3:14-cv-00064 #185

download 3:14-cv-00064 #185

of 70

Transcript of 3:14-cv-00064 #185

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    1/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    2/70

    - 2 -

    prevailing market rates for civil rights attorneys in the Western District of

    Wisconsin , and a total of each of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ claimed fees after

    applying market-based rates.

    4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the

    Laffey Matrix - 2014-2015. The Laffey Matrix is used by the Civil Division of

    the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia as a basis for

    determining hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels in

    litigation claims. The 2014-2015 Laffey Matrix is publicly available at

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/divisions/Laffey%20Matrix_2014-2015.pdf .

    5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a

    Declaration filed by attorney Bruce R. Meckler, Esq. in support of an

    attorneys’ fee petition in Fox ex rel. Fox v. Barnes , No. 09-CV-05453 (N.D. Ill.)

    (N.D. Ill. Dist. Ct. Dkt. #534). This copy was retrieved from PACER.

    6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a document entitled Affidavit of

    Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Related to the Legislature’s Unsuccessful

    December 13 Motion to Clarify Discovery Orders and December 23 Motion for

    Three-Judge Panel to Review Discovery Orders in Baldus v. Brennan , No.

    11-CV-562 (E.D. Wis.)/ Voces de la Frontera v. Brennan , No. 11-CV-1101,

    (E.D. Wis.), Dkt. #106. Baldus involved a challenge to the State of

    Wisconsin’s legislative redistricting stemming from the 2010 census. This

    affidavit was executed by one of the Baldus Plaintiffs’ counsel, Douglas M.

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 4

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/divisions/Laffey%20Matrix_2014-2015.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/divisions/Laffey%20Matrix_2014-2015.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/divisions/Laffey%20Matrix_2014-2015.pdf

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    3/70

    - 3 -

    Poland of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., and shows hourly billing rates for the

    plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in a high-profile civil rights litigation in

    Wisconsin federal district court. The copy of this affidavit was retrieved from

    PACER.

    7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a document entitled Declaration of

    Peter Earle Regarding Attorney’s Fees in Baldus v. Brennan , No. 11-CV-562

    (E.D. Wis.)/ Voces de la Frontera v. Brennan , No. 11-CV-1101, (E.D. Wis.),

    Dkts. #230 and 230-1. This affidavit was executed by one of the Voces de la

    Frontera Plaintiffs’ counsel, Peter Earle, and shows hourly billing rates for

    the plaintiffs’ attorney s engaged in a high-profile civil rights litigation in

    Wisconsin federal district court. The copy of this affidavit and its exhibits

    was retrieved from PACER.

    8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a document entitled Declaration of

    Declaration of Jacqueline Boyn ton Regarding Attorney’s Fees in Baldus v.

    Brennan , No. 11-CV-562 (E.D. Wis.)/ Voces de la Frontera v. Brennan , No.

    11-CV-1101, (E.D. Wis.), Dkts. #231, 231-1, and 231-2. This affidavit was

    executed by one of the Voces de la Frontera Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jacqueline

    Boynton, and shows hourly billing rates for the plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged

    in a high-profile civil rights litigation in Wisconsin federal district court. The

    copy of this affidavit and its exhibits was retrieved from PACER.

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 3 of 4

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    4/70

    - 4 -

    9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the

    Affidavit of Pamela R. McGillivray that was filed in State of Wisconsin v.

    Susanne U. Breckenridge , 2013FO2105, 2013FO2396 (Dane Co. Cir. Ct.).

    10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the

    Affidavit of Jeff Scott Olson that was filed in State of Wisconsin v. Susanne U.

    Breckenridge , 2013FO2105, 2013FO2396 (Dane Co. Cir. Ct.).

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Dated this 9th day of February, 2015.

    /s/ Clayton P. KawskiCLAYTON P. KAWSKI

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    5/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit A

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-1 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    6/70

    1

    Staff HoursPlaintiffs’

    RatesPlaintiffs’

    FeesMarketRates

    Market-Based Fees

    Mary Anderson, MayerBrown (2013 graduate)

    140.50 $425 $59,712.50 $255 i $35,827.50

    Paige Becker, MayerBrown (unlicensed)

    7.75 $285 $2,208.75 $150 ii $1,162.50

    Timothy Bishop, MayerBrown

    81.75 $980 $80,115.00 $505 iii $41,283.75

    Frank Dickerson,Mayer Brown (2010graduate)

    307.75 $555 $170,523.75 iv $300 v $92,325.00

    Laurence Dupuis, ACLU WIF

    436.79 $450 $196,555.50 $300 vi $131,037.00

    James Esseks, ACLUF 126.30 $650 $82,095.00 $520 vii $65,676.00

    Hans Germann,Mayer Brown(2001 graduate)

    62.00 $705 $43,710.00 $330 viii $20,460.00

    Gretchen Helfrich,Mayer Brown(2009 graduate)

    525.25 $565 $296,766.25 $300 ix $157,575.00

    Gretchen Helfrich,Loevy & Loevy

    25.50 $300 $7,650.00 $300 x $7,650.00

    Marc Kadish,

    Mayer Brown

    13.50 $555 $7,492.50 $0 xi $0.00

    Rebecca Klein, MayerBrown (2011 graduate)

    118.00 $480 $56,640.00 $255 xii $30,090.00

    John Knight, ACLUF(1988 graduate)

    404.50 $450 $182,025.00 $450 xiii $182,025.00

    Linda Shi, MayerBrown (2013 graduate)

    17.00 $480 $8,160.00 $255 xiv $4,335.00

    Kristin Silverman,Mayer Brown(2008 graduate)

    27.25 $595 $16,213.75 $300 xv $8,175.00

    Unidentified MayerBrown paralegals andstaff

    99.75 variable $27,755.00 $0 xvi $0.00

    TOTALS 2393.09 Plaintiffs ’: $1,237,623.00 Market: $777,621.75

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-1 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    7/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    8/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit B

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-2 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    9/70

    LAFFEY MATRIX – 2014-2015

    Years (Rate for June 1 – May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U)

    Experience 14-15

    20+ years 520

    11-19 years 460

    8-10 years 370

    4-7 years 300

    1-3 years 255

    Paralegals &Law Clerks

    150

    Explanatory Notes:

    1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared bythe Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to beused in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees.See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. ' 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom ofInformation Act); 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply to cases in whichthe hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(d).

    2. This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. , 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C.1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds , 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 472 U.S. 1021 (1985).It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the

    "United States Attorney's Office Matrix." The various "brackets" in the column headed "Experience" refer to theyears following the attorney's graduation from law school, and are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3years after law school graduation), "senior associates" (4-7 years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-

    19 years), and "very experienced federal court litigators" (20 years or more). Thus, the "1-3 years" bracket isgenerally applicable to attorneys in their first, second, and third years after graduation from law school, and the "4-7years" bracket generally becomes applicable on the third anniversary of the attorney’s graduation ( i.e. , at the

    beginning of the fourth year following law school). See Laffey , 572 F. Supp. at 371; but cf. EPIC v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , No. 11-2261, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 6047561, *6 -*7 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2013) (attorney notadmitted to bar compensated at "Paralegals & Law Clerks" rate); EPIC v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 982 F. Supp.2d56, 60-61 (D.D.C. 2013) (same).

    3. The hourly rates approved in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. The matrix begins with those rates.See Laffey , 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequentyearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to theapplicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multipleof $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate andthe lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the Consumer PriceIndex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV, as announced by the Bureauof Labor Statistics for May of each year.

    4. Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel , 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently stated that parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by the United States Attorney's Office as evidence of

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-2 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    10/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    11/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit C

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    12/70

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

    RAY A. FOX, by and through hisGuardian, ROSE FOX,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    DAVID BARNES, et al. ,

    Defendants.

    ))

    ))))))))

    No. 09 C 5433Hon. James F. HoldermanChief Judge

    EXPERT REPORT OF BRUCE R. MECKLER, ESQ.

    I. SCOPE OF EXPERT RETENTION AND OPINIONS

    Counsel for Plaintiffs, Loevy & Loevy (“Loevy”), retained me to provide expert opinionson the prevailing hourly rates charged by Chicago counsel in cases involving complex civillitigation. In forming my opinions, I have analyzed pleadings, motions, orders and othermaterials from the instant litigation (“the Fox Litigation”); the time entries Loevy recorded forthe Fox Litigation; biographical and professional information for the Loevy personnel whoworked on the Fox Litigation; and have communicated with Loevy and reviewed variousmaterials concerning the activities and responsibilities of these personnel. I have also reliedupon my own extensive experience with civil litigation, my knowledge of the legal market inChicago, and my experience as an expert on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and the hourlyrates that attorneys charge.

    II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND METHODOLOGY

    A. Experience and Qualifications

    I am a founding partner and co-Chairman of the law firm of Meckler Bulger Tilson

    Marick & Pearson LLP.1

    I am first and foremost a litigator, with my practice primarily focusedupon complex commercial litigation. In my nearly thirty years of practice, I have been both acriminal prosecutor and a civil trial attorney and regularly represent both plaintiffs anddefendants. I frequently serve as litigation counsel in matters venued in this District Court, aswell as in Federal and State courts across the United States, and am an active member of theTrial Bar for the Northern District of Illinois.

    1 My Curriculum Vitae and list of testimonies are attached as Exhibit A.

    Page 1 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 62 of 175 PageID #:6321Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    13/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    As co-Chairman of my law firm, I am responsible for directly or indirectly supervisingthe work of approximately 100 attorneys and paralegals. I am also directly and indirectlyresponsible for the billing of the services of those attorneys and paralegals and have in my career

    prepared and reviewed thousands of legal invoices. I am generally familiar with the economicsand billing practices of lawyers, and am particularly familiar with the economics and billing

    practices of lawyers in Chicago.

    I currently serve on the Judicial Inquiry Board for the State of Illinois. This nine-member board investigates and prosecutes allegations of judicial misconduct or incapacity against activeIllinois state court judges -- reviewing complaints, determining if an investigation is appropriate,and determining which matters will be prosecuted before the Illinois Courts Commission.Previously, I served as a member of the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility tothe Illinois Supreme Court which, inter alia , provides the Illinois Supreme Court with legaladvice on, and interpretations of, the ethical rules governing attorneys for the State of Illinois.As the rules of professional responsibility and conduct in Illinois are patterned after certainmodel rules and rules or codes enacted in other jurisdictions, I am generally familiar with therules governing attorney ethics and attorney fee billing enacted in other states, including thoserelating to the ethical and fiduciary obligations of counsel to bill attorneys’ fees that arereasonable.

    In addition to my experience as a litigator, I have also developed a particular expertise inmatters involving the review of attorneys’ fees and expenses, litigation management and thelitigation of attorneys’ fees disputes. As part of that expertise, I have conducted hundreds of legal bill reviews for corporations, law firms, insurance companies, governmental entities andindividuals. Cumulatively, I have reviewed billions of dollars in legal fees. These engagementshave addressed the reasonableness and/or allocation of legal fees and expenses across a broad

    spectrum of litigation and non-litigation matters including (for example), bankruptcy,environmental, asbestos, commercial contract, civil rights, white collar crime, securities, productliability, professional liability, employment, mass tort, directors’ and officers’ liability, qui tam ,

    patent, trademark and copyright. The fees and expenses at issue in these disputes have rangedfrom under one hundred thousand dollars to more than eight hundred million dollars. I routinelyanalyze hourly rates and hourly rate structures as part of these engagements, and provideopinions concerning the reasonableness and necessity of the attorneys’ fees and expenses atissue.

    I have litigated and/or served as an expert witness in numerous cases throughout theUnited States, the United Kingdom and the World Court at The Hague, involving disputes

    relating to the reasonableness and allocation of attorneys’ fees and related expenses, and relatingto the hourly rates counsel charged. I have testified as an expert witness -- either by written proffer, deposition or at trial -- in cases before courts and tribunals in Arizona, California,Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,Missouri, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, theVirgin Islands and the United Kingdom. I have never been disqualified as an expert witness byany court or tribunal; nor, to my knowledge, has any portion of my testimony been excluded attrial by any court or tribunal. My opinions and assessments have been found helpful by courts in

    Page 2 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 63 of 175 PageID #:6322Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 3 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    14/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    making their own reasonable fee determinations. See , e.g. , Bublitz v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &Co. , 224 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1246 n.6 (S.D. Iowa 2002).

    I am a frequent speaker and contributor to articles on the subject of attorney ethics andthe reasonableness and allocation of attorneys’ fees and related expenses. I am a member of theClaims & Litigation Management Alliance (“CLM”), a national organization dedicated toestablishing best practices for litigation management through education, training and mentoring,and membership; membership to CLM is through invitation only. I presented seminars onlitigation management at the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 Annual Conference for CLM. I was thefounding co-chair for a national Attorneys’ Fee Conference, sponsored by Mealey’s publications,and regularly published a monthly column on attorneys’ fee issues in Mealey’s Attorney Fees

    Newsletter through the life of that publication

    Through the experience I have developed in private practice, and my work in various professional-related endeavors, I also have developed specific knowledge concerning hourly

    rates and litigation management and have developed specialized knowledge and expertise foranalyzing hourly rates and the efforts of law firms that allow me to provide opinions that arerelevant, reliable and helpful to this tribunal.

    B. Methodology

    When determining the range of reasonable hourly rates applicable to a particular matter,courts typically look for the prevailing hourly rate charged in the relevant market. See , e.g. ,

    Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); Jeffboat, LLC v. Director, Office of Workers’Compensation Programs , 553 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2009); Spegeon v. Catholic Bishop ofChicago , 175 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1999); Grissom v. The Mills Corp. , 549 F.3d 313, 321-322 (4thCir. 2008); Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury , 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000); Camacho v.

    Bridgeport Financial Inc. , 523 F.3d 973, 979-980 (9th Cir. 2008). Additionally, courts typicallyassess the nature and complexity of the litigation; the relevant geographic market; the availabilityof counsel in the jurisdiction competent to handle the litigation; and the experience, reputationand skill of the person performing the work; consistent with the factors set forth in Johnson v.Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (5th Cir. 1974). The Johnson factorswere originally set forth in the precursor to ABA Model Code of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5and have been adopted by almost every jurisdiction as the standard for determining reasonable,clearly excessive, and/or unconscionable fees. See , e.g. , ILLINOIS R ULES OF PROFESSIONALCONDUCT , Rule 1.5(a). In particular, Rule 1.5 identifies the following factors as relevant indetermining whether a fee is reasonable:

    (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questionsinvolved and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

    (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particularemployment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

    (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

    Page 3 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 64 of 175 PageID #:6323Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 4 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    15/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    (4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

    (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

    (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

    (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer, or lawyers performingthe services; and

    (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

    Id.

    In order to determine the range of hourly rates that would be reasonable for the instantmatter, I analyze the litigation -- evaluating the docket, the pleadings, discovery, other availablework product, and other available information about the litigation -- to assess the nature andcomplexity of the litigation, the experience and skill level of the various timekeepers, and thetasks and activities actually undertaken by the various timekeepers. I also consider theappropriate Rule 1.5 factors. Against that backdrop, I then use hourly rate data to determine arange of hourly rates that best reflects the prevailing rate for the relevant market.

    The hourly rate information I evaluate comes from numerous sources, depending uponwhat is available and relevant. For example, I often consider the hourly rates counsel charged inother matters performing similar work, the hourly rates charged by other counsel involved withthe instant matter, decisions from the venue where the matter is pending, and various hourly ratesurveys. There are several hourly rate data sources I regularly consult, including the Survey ofLaw Firm Economics (“the SLFE”), 2 Matter Benchmark Reports, 3 the National Law Journal’s

    2 The SLFE, an annual survey currently published by ALM Legal Intelligence, is now in its 40th year. TheSLFE describes itself as “one of the most complete, accurate and up-to-date set of economic statistics and financialdata available about the legal profession.” Courts have generally recognized the SLFE as an objective and accuratedata resource for determining the reasonable rates of counsel. See , e.g. , Jeffboat, LLC v. Director, Office ofWorkers’ Compensation Programs , 553 F.3d 487, 489, 491 (7th Cir. 2009) (SLFE serves as evidence of market

    rates); In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation , 2006 WL 3057232 at *25 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 25,2006) (SLFE an “authoritative source” on hourly rates). The SLFE breaks out hourly rate information based uponvarious factors, including geographic location, practice type, attorney experience and geographic location, so thatdata can be more readily identified as relating to the relevant market.3 Matter Benchmark Reports is a service provided by Westlaw / Thomson Reuters that uses “aggregated,anonymous invoicing data from more than 15,000 law firm offices across the United States to display averagetimekeeper rate, expense allocation, and invoice approval information in tabular and graphical form. MatterBenchmark Reports is powered by Serengeti Intelligence and leverages information from Serengeti Law, developerof the most widely used legal e-billing and matter management system in the world.”

    Page 4 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 65 of 175 PageID #:6324Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 5 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    16/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    annual Billing Survey (“NLJ Survey”) 4, the Laffey Matrix, 5 and surveys from state barassociations.

    Of these surveys, it is my experience that the SLFE provides the most reliableinformation about the prevailing hourly rate in the marketplace, for several reasons. First, theSLFE reports information about the actual rates attorneys charged, rather than projections ofcurrent rates based upon rate information that may be years out of date, and/or rates that areotherwise speculative in nature. Second, the SLFE not only publishes information based upondifferent areas of specialization (including litigation and non-litigation specialties), but also

    publishes information about hourly rates based upon geography, population area (rural vs.metropolitan), firm size, and other factors. Most surveys do not capture as large a cross-sectionof the legal market as the SLFE captures. 6 Third, the SLFE provides several ranges of hourlyrate information, including the “average” rate, a “lower quartile” rate, an “upper quartile” rate,and a “ninth-decile” rate. The relatively comprehensive nature of the SLFE data, and the waythat the SLFE breaks out hourly rate information several different ways, allows me to betterisolate data relevant to the particular nature of the litigation and/or timekeepers whose rates areat issue, and better isolate data that addresses the various Rule 1.5 factors.

    4 The NLJ Survey reflects information provided by the nation’s 250 largest law firms on a range of hourly ratequestions. The NLJ Survey reflects firm-wide average and firm-wide median rates; and high, low, average andmedian hourly rates for partners and associates. The NLJ survey does not break out hourly rate information bygeography or practice area, and does not include any information for attorneys not associated with the 250 largestlaw firms in the nation.5 The Laffey Matrix is a table of hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals in the Washington, D.C. area prepared

    by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia. See , e.g. , United StatesAttorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Laffey Matrix 2003-20013, n.1(http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/divisions/Laffey_Matrix_2003-2013.pdf). The Laffey Matrix is based upon hourlyrates charged in 1981-1982, with adjustments for the last twenty years based upon the Consumer Price Index. Id. atn.3 (“The hourly rates approved by the District Court in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. TheMatrix begins with those rates. ... The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding the change inthe cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to thenearest multiple of $5.”) Courts have utilized the Laffey Matrix when assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates,

    particularly when attempting to determine rates for purposes of a lodestar cross-check of a claimed contingency fee.See , e.g. , Warfield v. City of Chicago , 2010 WL 3303373 at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2010) (Laffey Matrix accepted asevidence of prevailing hourly rate supporting fee petition); In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation , 2009 WL4799954 at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2009) (using Laffey Matrix in lodestar cross-check when evaluating reasonablenessof fee request in common fund class action case), modified and remanded on other grounds , 629 F.3d 741 (7th Cir.2011).6 For example, the NLJ Survey focuses exclusively upon the hourly rates for the nation’s 250 largest firms, andthus excludes information from the vast majority of US law firms. Further, the NLJ survey does not break outhourly rate information by the experience of the attorney or the type of work at issue. These issues sometimes limitthe usefulness of the NLJ Survey when determining the range of prevailing market rates. See , e.g. , Pasternak v.

    Radek , 2008 WL 2788551 at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2008) (criticizing survey data from National Law Journal as thedata provided no point of comparison for attorneys with similar experience level, was not limited to attorneyshandling litigation, was not limited to attorneys handling the specific type of litigation at issue in the case, and

    because it relied solely upon the rates of “mega-firms whose billing rates have not been shown to be in any waycomparable to rates charged for litigation of the type involved in this case.”). These same limitations (or others) are

    present in most surveys of the hourly rates charged by attorneys. Despite these limitations, these surveysnonetheless can provide a “check” that assists me in determining the relevant prevailing market rate.

    Page 5 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 66 of 175 PageID #:6325Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 6 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    17/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    18/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    product, in a manner consistent with the highest quality firms in Chicago and nationwide.Loevy’s litigation and settlement strategy resulted in a very favorable recovery for Fox.

    A total of 10 attorneys worked on the Fox Litigation, with the assistance of eight

    paralegals. Loevy partner Michael Kanovitz was responsible for developing and carrying outlitigation strategy, led settlement negotiations, was lead counsel at trial, and was heavilyinvolved in all substantive efforts in the Fox Litigation. Partners Arthur Loevy and Jon Loevyconsulted with Kanovitz, and assisted in formulating Loevy’s successful litigation strategy. Iwould characterize these three attorneys as the lead attorneys for the Fox Litigation.

    Loevy is seeking fees for seven other attorneys and eight paralegals who appear to have provided discrete assistance with different aspects of the Fox Litigation. Associates ElizabethWang and Cindy Tsai appear to have been primarily responsible, under Kanovitz’ supervisionand direction, for handling fact investigation and discovery. In addition to extensive writtendiscovery, Loevy participated in more than 30 fact witness depositions. Wang and Tsai, alongwith associates Anand Swaminathan and Steven Art, then assisted Kanovitz with expertdiscovery. Plaintiff disclosed seven experts, and defendants disclosed five experts. Eleven ofthese twelve experts were deposed.

    The following tables list the Loevy attorneys and paralegals involved with the FoxLitigation, provides some of their biographical and professional information, and lists the hoursthey worked on the Fox Litigation:

    Attorneys Law School Year ofAdmission 9Hours on

    Matter

    Lead Attorneys

    Kanovitz, Michael (Partner) Cornell 1994 991.25Loevy, Arthur (Partner) Univ. of Michigan 1963 54.50

    Loevy, Jon (Partner) Columbia 1993 23.25

    Total Hours for Lead Attorneys: 1,069.00

    Support Attorneys

    Art, Steven Northwestern 2009 421.25

    Hill, Kathleen Univ. of Chicago 2007 133.75

    Horn, Gayle New York Univ. 2004 5.25

    Mandel, Aaron Univ. of Chicago 2004 8.25

    Swaminathan, Anand Harvard 2006 334.00

    9 Many of the attorneys listed ( e.g. , Jon Loevy, Elizabeth Wang, Steven Art, Gayle Horn, Anand Swaminathan)served judicial clerkships after graduating law school, rather than immediately working in a law firm. For thoseattorneys, I listed the year of graduation rather than the initial year of admission to the bar. I believe that thisappropriately measures the level of experience of these attorneys, as judicial clerkships provide experience similar to(if not superior to) the experience an attorney receives immediately following admission to the bar.

    Page 7 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 68 of 175 PageID #:6327Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 8 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    19/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    Attorneys Law School Year ofAdmission 9Hours on

    Matter

    Tsai, Cindy Loyola Chicago 2007 443.25

    Wang, Elizabeth Univ. of Chicago 2005 810.25Total Hours for Support Attorneys: 2,156.00

    Paralegals Undergrad Hours onMatter

    Darrah, John Univ. of Illinois 98.25

    Ek, Melinda Roosevelt Univ. 67.75

    Gabor, Maddy Northwestern 4.50

    Gottschalk, Anne Carroll College 72.00

    Nagao, Eva Guilford College 4.25

    Riordan, Megan Duke 5.25

    Slosar, Elliot DePaul 65.00

    Thayer, Andy Northwestern 54.25

    Total Hours for Paralegals: 371.25

    B. Prevailing Hourly Rate for the Relevant Market

    It is my opinion -- based upon my analysis of the pleadings and other materials, thefactual context outlined above, my knowledge of the market for legal services in Chicago, myexperience as a litigator and my experience analyzing and opinion upon the reasonableness ofvarious hourly rates and hourly-rate structures -- that the relevant market for determining the

    prevailing hourly rate in the Fox Litigation is the market for plaintiff counsel in Chicagoexperienced in civil rights litigation. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data concerning thehourly rates charged by plaintiff counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, primarily becausethese cases are nearly always taken on a contingent basis. S ee , e.g. , Spean v. Catholic Bishop ofChicago , 175 F.3d 544, 555 (7th Cir. 1999); Thomas v. Sheahan , 556 F. Supp. 2d 861, 898 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Shakman v. City of Chicago , No. 69 C 2145, 2008 WL 754124, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar.18, 2008); Robinson v. City of Harvey , No. 99 C 3696, 2008 WL 4534158, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7,2008).

    Despite this lack of direct data, my evaluation of the Rule 1.5 factors within the factualcontext outlined above indicates that the SLFE data for attorneys specializing in commerciallitigation provides the best measure of the prevailing hourly rates for plaintiff attorneysexperienced in civil rights litigation. My opinion is based upon several factors, including:

    the nature of counsel’s substantive efforts in the Fox Litigation -- e.g.counsel’s investigation, discovery, motion, settlement and trial efforts veryclosely track the efforts required in commercial litigation; and

    Page 8 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 69 of 175 PageID #:6328Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 9 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    20/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    the hourly rate data presented in the SLFE reflects data from hourly rates a broad cross-section of attorneys actually charged for services in therelevant year, rather than extrapolations from decades-old hourly rate dataand/or hourly rate information from limited and potentially non-representative data pools.

    It is further my opinion that the best measure of the prevailing hourly rate for plaintiffattorneys experienced in civil rights litigation is the data set for the ninth-decile rates charged bycounsel specializing in commercial litigation (for lead attorneys Michael Kanovitz, Arthur Loevy, and Jon Loevy), and the data set for upper-quartile rates charged by counsel specializingin commercial litigation (for all remaining attorneys). This opinion is based upon, inter alia :

    the commitment required -- in terms of personnel, finances, and otherresources -- to undertake the extensive investigation, discovery and trialeffort necessary to represent Fox’s claims in civil rights litigation,

    necessarily narrows the universe of counsel capable of or willing toassume the role of plaintiff’s counsel, such that higher rates ( i.e. , notaverage or lower-quartile rates) are appropriate;

    the superior educational pedigree and experience of the Loevy attorneys,as reflected in their biographical and professional information, makes itappropriate to charge rates higher than average or lower-quartile rates;

    the forum for the litigation, Chicago (among the more expensive legalmarkets nationally), makes it appropriate to charge rates higher thanaverage or lower-quartile rates;

    the superior skill and experience of the Loevy attorneys, as reflected intheir reputation in the Chicago legal community and in the community ofattorneys specializing in civil rights litigation, makes it appropriate tocharge rates higher than average or lower-quartile rates;

    the superior skill and experience of the Loevy attorneys in navigating thedifficulties attendant with the particular facts of this case (describedabove), as reflected in Loevy’s investigation, discovery, trial preparationand settlement efforts, and Loevy’s performance at trial, makes itappropriate to charge rates higher than average or lower-quartile rates;

    the superior skill and experience of the Loevy attorneys, as reflected in theoverall case strategy Loevy formulated and implemented for the FoxLitigation, makes it appropriate to charge rates higher than average orlower-quartile rates; and

    the excellent results that the Lovey attorneys obtained for Fox, includingthe settlement with certain defendants and trial victory against the

    Page 9 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 70 of 175 PageID #:6329Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 10 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    21/70

    Expert Report of Bruce R. Meckler, Esq.May 16, 2012

    remaining defendants, makes it appropriate to charge rates higher thanaverage or lower-quartile rates.

    After evaluating all of these factors, the Rule 1.5 factors, and the context discussedabove, it is my opinion that the prevailing market rate for lead attorneys Michael Kanovitz,Arthur Loevy, and Jon Loevy is the ninth-decile rates for attorneys specializing in commerciallitigation, and that the prevailing market rates for the remaining Loevy attorneys is the upper-quartile rates for attorneys specializing in commercial litigation.

    The following table sets forth the prevailing market rates applicable to the Loveyattorneys involved with the Fox Litigation, based upon information taken from the SLFE. 10

    Years of ExperienceUpper

    QuartileRate

    NinthDecile Rate

    Under 2 Years $273 $2952 or 3 Years $300 $335

    4 or 5 Years $332 $365

    6 or 7 Years $350 $385

    8 to 10 Years $351 $389

    11 to 15 Years $430 $450

    16 to 20 Years $450 $550

    21 to 30 Years $454 $550

    31 or More Years $550 $632

    It is further my opinion that the prevailing market rate for the Loevy paralegals involvedin the Fox Litigation, based upon the Rule 1.5 factors and the context discussed above, is thehourly rate charged by case assistants / project assistants / paralegals specializing in litigation,which ranges from $100 - $245 per hour. 11

    10This table reflects hourly rates for 2012, based upon information extrapolated from the SLFE for 2012, 2011,

    and 2010. The hourly rate data from the annual SLFE reflects data for hourly rates law firms charged in the preceding year. Thus, the SLFE for 2012 -- the most recent survey available -- reflects fee data from 2011; the 2011SLFE contains data for hourly rates law firms charged in 2010; the 2010 SLFE contains data for hourly rates lawfirms charged in 2009.11 This information is taken from the Annual Compensation Survey for Paralegals/Legal Assistants andManagers, a companion survey to the SLFE. This survey is also published by ALM Legal Intelligence, and providescomprehensive data on hourly rates charged by para-professionals. The Annual Compensation Survey forParalegals/Legal Assistants and Managers provides hourly rate information in different categories than the SLFE.

    Page 10 of 11

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 71 of 175 PageID #:6330Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 11 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    22/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    23/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    24/70

    C URRICULUM VITAE - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    ProfessionalExperience(continued)

    Pope, Ballard, Shepard & Fowle, Ltd.Chicago, IllinoisApril 1984 to April 1986

    - General commercial litigation, principally responsible for all aspects of litigation,at the Federal, State and Administrative levels, including attorney fee, franchise,legal ethics, UCC, corporate and regulatory litigation

    State’s Attorney’s Office, Cook County, IllinoisChicago, IllinoisJune 1981 to April 1984

    - Assistant State’s Attorney, Civil Actions Bureau, General Litigation Division,extensive civil litigation and appellate work, including civil prosecution of CookCounty Board of Tax Appeal’s defendants and People’s Energy reorganizationlawsuit.

    Education: John Marshall Law School

    - Juris Doctor , June 1981, with high distinction- Order of John Marshall

    Bradley University

    - Bachelor of Arts , June 1977

    BarAdmissions:

    - Illinois, November 1981

    - US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, November 1981 (includingTrial Bar, February 1983)

    - US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, September 1982

    - US District Court for the District of Arizona, May 1991

    - US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 1995

    - US District Court for the District of Colorado, 2002

    - US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, January 2005

    - US Supreme Court, March 2005

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 2

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 74 of 175 PageID #:6333Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 14 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    25/70

    C URRICULUM VITAE - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    ProfessionalAffiliations:

    - Illinois Judicial Inquiry Committee (2009 - Current)

    - Appointed by Illinois Supreme Court to Standing Committee on ProfessionalResponsibility

    - Member, Board of Trustees, John Marshall Law School

    - Fellow of the American Bar Foundation- Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America

    - National Association of Legal Fee Analysis

    - Illinois Leading Lawyers / Advisory Board

    - Illinois Super Lawyers

    - Chicago Bar Association

    - Past-Chairman - Chicago Bar Association Tort Litigation Committee

    - Past-Chairman - Illinois Legal Needs Study

    - Member - Chicago Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Committee

    - Faculty Member - National Institute of Trial Advocacy

    - Co-Chairman and Faculty Member - Chicago Bar Association (YLS) TrialPractice Course and Task Force

    - ABA Committee on Prosecution and Defense of RICO

    - Board of Directors - Center For Enriched Living, Highland Park, Illinois

    - Board of Directors - Boys and Girls Clubs of Chicago

    - Prior Director and Past Vice-Chairman, Metropolitan Pier and ExhibitionAuthority, Chicago, Illinois

    Articles andSpeaking:

    - Frequent speaker on reasonableness of attorneys’ fees.

    - Panelist at Claims and Litigation Management Alliance Annual Conferencesession titled “Product Coverage, What Every Insured, Insurer, and CounselShould Know About Insurance Coverage Regarding Defective Products andProduct Recall” (March 2012)

    - Panelist at Council on Litigation Management Annual Conference session titled“Hardball: Cutting Edge Litigation Strategies” (March 2011)

    - Panelist at Council on Litigation Management Annual Conference session titled“Rethinking Legal Strategies in the New World” (March 2010)

    - Panelist at Professional Liability Underwriting Society International Conferenceon Managing Rising Defense and E-Discovery Costs (November 2009)

    - Panelist at Council on Litigation Management Annual Conference session onStrategies for Litigation Management (March 2009)

    - Speaker at the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis Program “AttorneyFee Disputes in a Volatile and Uncertain Economy” (March 2009)

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 3

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 75 of 175 PageID #:6334Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 15 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    26/70

    C URRICULUM VITAE - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    Articles andSpeaking:(continued)

    - Chaired Conference at Professional Liability Underwriters Society Conference(November 2004) on How to Avoid the Runaway Claims: Strategies for thePrevention and Control of Runaway Professional Liability Claim Costs.

    - Monthly columnist for Mealey’s Attorney Fees (1997 - 2000)

    - Chaired Attorneys’ Fees Conference sponsored by Mealey’s (April 1998)- Participated in Legal Fee Roundtable Discussion in Corporate Legal Times and

    Illinois Legal Times (October 1994) and in Legal Audit Review (Third Issue1995)

    - Spoke and presented paper styled The Examination and Determination of“Reasonable and Necessary” Legal Fees and Billing Practices at the AmericanBar Association Litigation Committee-Insurance Coverage Section (February1996)

    - “Unreasonable Billing -- An Analysis of Practices,” The Journal of LegalAuditing (1996)

    - “Billing Judgment -- What Is It? Do You Have It?” Mealey’s Attorney Fees(May 1997)

    - “The Ethics of Legal Fee Arrangments,” Mealey’s Attorney Fees (August1997)

    - “The Insurability of Prevailing Party Legal Fees,” Mealey’s Attorney Fees(September 1997)

    - “Fee Dispute Tips of Insurers, Insureds and Counsel in Cumis Situations,”Mealey’s Attorney Fees (October 1997)

    - “Survey of State Arbitration Provisions,” Mealey’s Attorney Fees (November1997)

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 4

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 76 of 175 PageID #:6335Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 16 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    27/70

    DEPOSITION AND T RIAL T ESTIMONY - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    1. Testified (deposition) as expert witness in environmental and personal injury litigation filed in the U.S.Virgin Islands captioned Alumina v. Zurich Insurance Company , Civ. No. 1996/0172, in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Virgin Islands, regarding the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses of incurredin defense of VIALCO

    2. Testified (deposition) as expert witness in Federal Pacific Electric Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety

    Company , Civil Action No. 96-11289-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,regarding the reasonableness of legal fees.

    3. Testified (deposition) as expert witness in American Medical Systems, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company , Civil Action No. 98-1788, in the United States District Court for the Eastern Districtof Louisiana, regarding the reasonableness and allocation of legal fees and expenses incurred in defenseof AMS.

    4. Testified (trial) as expert witness in Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCompany , Civil Action No. 98-CV-6739, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, regarding the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses incurred in defense of Thypin SteelCompany.`

    5. Testified (deposition and trial) as expert witness in Zurich Insurance Company v. Metrolink , SuperiorCourt of California, Ventura County, regarding the allocation of covered versus non-covered legal feesand expenses.

    6. Testified (deposition and trial) as an expert witness in Pacific Rim Assurance Company v. Michael A. Dolan and Associates , Case No. LC 031462, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

    7. Testified (deposition and trial) as an expert witness in Bublitz v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company,Civil No. 4-00-CV-9024, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, regardingthe reasonableness of legal fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs’ class action counsel.

    8. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case International Business Machines Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company , Case No. 00-Civ-5454, in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, concerning issues of allocation and reasonableness of legal fees and expensesincurred in defense of IBM.

    9. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case Westendorf v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours &Company , Civil No. 4-01-CV-90098, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,regarding the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses incurred by plaintiff’s counsel in an ERISAaction.

    10. Testified (deposition and trial) as an expert witness in the case Illinois School District Agency v. Martin Boyer Company, Inc. , No. 99 L 0545, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, concerning thereasonableness of legal fees in defense of litigation against the Illinois School District Agency.

    11. Testified (deposition and trial) as an expert witness in the case Nucor v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company , Case No. CV 1997-008308 , in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for the Stateof Arizona, concerning the reasonableness of legal fess incurred by the Nucor Corporation in the defenseof environmental litigation.

    12. Testified (arbitration) as an expert witness in the case ISN v. Loevener concerning the reasonableness andallocation of legal fees incurred in connection with an employment dispute between Loevener and ISN, asawarded as a prevailing party under Florida law.

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 5

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 77 of 175 PageID #:6336Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 17 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    28/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    29/70

    DEPOSITION AND T RIAL T ESTIMONY - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    22. Testified (deposition and trial) as an expert witness in the case In re: ASARCO LLC , Case No:05-21207, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, concerningwhether the legal fees and expenses requested by counsel for the Debtor complied withapplicable bankruptcy guidelines and were otherwise reasonable.

    23. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Insurance Company , Case No.: 2:06-cv-00831 in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio, concerning an insurer’s use of litigation management guidelines.

    24. Testified (arbitration) as an expert witness in the case Klinedinst PC v. Liberty InternationalUnderwriters, Inc ., concerning the reasonableness of attorney fees incurred by Cumis counseldefending various suits alleging violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act,the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and various other claims.

    25. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case Duke University v. Coregis Insurance Co. ,Case No.: 1:09-CV-00281 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of NorthCarolina, concerning the reasonableness and proper allocation of legal fees and expenses

    incurred by counsel defending Duke University against patent infringement and related claims.

    26. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case Eli Lilly and Co. v. ValeantPharmaceuticals, Int’l , Case No. 1:08-cv-01720-DFH-TAB in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Indiana, concerning the proper allocation of attorneys’ fees andexpenses invoiced by counsel representing Valeant Pharmaceuticals in certain pharmaceutical

    product liability and class action litigation in the United States and Canada.

    27. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Co. , Case No.: CV 08-0457 in the United States District Court for the Central Districtof California, concerning the reasonableness and proper allocation of legal fees and expenses

    incurred by counsel defending MGA Entertainment against copyright infringement, RICO, tradesecret misappropriation, unfair competition, and other claims in litigation involving the BratzDolls.

    28. Testified (trial) as an expert witness in the case Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA v EnviroBusiness, Inc. , Case No. 04 L 10701 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, LawDivision, concerning the reasonableness and proper allocation of attorneys’ fees and expensesinvoiced in litigation involving damages from the foreclosure of a loan against certaincommercial property.

    29. Testified (by declaration) as an expert witness in the case United States Liability Ins. Co. v.Goldin Metals, Inc., et al. , Civil Action No.: 1:10-cv-00175-LG-RHW in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, concerning the reasonableness of legalfees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation arising out allegations of fraud inconnection with the production and sale of processed steel coils.

    30. Testified (trial) as an expert witness in the case QBE Insurance Co. v. Adjo Construction Co. / Archstone v. Ace American Ins. Co. , et al. , Index No. 601695/2009 in the Supreme Court for theState of New York, County of New York, concerning the reasonableness and proper allocation oflegal fees and expenses invoiced in tenant litigation involving the Westbury Complex inWestbury, New York.

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 7

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 79 of 175 PageID #:6338Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 19 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    30/70

    DEPOSITION AND T RIAL T ESTIMONY - BRUCE R. M ECKLER

    31. Testified (arbitration) as an expert witness in the case Clark County v. Jacobs EngineeringGroup, Inc. , concerning the reasonableness and proper allocation of legal fees and expensesincurred in connection with lawsuits arising out of two construction projects.

    32. Testified (deposition) as an expert witness in the case EnerJex Resources, Inc. v Husch Blackwell LLP, et al. , Case No. 1216-cv-01708 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri,concerning the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with an S-1Registration, restructuring a credit facility, and various energy lease and production issues.

    Exhibit A to Expert Report of Bruce Meckler Page 8

    EXHIBIT 1Case: 1:09-cv-05453 Document #: 534 Filed: 06/27/13 Page 80 of 175 PageID #:6339Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-3 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 20 of 20

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    31/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit D

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    32/70

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

    ALVIN BALDUS, CINDY BARBERA, CARLENE

    BECHEN, RONALD BIENDSEIL, RON BOONE, VERABOONE, ELVIRA BUMPUS, EVANJELINACLEEREMAN, SHEILA COCHRAN, LESLIE W.DAVIS III, BRETT ECKSTEIN, MAXINE HOUGH,CLARENCE JOHNSON, RICHARD KRESBACH,RICHARD LANGE, GLADYS MANZANET,ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDYROBSON, GLORIA ROGERS, JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIA SCHLIEPP, TRAVIS THYSSEN,

    Plaintiffs,

    TAMMY BALDWIN, GWENDOLYNNE MOOREand RONALD KIND,

    Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

    v.

    Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALD

    NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counselfor the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,

    Defendants,

    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., THOMAS E. PETRI,PAUL D. RYAN, JR., REID J. RIBBLE,and SEAN P. DUFFY,

    Intervenor-Defendants.

    (caption continued on next page)

    Civil ActionFile No. 11-CV-562

    Three-judge panel28 U.S.C. § 2284

    IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S JANUARY 3 ORDER (DKT. 104):AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RELATED TO THE LEGISLATURE’SUNSUCCESSFUL DECEMBER 13 MOTION TO CLARIFY DISCOVERY ORDERS AND

    DECEMBER 23 MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO REVIEW DISCOVERY ORDERS

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    33/70

    2

    VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., RAMIRO VARA,OLGA WARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALD

    NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

    Defendants.

    Case No. 11-CV-1011JPS-DPW-RMD

    STATE OF WISCONSIN )) ss.

    COUNTY OF DANE )

    I, Douglas M. Poland, under penalty of perjury and on the basis of my own personal

    knowledge, hereby state as follows:

    1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., licensed to practice

    law in the States of Wisconsin and Illinois, and am one of the attorneys representing the

    plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter. I make this affidavit (“Affidavit”) in support of plaintiffs’

    Court-ordered submission for attorneys’ fees and costs.

    2. On January 3, 2012, this Court entered an Order Denying Non-parties, the

    Wisconsin State Senate, by its Majority Leader Scott L. Fitzgerald and the Wisconsin State

    Assembly, by its Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald December 23, 2011 Motion for Review by Three-Judge

    Court of Orders of December 8, 2011 and December 20, 2011, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

    § 2284(c)(3) (“January 3 Order”). Dkt. 104.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 3 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    34/70

    3

    3. The January 3 Order required, as a sanction, that Eric M. McLeod, Joseph L.

    Olson, Aaron H. Kastens, and Michael Best & Friedrich LLP “shall remit to plaintiffs’ counsel . .

    . the actual reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs in

    responding to the motions” for clarification (Dkt. 63) and motion for reconsideration by three-

    judge panel (Dkt. 84). See Dkt. 104, p.11.

    4. The Court further ordered plaintiffs to submit an itemization of such fees and

    costs by January 10, 2012. This Affidavit sets forth plaintiffs’ itemized fees and costs in

    accordance with the January 3 Order.

    5.

    The costs and fees itemized in this Affidavit were actually incurred and werenecessary for responding to: (1) Civil L.R. 7(h) Expedited Non-Dispositive Motion Of Non-

    Parties Wisconsin State Senate And Wisconsin State Assembly For Clarification Of The Court’s

    Order Of 12/8/11 (Dkt. 63); and (2) Non-parties, the Wisconsin State Senate, by its Majority

    Leader Scott L. Fitzgerald and the Wisconsin State Assembly, by its Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald

    December 23, 2011 Motion for Review by Three-Judge Court of Orders of December 8, 2011

    and December 20, 2011, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(c)(3) (Dkt. 84), (together, the

    “Motions”).

    6. The reasonable and necessary costs incurred by plaintiffs’ counsel in responding

    to the Motions are as follows:

    Description Quantity Total

    Photocopies 182 @ $0.15/page $27.30

    Lexis/Westlaw(at cost)

    $1,545.01

    Total $1,572.31

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 3 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 4 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    35/70

    4

    7. Following is a description of the reasonable and necessary time and associated

    fees incurred by attorneys, paralegals, and research staff in preparing plaintiffs’ response to the

    December 13, 2011 motion (Dkt. 63). The attorneys listed in this summary charge usual and

    customary hourly rates ranging between $185 (for junior associates) to $385 (for senior

    shareholders).

    Ti mekeeper Date Description Rate H ours Total

    Douglas M.Poland 1

    12/13/2011 Review legislature’s motion forclarification regarding scope of

    production of documents byJoseph Handrick.

    $385.00 0.40 $154.00

    Douglas M.Poland

    12/16/2011 Review and edit draft responseto legislature’s motion forclarification.

    $385.00 1.50 $577.50

    Douglas M.Poland

    12/20/2011 Review court order denyingmotion for clarification.

    $385.00 0.30 $115.50

    Dustin B.Brown 2

    12/13/2011 Review legislature’s motion toclarify.

    $255.00 0.40 $102.00

    Dustin B.Brown 12/14/2011 Prepare draft response tolegislature’s motion to clarifycourt’s discovery order.

    $255.00 2.50 $637.50

    Dustin B.Brown

    12/15/2011 Prepare response to motion toclarify court’s discovery order,

    prepare declaration of Ms.Bradshaw authenticatingdocuments for response tomotion to clarify.

    $255.00 6.00 $1,530.00

    Dustin B.Brown 12/16/2011 Revise draft response tolegislature’s motion to clarify based on comments; prepareresponse for filing.

    $255.00 5.50 $1,402.50

    1 Douglas M. Poland is a 1994 graduate of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law and has practiced complexlitigation for more than 17 years.2 Dustin B. Brown is a 2007 graduate of the New York University School of Law and has practiced complexlitigation for more than four years, including service as a federal law clerk.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 4 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 5 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    36/70

    5

    Ti mekeeper Date Description Rate H ours Total

    Wendy K.Arends 3

    12/13/2011 Review legislature’s motion toclarify.

    $255.00 0.40 $102.00

    Wendy K.Arends 12/16/2011 Review response to motion toclarify. $255.00 0.20 $51.00

    Aaron A.Seligman 4

    12/15/2011 Research and prepare legalanalysis in support of draftresponse to motion to clarify.

    $185.00 2.00 $370.00

    Aaron A.Seligman

    12/16/2011 Draft outline for response tomotion to clarify.

    $185.00 4.00 $740.00

    Aaron A.

    Seligman

    12/20/2011 Review filed discovery order. $185.00 0.30 $55.50

    JamieKroening(ResearchStaff)

    12/16/2011 Cite check brief. $115.00 0.30 $34.50

    Jacqueline M.Schwartz(Paralegal)

    12/13/2011 Work on file management;conferences regarding filings.

    $125.00 0.30 $37.50

    Jacqueline M.Schwartz(Paralegal)

    12/16/2011 Work on certificate of servicefor response to non-parties’expedited motion to clarify theCourt’s discovery order;assemble exhibits to Ms.Bradshaw’s declaration; e-filedocuments and distribute.

    $125.00 2.10 $262.50

    TOTAL 26.2 $6,172.00

    8. Following is a description of the reasonable and necessary time and associated

    fees incurred by attorneys, paralegals, and research staff in preparing plaintiffs’ response to the

    December 23, 2011 motion (Dkt. 84):

    3 Wendy K. Arends is a 2007 graduate of The George Washington University School of Law and has practiced incomplex litigation for more than four years.4 Aaron A. Seligman is a 2011 graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Law.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 5 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 6 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    37/70

    6

    Ti mekeeper Date Descri ption Rate H ours Total

    Douglas M.

    Poland

    12/24/2011 Review legislature’s motion

    for review of discovery orders by three-judge panel andsupporting affidavit; reviewemail correspondenceregarding draft response tolegislature’s request forreview of discovery orders bythree-judge panel, and followup telephone conference;email correspondence withMr. Brown regarding

    preparation of response tolegislature’s motion.

    $385.00 1.70 $654.50

    Douglas M.Poland

    12/26/2011 Review transcripts ofdepositions of Messrs.Handrick, Foltz, and Ottmanregarding instructions not toanswer for use in opposition tolegislature’s motion for review

    by three-judge panel;telephone conferences with

    Mr. Brown regarding preparation of opposition tolegislature’s motion; emailregarding inserts to opposition

    brief.

    $385.00 2.70 $1,039.50

    Dustin B.Brown

    12/23/2011 Conference regarding task list;review and analyzelegislature’s motion for review

    by three-judge panel.

    $255.00 1.20 $306.00

    Dustin B.Brown 12/24/2011 Draft factual backgroundsection of response to motionfor review by three-judge

    panel of discovery rulings;review and analyze draftsections for incorporation intoresponse brief; research caselaw.

    $255.00 4.60 $1,173.00

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 6 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 7 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    38/70

    7

    Ti mekeeper Date Descri ption Rate H ours Total

    Dustin B.Brown

    12/25/2011 Draft response to motion forreview by three-judge panel ofDecember 8 and 20 discovery

    rulings; research case law.

    $255.00 3.70 $943.50

    Dustin B.Brown

    12/26/2011 Continue to draft response tomotion for review by three-

    judge panel of December 8and 20 discovery rulings;research case law.

    $255.00 8.10 $2,065.50

    Dustin B.Brown

    12/27/2011 Revise response to motion forreview by three-judge panel ofDecember 8 and 20 discovery

    rulings; draft declaration ofMr. Poland; review factualrecord for response to motionfor review; prepare responseto motion for review for filing.

    $255.00 7.20 $1,836.00

    Aaron A.Seligman

    12/27/2011 Review and verify recordcitations in declaration and

    brief in opposition to motionto reconsider.

    $185.00 5.90 $1,091.50

    Jill Bradshaw(ResearchStaff)

    12/26/2011 Research 7th

    Circuit casesciting 28 U.S.C. 2284(b)(3);research Wisconsin cases forstatus of legislative draftingfiles and legislative privilege.

    $175.00 0.70 $122.50

    Jill Bradshaw(ResearchStaff)

    12/27/2011 Cite check brief. $175.00 1.30 $227.50

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 7 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 8 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    39/70

    8

    Ti mekeeper Date Descri ption Rate H ours Total

    Jacqueline M.Schwartz(Paralegal)

    12/27/2011 Review Mr. Poland’sdeclaration in support of

    plaintiffs’ response to the

    legislature’s motion for review by the three-judge panel andassemble exhibits; review ande-file documents with theCourt; conferences regardingfilings and logistics; preparecorrespondence to Ms. Lazarenclosing copies of today’sfilings.

    $125.00 2.20 $275.00

    TOTAL 39.3 $9,734.50

    9. I have reviewed the detailed task descriptions for services related to the Motions,

    in the exercise of my billing discretion, and to ensure that the fees requested reflect the actual

    services necessary to oppose the Motions. I have eliminated all charges that could be considered

    unnecessary, duplicative, or not otherwise incurred in response to the Motions. According to

    information received from my firm’s billing department, the amounts requested in this Affidavit

    reflect a reduction of at least $2,708.00 from the lodestar amount. 5 See Pickett v. Sheridan

    Health Care Center, No. 11-2146, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 6287923, at *3 (7th Cir. Dec. 15,

    2011) (noting “a strong presumption that the lodestar calculation yields a reasonable attorneys’

    fee award” ( citing Perdue v. Kenny A., ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1673 (2010); Eddleman v.

    Switchcraft, Inc., 927 F.2d 316, 318 (7th Cir.1991))).

    5 The lodestar amount, which totals $18,615.00 in attorneys’ fees before write-offs and deductions, was calculatedusing a blended $300 hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours actually worked by the attorney timekeepers,

    plus a blended $150 hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours actually worked by non-attorney paralegals andresearch staff.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 8 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 9 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    40/70

    9

    10. Plaintiffs, therefore, ask to be reimbursed in the following amounts:

    Attorneys’ Fees $15,906.50

    Costs $ 1,572.31

    Total $17,478.81

    Dated: January 10, 2012.

    s/ Douglas M. PolandDouglas M. Poland

    Signed and sworn to before methis 10th day of January, 2012.

    s/ Jacqueline M. Schwartz

    Jacqueline M. Schwartz Notary Public, State of WisconsinMy Commission Expires: July 29, 20127314539_1

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/10/12 Page 9 of 9 Document 106

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-4 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 10 of 10

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    41/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit E

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    42/70

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

    ALYIN BALDUS, et. a .,

    Plaintiffs,vs.

    MICIIAEL BRENNAN, et. a .,

    Defendants.

    VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., et. al.,Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    MICHAEL BRENNAN, et. al.,

    Defendants.

    Case No.: 11-C-562

    Case No.: 11-C-1011

    DECLARATION OF PETER EARLE REGARDING ATTORNEY S FEES

    PETER EARLE, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, states that based onpersonal knowledge, the following facts are true and correct:

    I. I am the principal in the firm of the Law Office of Peter Earle, LLC. I am submittingthis Declaration in support of the Joint Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costswith regard to the Voces de Ia Frontera Plaintiffs in connection with services I have

    rendered in the above-entitled action.

    2. I graduated from liT Chicago Kent College of Law in 1988 and have represented partiesin at least 39 employment discrimination/civil rights/toxic tort cases that have been filedin the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I participated asone of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the following class action/pattern and practice

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 4 Document 230

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    43/70

    employment discrimination cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois: Jefferson, eta/v. lngerso/lnternational, Case No. 98-C-50042; Bell, e ta / v. Woodward Governor, CaseNo. 03-C-50 190. I have argued appeals before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I,the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. The

    following illustrative cases have been reported in which I served as lead counsel for theplaintiffs: Milwaukee Board ofSchool Directors v. WERC 163 Wis.2d 739, 472 N.W.2d553 (Wis. App. 1991 )(whether a discriminatory lay-off and recall provision in collectivebargaining agreement is an illegal subject of bargaining); Plustkota v. RoadrunnerFreight Systems, 188 Wis.2d 288, 524 N.W.2d 904(Wis .App. 1994)(whether writtenemployee honesty tests are "unfair honesty tests" regulated by the Wisconsin FairEmployment Act); Despears v. Milwaukee County, 63 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 1995) (scopeof employment discrimination claim under the ADA involving alcoholism); Vance v.Sukup 207 Wis.2d 578, 558 N.W.2d 683 (Wis ..App. 1996)(scope of absolute pollutionexclusion in home owners insurance policy); Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI I29, 285Wis.2d 236, 70 I N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 2005)(modifying the common law to relax causationin lead poisoning cases against the former manufacturers of lead pigments); Amir v.Marquette University, 2006 WI App 252, 297 Wis.2d 326, 727 N.W.2d 63(2006)(national origin discrimination under Title VI and applicability of academicdeference in context of a prima facie case); Godoy v. E J DuPont, 2009 WI 78(2009)(whether the inherent characteristics defense is consistent with the consumercontemplation test in the context of design defect claims.), Gibson v. AmericanCyanamid, eta/ 719 F.Supp.2d 1031 (ED Wis. 2010)(constitutionality of Wisconsin'srisk contribution doctrine)(appeal pending 7th Cir., argued 1-9-12); Burton v. AmericanCyanamid Co. et a/, 775 F.Supp.2d 1093 (ED Wis. 201l)(constitutionality ofWisconsin's risk contribution doctrine).

    3. I seek attorney's fees for work I have performed in this litigation because my Clientshave obtained a favorable judgment after trial on the merits and as such, my Clients areprevailing parties as to each and every allegation and claim asserted in the Complaint.Furthermore, the Complaint asserted entitlement to attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.sec. 1983 and 1988, and no special circumstances apply that would justify denial ofattorney's fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983); Hastert v. Illinois Boardo f Elections, 28 F.3d 1430, 1443-1444 (7th Cir. 1993); King v Illinois Board o f Elections,410 F.3d 404, 408-09, 412-13, 421-24 (7th Cir. 2005). The work I have performed isidentified in the time records provided with this declaration as Exhibit A. I havereviewed these records and believe that they are accurate and that the time entriesrecorded are appropriate. A review of my hours when compared to the hours of my cocounsel, Jacqueline Boynton, will disclose that on five occasions we both attended certain

    depositions and are seeking compensation accordingly. Those five depositions involveddocument management issues and the need for additional support and assistance to leadcounsel and accordingly seeking fees for both counsel is an appropriate exercise ofbilling discretion. (See Depositions of Zeus Rodriguez -1/11112, Keith Gaddie,- 1/20/12,Adam Foltz and Tad Ottman- 2/1112, and Bernard Grofinan- 2/3/12). On several otheroccasions, despite the fact that both counsel attended the depositions, compensation foronly one lawyer's time is being sought in the exercise of billing discretion. (See

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 4 Document 230

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 3 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    44/70

    Deposition of Kevin Kennedy- JEB 2.8/12). The work set forth for these depositions, aswas the rest of the work enumerated on Exhibit A was reasonably performed in thecourse of the representation of the Voces de Ia Frontera Plaintiffs herein through April 3,2012. As indicated in the time records, I have performed 370.78 hours of work at my

    regularly hourly rate of $425.00. These figures represent my total lodestar (market ratesmultiplied by reasonable hours expended) fees which amount to $157,604.22.

    4. I am the lead attorney representing the Voces de la Frontera Plaintiffs, saidrepresentation being undertaken on the basis that the payment of my regular hourly ratefor time reasonably expended would be entirely contingent upon the achievement of asuccessful outcome such that the provisions of a fee shifting statute would provide forpayment of such fees. Absent an award of attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, Iwill not be entitled to attorney's fees. I have received no payments ftom the Voces de IaFrontera Plaintiffs, nor from any other third party or person for my work in the case.

    5. My regular hourly rate for the work in this case is $425. By virtue of my experiencelitigating civil rights cases and other complex litigation on behalf of plaintiffs, andworking with co-counsel, I have personal knowledge regarding the prevailing marketrates in this District for attorneys of comparable skill, experience and reputation tomyself, performing such work. Based upon this knowledge, I state that my hourly rate iswell within with the prevailing market rates in this District for attorneys of comparableskill, experience and reputation, performing such work. Indeed, I have charged this rateto clients and have been compensated at this rate by clients who retain me on an hourlybasis.

    6. I am very familiar with the work performed by Godfrey & Kahn, S.C, on this case ascounsel for the Baldus Plaintiffs in consolidated Case No. 11-C-562, said case sharingclaims identical to the claims alleged by the Voces de Ia Frontera Plaintiffs as theypertain to Assembly District 8 and 9. Indeed, counsel for the Baldus Plaintiffscoordinated with counsel for the Voces Plaintiffs in order to gain significant efficienciesin the course of prosecuting the claims as they pertained to Assembly Districts 8 and 9.For example, much of the discovery obtained by counsel for the Baldus Plaintiffs in thecourse of enforcing subpoenas directed to the legislature and the law firms representingthe legislature was of material significance to the Voting Rights Act claims related toAssembly Districts 8 and 9. Furthermore, counsel for the Baldus Plaintiffs coordinatedwith counsel for the Voces Plaintiffs to efficiently cover discrete areas of relevance

    during most depositions. This coordination gained significant efficiencies in allowing formore targeted preparation than would have been otherwise possible. I am familiar withthe background and experience of their attorneys who worked on the case and am awareof the discounted rates applied by the firm for this case: Douglas Poland - $395.00;Dustin Brown- $275.00; and Wendy Arends- $275.00. Based on my knowledge of theprevailing market rates in this District for attorneys of comparable skill, experience andreputation, it is my opinion that the hourly rates of the Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., attorneys

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 3 of 4 Document 230

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 4 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    45/70

    are well within the prevailing market rates in this District for attorneys of comparableskill, experience and reputation.

    Dated this 51h day of April of2012, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    Law Office of Peter G. Earle

    s/ Peter G Earle I

    Peter G. EarleSBN 1012176

    839 North Jefferson StreetSuite 300Milwaukee, WI 53202Tel: 414-276-1076Fax: 414-276-0460.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 4 of 4 Document 230

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 5 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    46/70

    - QJ

    EJ

    000

    (D

    020::

    ~Q_

    0r};Q_

    '7Nu'

    r

    N

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    47/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    48/70

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    49/70

    12/30/11 billing for depos- processing12/31/11 review demographic comparisons of AD-8 b/4 & after act 43 w/ Mayer

    1/3/12 review map overlay options with Gratz and mayer1/3/12 billing for Voces re Mayers work

    1/11/12 depo of Zeus Rodriguez1/11/12 review docs produced from MBF, Troupis, Folz et al1/15/12 draft and serve 2nd FRCP 26 supplemen tal disclosures from Voces

    1/16/12 prep for depo of Keith Gaddie1/17/12 prep for depo of Peter Morrison1/18/12 depo of Peter Morrison1/20/12 depo of Keith Gaddie1/23/12 call & corresponence to Dan Kelly re fact stips for trial1/24/12 discovery conference w / JEB & review Zeus's depo- plan pretrial rpt1/25/12 review and prep for re-depositions of Folz, Handrick, and Ottman1/26/12 draft proposed stipulated facts1/26/12 review JEB s discovery draft answers1/27/12 travel (3 hrs) and depo of Ken Mayer in Madison1/29/12 review Grofman articles and amici briefs1/30/12 Depos of Gratz and The Shop Consul ting & review of Groth man articles1/31/12 Barca depo

    2/1/12 travel and continuation of depositions of Folz & Hand rick

    2/2/12 depo of Ottman and draft demand for confidentiality agreements2/2/12 prep for Grofman & consult with Mayer2/2/12 design demostratives of old 8th & 9th versus new 8th & 9th2/3/12 depo of Bernard Grofman2/3/12 pre-depo final prep for Bernard Grofman2/3/12 review correspondence fro m various counsel redis covery2/4/12 draft proposed finding of fact & concl. of law & e-mail w co-counsel2/4/12 e-mail demand to Mcleod re Folz, Ottman Han rick secrecy agreements2/5/12 review Folz and Ottman rough transcripts

    0.25 $106.251 $425.00

    0.75 $318.750.25 $106.25

    4.5 $1,912.502 $850.002 $850.00

    3$1,275.00

    3 $1,275.008 $3,400.009 $3,825.00

    0.5 $212.501.83 $779.17

    4 $1,700.002 $850.00

    0.75 $318.7510 $4,250.00

    4 $1,700.006 $2,550.00

    4.5 $1,912.5010 $4,250.00

    7 $2,975.001 $425.000.83 $354.17

    6.5 $2,762.502 $850.00

    1.5 $637.504 $1,700.00

    0.5 $212.501.5 $637.50

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 4 ot 6 Document 230-1

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 9 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    50/70

    2/6/12 review Grofman depo transcript2/6/12 miscellaneous e-mail with co-counsel & opposing counsel2/6/12 e ~ m i lfrom Mcleod re new responsive docs & discussion with co-counsel2/6/12 correspondence & supp discovery from Patrick Hodan2/6/12 correspondence with maria Lazar re FRCP 16(c)(1) report2/7/12 various e-mail w/ Mcleod & review of newly disclosed calendars etc2/7/12 review proposed GAB findings of fact from Dan Kelly2/8/12 draft FRCP

    16(c)(1)report

    & discussw/

    Jackie2/9/12 final pretrial report work2/9/12 Mcleod e-mai l & docs & log re Ottman & Folz & discuss w / Doug

    2/10/12 review Defenants' MSJ motion & proposed findings of fact work on ours2/10/12 e-mail from Mcleod renew responsive docs & discussion with co-counsel2/11/12 meet & confer e-mail w/Mcleod re withheld documents2/13/12 trial prep/ design exhibits/design witness examination2/13/12 Trial brief2/13/12 final pretrial report work2/13/12 PGE letter to court for ECF filing re privilege log & attachemnts2/14/12 work on final pretrial report2/14/12 conf call with MALDEFattys re contacts with Troupis & trial issues2/14/12 review & re-serve FRCP 26 second supp discls with 1-15-12 witness list2/15/12 outline cross examinations defendants experts & review back-up materia

    2/15/12 trial prep- pedro colon's tetsimony2/15/12 review Doug's reply brief on privilege log2/16/12 trial prep all day & final pretrial conf2/17/12 trial prep all day2/18/12 trial prep all day2/19/12 trial prep all day2/20/12 trial prep all day2/21/12 trial start- settlement attempts and final witness prep2/22/12 depo of James Troupis

    1.5 $637.500.75 $318.750.75 $318.75

    0.5 $212.500.5 $212.50

    1.75 $743.751.5 $637.50

    2 $850.002 $850.00

    0.75 $318.752.5 $1,062.500.5 $212.50

    1 $425.004 $1,700.00

    2.25 $956.252 $850.002 $850.002 $850.001 $425.00

    0.5 $212.505 $2,125.00

    1 $425.000.5 $212.509 $3,825.009 $3,825.00

    10.5 $4,462.509 $3,825.009 $3,825.00

    12 $5,100.007.5 $3,187.50

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 5 of 6 Document 230-1

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 10 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    51/70

    2/23/12 trial all day until late & prep in morning2/23/12 trial all day & prep evening2/24/12 trial all day- til 9:00pm & am prep3/22/12 Review judgment/decision & consult with client and consult with co-cou3/23/12 review remedy options/ consult co-counsel on joint motion3/26/12 Meeting with client re remedies options3/26/12 Meeting with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce re remedy options

    3/26/12 Meeting with JoCasta Zamarripa re remedies options3/27/12 Meeting with LULACre remedy options3/27/12 Meeting with Zeus Rodriguez re remedy options3/27/12 Meeting with El Conquistador/ Victor huyke re remedy options3/28/12 review remedy options and case law & calls about this3/29/12 travel/prep meeting and meet & confer with defs (1pm to 6:30pm)3/30/12 tel conf with Mayer & GK attys; tel conf with Maria Lazar; draft de cia3/31/12 tels calls with Doug & Ken and e-mails w/ Dan review options re remedy

    4/1/12 conf with Jackie re community input4/2/12 Calls w/ Jackie/Primitive/Christine/Victor Huyke re community input4/2/12 calls with Doug/ maria & Dustin re joint report4/2/12 review city amicus filing4/3/12 drafting re remedy- declaration, brief, review Mayer's declaration4/3/12 review and edit brief re proposed map

    4/3/12 case law research re citizenship4/3/12 follow-up consult with Ken re declaration in support of his map dusti4/3/12 tel conf w Darryl Morin

    Previous BalanceAmount Due

    14 $5,950.0012 $5,100.0013 $5,525.00

    4 $1,700.003 $1,275.00

    1.5 $637.501 $425.00

    0.5 $212.500.83 $354.170.83 $354.17

    0.5 $212.503 $1,275.00

    5.5 $2,337.504 $1,700.00

    1.5 $637.500.33 $141.671.25 $531.250.75 $318.750.33 $141.67

    2 $850.001.83 $779.17

    1.5 $637.500.83 $354.170.33 $141.67

    $0.00370.78 $157,604.22

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 6 of 6 Document 230-1

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-5 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 11 of 11

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    52/70

    Declaration of Clayton P. Kawski

    Exhibit F

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-6 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 9

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    53/70

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

    AL YIN BALDUS, et. a .,

    Plaintiffs,vs Case No.: 11-C-562

    MICHAEL BRENNAN, et. a .,

    Defendants.

    VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., et. a .,Plaintiffs,

    vs. Case No.: 11-C-1011

    MICHAEL BRENNAN, et. a .,

    Defendants.

    DECLARATION OF JACQUELINE BOYNTON REGARDING ATTORNEY S

    FEES

    JACQUELINE BOYNTON, under penalty of perjury, states, based on personal

    knowledge, that the following facts are true and correct:

    1. I am a sole proprietor in the firm of the Law Office of Jacqueline Boynton. I amsubmitting this Declaration in support of the Motion for an Award of Attorney'sFees by the Voces de Ia Frontera, Inc. Plaintiffs in connection with services Ihave rendered in the above-entitled action.

    2. I graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1985. I have been

    employed by Legal Action of Wisconsin representing indigent persons in civilcases including landlord tenant issues, divorce and child custody. I have also beenemployed as a State Public Defender representing persons charged withmisdemeanors and felony and have experience trying criminal cases to a jury. Ihave been employed at two law firms representing labor unions and litigatingactions for persons alleging employment discrimination, including age, sex anddisability charges.

    Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 3 Document 231

    Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 185-6 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 2 of 9

  • 8/9/2019 3:14-cv-00064 #185

    54/70

    3. Since becoming a sole proprietor I have developed a substantial corporate practicerepresenting and counseling nonprofit organizations, working on transactional

    issues, entity formation and organizational development, real estate transactionsand other corporate legal issues. I also am an adjunct professor in the GraduatePolitical Science Department at UW- Milwaukee and at Marquette UniversityLaw School teaching Nonprofit Law and Organization.

    4. I seek attorney's fees for work I have performed in this litigation because ourClients have obtained a favorable judgment after trial on the merits and as such,our Clients are prevailing parties as to each and every allegation an