t.he

principle lirigation, Eo represent. EheE in Ehe fee hearing. AE Ehe poinc thaC

original counsel became clients of Mr. Menefee, Ehere is no need Ehat chey

charge, and Ehat Ehe State pay for, Eime sPent in discussing sErategy with

co-counsel, reviewing depositions, sitting in on depositions and looking over

Mr. Menefee's shoulder in their representation. Ttrey cannot assume Ehe role

of counsel and client aE Ehe same Eime. As counsel for a prevailing Party,



PAGE 52

the original five (5) attorneys are enticled Eo reasonable comPensarion when

Chey 1itigaEe Eheir ordn claios for entiElemen! to Section 1988 fees. Johnson

I2o5 (llth Cir. 1983); Johneon v. MississiPpi,606 F.2d 635 (5ttr cir. 1979).

IE is noE appropriate in every case for an aEEorney Eo hire counsel Eo

prosecut.e his Section 1988 fee applicaEion and indeed cases where this is done

are Ehe excepEion and not Ehe rule. Jonas v. Stacks, 758 F.za' 567 (llth Cir.

1985). Since fees are being allowed to Mr. Menefee under a seE of

circ,mstances wherein it is marginal whether or not plaintiffs needed to hire

hio to pursue this aEtoruey fee question, Ehe court is mosc cognizanE thaE

Ehere be no duplication of effort on Ehe ParE of couneel and Mr. Menefee for

which coopenslagion is being alloned to both. Instead the court is oaking

every efforC to grant coBPensat,ion for Eime expended by all counsel which

consEit,uted a bare bone necessity in carrying Ehrough wiEh the litigation of

chis motion.

There is also auEhority for the fact t.hat t'tr. Menefee is improperly

before Ehis court seeking a fee as he rras ooE counsel of record in the iniCial

Iitigacion. Jonas v. SEacks, supra. However, since counsel who benefited

frou Mr. Menefee's representaEion could supplement Eheir fee applicaEion Eo

include his fee as a cost and/or expense, Ehe court wilL address Ehe issue as

Chough l,tr'. Menefee \rere properly before Ehe court in order to compleEely

dispose of plainciff's SecEion 1988 claim.

The court Ehus finds that fee counsel and !lr. Menefee should receive

aEEorneys' fees for a Eotal of.436.05 hours divided as follows:

v. University Col1 of the University of Alabaua in Birninghan, 706 F'2d



PAGE 53
ATTORNEY ITOURS ALLOIIEDT

49.3

38. 75

29.1

38.95

-0-
236.7

SuanleY HalPin

Lani Guinier

James Kellogg

SEeven Scheckman

Willian Quigley

Arnand Derfner

Larry T. Menefee

Noveltv and Difficulty of che Qqeetion

The Batter of calcutating fees herein did not PresenE a novel or

difficult question. It ras basically Ehe collection of bookkeeping

inforoation in order to eacertain nunber of hours, hourly rate and cust.oEary

fee.

The Requisite Legal Ski1l

Ttrese aEtorneys involved in this litigation lrere noE oPerating in the

field of rheir expertise in litigating this aEEorneys' fee mocion. Ttris

proceeding required tedious gaEhering of informaEion and supplementing Ehe

information with receiPts t,o back uP exPenses. The maEter required far more

bookkeeping and accounting skills than it did lega1 skills.

preclusion of Other Euplorruent

Fee counsel suffered very smal1 preclusion of other employmenE because

chey eoployed Mr. Menefee to represent Ehem in this litigation. Preclusion of

employment, as far as l,!r. Menefee is concerned, is of no consequence. l'1r.

Menefee witl be paid an hourly rate for his efforts in Ehis matEer.

The Custmrarv Fee

Fee counsel have request,ed compensation at. Ehe sane raEe for which Ehey

sought cmpensaEion on Ehe main demand. It is, however, uni,srranted Eo granE

counsel his or her besE hourly rate attainable in cheir field of expertise

when they are nog functioning in an area where their expertise is needed.



PAGE 54

Flowers v. I{iley, 675 f.2d,704 (5rh Cir. 1982). Ttre court is of the opinion

rhaE an hourty race of Eighcy and no/I00 ($80.00) Oollars per hour for

original counsel is sufficienE on Ehe fee application. As Eo Mr. Menefee, an

hourly rate of One Ilundred and no/100 ($fOO.00) Dollars Per hour is

appropriate to reflect his added responsibility in coordinating chis effort.

Fixed or ConEincenE Fee

Counsel handled Ehis EatEer on a contingency fee basis. That is Eo say',

no monieg lrere received during Ehis lirigation Eo conPensate Mr. Menefee or

fee couneel for services rendered. tlorrever, there Las very little risk of

failure on the part of plainciffs in this particular piece of litigation.

Again, this litigation proceeded along a reasonable time table. Ttre

court preceives no undue constraints upon counsel in meeting Ehis courtrs

deadlines.

The Amount Involved and the Result obtained

plaintiffs sought in excess of Eight Hundred ltrousand and no/100

($8OO,OO0.OO) Dollars in conneccion with this fee application. The result

obtained is t,o geE approximately twenCy-five (257) percent of Chat which was

reques ted.

The Experience, Reputation and Abilitv of the Attornevs

This has been conrmented upon under Ehe same caEegory in connection with

Ehe main demand. As far as l'{r. l.lenefee's work is concerned, he also has an

excellenE repuEation and has conducted himself wich exEreme professionalism

throughout chis enEire matter.

Undesirabilitv of Ehe Case

The court sees nothing undesirable on Ehe part of counsel in pursuing

fees earned in connecE,ion with their efforts on Ehe main deuand.

Tine Liuitations ed by Ehe Client or Ehe Clrcunstances of Eh



PAGE 55

The Length of the Relationghip with che Client

The court cennoE corwnenB on Ehe length of che relationehip nor wheEher

these et,Eorneys witl again enploy l{r. Menefee to aesisE Eheu in obtaining

collection of their fees.

Awards in Siroilar Cases

Ttre court is of the opinion EhaE an hourly rate of Eighty and no/100

($80.00) Dollaro per hour is in Line with the awards in other litigations.

Flowere v. Wilev, supra. Bolden v. Cicv of Mobile' suPra. Ttre courE declines

to grant a nulciplier in connecEion with Ehe attorney fee litigation, seeing

no reeson Eo auguenr a fair hourly reEe.

In conneccion nifh Ehe motion for aEtorneysr fees Stanley llalpin has

requesEed Four Bundred Ttrirty-Seven and 40/f00 (94.37.40) Dollars in exPense

reimbursemenE. Of Ehe aEounEs requesEed, t,he following rill be granted by the

court:

ITEI.{

Mileage, round trip, Lafayecte to New

raites aE 21+ per nile . LLIZT /84

Mileage, round trip, LafayeEte to New

miles at 2f+ per mile. 5lL/85

Lunch, Crepe Nanou. 5lLl85

Itileage, round Erip, Lafayette Eo New

miles aE 2t+ per uile. 5/6/85

Dinner, Tortia Flacs. 516/85

Hotet charge, I{otel Richelieu. 515 &

Mileage, round trip, LafayeEEe to New

miles at 21+ per mile. 5ll4l85

Dinner at Eddie's. 5/L4/85

Orleans, 272

Orleana, 272

Orleans, 272

6l 8s

Orleans, 272

AUOI'NT ALLOWED

$ 57. 12

57 .12

5.45

57 .12

L4.22

133.20

57.12

10.50

TOTAL 39 1.85



PAGE 56

The court. awards these arEounEs based on Ehe court's agreeuent Ehat Ehe

oileage charged is a standard amounE accepEable to mosE businesses. The oEher

anounts are allowed based on Ehe fact that ltr. Ilalpin has presenEed receipts

Eo substanEiEaEe these Pay6engs. Of Ehe ot,her items requested, Ehere have

been no receipEs presenEed Eo Ehe court and Eherefore Ehese amounts will be

disallowed.

Larry Menefee claimed Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Seven and

g4/lOO ($15rI87.84) Dollars in expenses in connecEion with the aEtorney fee

hearing. Ttre State objects only Eo Mr. Menefee's expenses in four (4) areas.

First, travel exPenses relaEed Eo his travel to New Orleans are questioned'

Ihese expenses will be disallowed in cheir entireEy. There has been no

showing Eo Ehis court Ehat coEpecenE counsel eras not available in Nei orleans

for purposes of represenEing fee counsel. Mr. Menefee's Eravel exPenses Eo

and frou Ehe ciEy therefore were unnecessary and shall not be charged Eo the

State. Ttre courE has examined Mr. Menefee's affidaviE as Eo expenses and

finds Ehar Ehe sum of Nine Hundred Ttrirty-Eight aod 621100 ($938.62) Dollars

relaEes to his Eravel exPenses Eo and from Che meE,roPolitan area.

The StaCe objects Eo reimbursing Mr. Menefee for posEage expended

asserting EhaE posEage is a Batter of overhead which should be included in the

hourly raEe. The court rejects the State's argument in this regard and will

allow Mr. Menefee comPensation for t,he fuII amount of his posEage exPenses'

Thirdly, Ehe SEate excepts t.o reimbursemenE for meals claimed by Mr.

Menefee ar, Cafe Sbisa in Ehe amounE of Sixty-Two and 55/i00 ($62.55) DoIIars;

Archna Indian Resgaurant in the a.nount of Sixty-Four and 38/100 ($64.38)

Dollars and ResEaurant Jonathan for One Hundred Sixty and no,/100 ($160.00)

Dollars. Obviously, more Ehan one person enjoyed a meal based on



PAGE 57

Ehese prices. There has been no showing or discussion as to who the other

parties Eo Ehese meals might have been and t.he courE declines Eo infer chat it,

was Mr. flalpin or Ms. Guinier. Ttre court will allow Twenty-One and no/100

($2t.00) Dollars on Ehe Cafe Sbisa bilt; Twent,y-Three and no/100 ($23.00)

Dollars on Ehe Archna Indian Restaurant bill and Forty and no/100 ($40.00)

Dollars on the bill at ResEauranE JonaEhan.

Lastly, Ehe Sgate objects to a bill for Four Hundred EighEy-One and

25/LOO (g48I.25) Dollars for phoco copying requesced by Mr. Menefee on the

basis that there is no reference as Eo what was copied or for what purpose,

thereby naking an evaluation of Ehe reasonableness of the exPense inpossible.

The court concurs wich the SEate in this regard'

In light of the recent Fifth Circuit ruling in $, suPra, Ehe sum of

Nine Ttrousand Two Hundred F.ifty-One and 32/100 ($9,251.32) Dollars clained by

Mr. Menefee is further disallowed by the court. This'suu rePresenEs an amounE

expended on experEs which is not noq, comPensable since noE specifically

provided for by sEaEuEe. Accordingly, the sum of Five Thousand Ttrree Hundred

Ttrirteen and,72/iOO (95,313.72) wiIl be awarded to t'Ir. Menefee in connection

eriEh his expenses in the handling of Ehe atEorneys' fee litigacion.

Lani Guinier seeks One Thousand Eighc Hundred Fifteen and 80/I00

($I,815.80) Dollars in exPensee incurred by che Legal Defense Fund in

connection wich Ehe fee hearing. These expenses are iEemized in Appendix B,

C, D and E of Miss Guinier's affidaviE enEered inEo evidence as plaintiffs'

exhibit 8. With regard Eo Ehe expenses claimed on Appendix B, the court

allows all amounts requested for photo copying excepEing the Fifty-Four and

3OllO0 ($54.30) Dollars for photo copying on March 25, 1985. Miss Guinier has

not presenEed contemporaneous records Eo suPPorE Ehis exPense. Rarher the



PAGE 58

records which she has produced indicate photo copying in Ehe anounE of Seven

and 10/100 ($7.10) Dollars and this figure will be a1loqrcd for a total of One

Hundred fifteen and 85/1OO ($115.85) Dollars in Phoco copying exPensee'

Furtheruore, Ehe futl amount of Fourteen Dollars and no/100 ($I4.00) in

poscage expenses will be allowed but all telephone calls amounEing to Three

Hundred Ninery-Five and 20/LOO ($395.20) Dollars will be disalloqrcd as Ehere

are no recorde from the telephone conpany Eo esEablish the anount billed to

the Legal Defense Fund. Ihe only records presented to Ehe court are records

indicating Ehe daEe and time and number of uinutes of these various t,elephone

calls but there are no documents indicating Ehe acEual dollar amount paid by

the Legal D,efense Fund in connecEion therewith. Of the aaount sought for

posEage and photocopying, a EoEal of One Hundred Twenty-Nine and 85/100

($129.85) Dollars will be allowed.

Miss Guinier requesEs One Thousand Fifty-Two and 45/LOO ($1,052.45)

Dollars in reimbursemene for Eravel, food and lodging in connection wich the

agrorney fee ootion; Ttre court wilt allow Ten and 50/100 ($10.50) Ootlars in

rransportaEion; Ttrree Hundred Twenty-Four and 4Ol100 ($324.40) Doliars in

hoEel bills and ForEy-Five and no/lQQ ($45.00) Dollars in air fare. It is

unclear from the records present.ed by I'liss Guinier as Eo Ehe cosE, of her air

transportation on May 5, 1985 from New York Eo New Orleans and the cosE of her

return flight. IE is also unclear from Ehe documents presented whether she

flew coach class or firsE class on fhis occasion. The court feels a

reimbursemenE for coach class fare is in order and will allow Miss Guinier Eo

present, by way of leEEer Eo Ehe court, information as Eo whether she flew

coach class or first class and Ehe amount expended Eherefore. All oEher

requested amouncs will be DENIED as unsuPPorEed by receipts.



PAGE 59

In Appendix D, Miss Guinier presents claims for special research, service

of subpoenas and legal printing and oailing. Ttre five and 85/100 (95.85)

Dollars service of subpoena exPense will be allowed. Ttre Forty-Seven and

25lLOO ($47.25) Dollars expense Co susie wong for special research is

disallowed. The narure of rhe regearch is noE specified and if it pertains Eo

ghe attorney fee mot.ion Miss Guinier had counsel in the form of Mr' Menefee,

who could have performed any such special research required' Ttre Seventy-I\ro

and 75/ lOO ( 172.75) Dollars expense for copying and mailing information from

Gincles v. Edmisten is disall0wed. Ttre nature of the oaterial is not

specified nor is Ehe necessitY.

Ttre Sixty-Five atd 75l1OO ($65.75) DoIIars requested reimburseuenE

ouElined on Appendix E is DEIIIED in its enciregy as being unrelated Eo Ehe

attorney fee motion, having been incurred aE a point of tiue when Ehe uain

titigation rras 3ti11 ongoing.

In Conclusion, Ehe court feels consgrained to coqrmeng upon ghe

allegations made by ptaintiff relative Eo the alleged failure of the defendanc

Eo seEEle Ehis nat,Eer becausettEhe case rras a political issue beEween Ehe

currenE and former SEate Administrations". The courE notes EhaE a seEtlement

conference vras conducE.ed subsequenE to Ehe Crial of this matEer in 1985'

Subsequent to EhaE settlemeng conference, which occurred in late May, Che

St,ate made a valid, significanE and good-faith seEElemeng offer to Ehe

plaintiffs. The amounC of that settleEent offer did not substantially vary

from the aoounE awarded Eo counsel herein. This court does not consider thaE

Ehe SEaEe's choice to litigate is in bad faith when Ehe amount of money soughE

by counsel herein was excessive and unrealisEic '



-l

PAGE 60

It is recoumended thac the

fees and exPenses in connection

RECOMI'{ENDATION

following anounts be awarded Eo counsel for

with the main demand:

It is furEher recomended Ehat Ehe following amouncs be anarded Eo

counsel for fees and expenses in connecEion with Ehe moEion Eo asaess

ATTORNEY

Stanley HalPin

C. Lani Guinier

E. Jmes Kellogg

SEeven Scheckmann

Williarn Quigley

Aruand Derfner

aEEorney's fees:

ATTORNEY

Stanley Halpin

-C. Lani Guinier

R. James Kellogg

Steven Scheckmann

Willian Quigley

Armand Derfner

Larry T. Menefee

FEE AI{ARD

$38,526.30

46,291.50

22,950.00

16 , 520. 0o

$11,681.60

-0-ffieffi-

FEE AWARD

$3,460. o0

3 , 944. 0o

3,100.00

2, 328. o0

3, i 15. oo

-0-
23 .670 .00

$39, 618. 0o

COST REIMBURSEMENT

$ 1,037.85

5,601. 83

-0-

5,932.94

-0-

-0-
$L2,572.62

COST REI},TBURSEMENT

$39 I. 85

515,50

-0-

-0-
-0-
-0-

5 ,3L3.72
$ 6,22L.17TOTAL

IE is further reconmended Ehat Eo Ehe extent this opinion provides

counsel with the option of supplemenEing Ehe record with information regarding

airfare, counsel be allowed thirty (30) days within which to supply said

documentat ion .



a. ,'l

PAGE 6I

IE i! furthcr rrconnd.d Eh.E tlgrl intarcot

drtr of jrdg!.at nntil Prid.

co@nc.-to ruu frm thc

I{c* 0rlcenr, Ioulriror, thir tfr, drv of 
W, 

19t6.

8I[.t lE fl3 F[.8 llrirl'tj:.r O&bCi.t:.'!s --
tE DTOE€I8ED. FINDIilGS AND BECOE{EIIDII ?I'Jir
COfiID@ II{ EIABEPCDjrWItEET IEN DATs
EIq :IIE Df,l? EITS GBVICE SIIIA BTB
ll{Tf,G(nIRYED PT! T PBO!' fiiff,EllNc IIIE
PrsrurL ForDrrvGE oN rFpElL IEItrf,IJwmnmrctt Gnr?zd, ro{ (ffb 6iml-