1:11-cv-11905 #59

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ ) SHANNON L. MCLAUGHLIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11905-RGS ) CHUCK HAGEL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
INTRODUCTION Defendants oppose Plaintiffs fee application [Dkt. 56] under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412, because the governments position in this civil action was substantially justified. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (hereinafter Section 3) is a statute that affects the rights and privileges of tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples in this country. Upon making a principled determination that the statute was unconstitutional, the President directed the Executive Branch to cease defending equal protection challenges to its constitutionality while continuing to enforce it, consistent with the Executives obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repealed Section 3 or there was a definitive ruling by the judicial branch against the laws constitutionality. Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the Presidents approach appropriately respected the roles of both the judicial and legislative branches of the government. Additionally, the action of the agencies upon which this civil action is based, that is, to continue enforcing Section3, had a reasonable basis in law and fact, including as reflected by the views of four dissenting members of the Supreme Court who would have upheld Section 3. It is indisputable that a reasonable person could think that the governments position as defined by EAJA that is, the position taken during litigation and the action of the agency upon which the civil action is based was proper. Accordingly, no fee award is appropriate under EAJA. Even if this Court were to award fees, it should reduce Plaintiffs claim by at least 75%. Plaintiffs make an exorbitant fee request of $170,229.69 in a case that was stayed from the outset and remained so until the Supreme Courts ruling in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which held Section 3 unconstitutional. This Court never ruled on Plaintiffs dispositive motion seeking judgment on four different claims. Instead, this Court granted Plaintiffs declaratory relief on their equal protection claim based on the binding precedent established in 1
Windsor. Moreover, Plaintiffs have overstaffed the case, which led to excessive conferencing and consultation, as well as duplicative and unproductive work. A significant portion of the billing records also contains block-billing and vague entries, making it impossible to verify the reasonableness of the claimed fees. Accordingly, a substantial reduction is appropriate. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces, and their same-sex spouses. They brought this suit on October 27, 2011, challenging Section 3 of DOMA and provisions defining spouse and surviving spouse in Titles 10, 32, and 38, which govern military and veterans benefits. The Complaint raised equal protection, Tenth Amendment, substantive due process, and Bill of Attainder claims, and sought declaratory relief and as well as an injunction requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiffs claims for benefits without regard to the gender of their spouses. Compl. at 32. Eight months before Plaintiffs suit, the President had determined in connection with two district court cases in the Second Circuit Windsor v. United States, No. l:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.), and Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.) that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny, and that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fail[ed] to meet that standard and [was] therefore unconstitutional. AG Letter dated 2/23/11 [Dkt. 29-1] at 5. Based on this determination, the Department of Justice ceased defending equal protection challenges to Section 3, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives intervened in Windsor and Pedersen to defend the constitutionality of the statute. The President had also instructed Executive agencies to continue to enforce Section 3, consistent with the Executives obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress
repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the laws constitutionality. Id. On November 21, 2011, before the governments answer was due in this case, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment [Dkt. 13]. On December 6, 2011, this Court granted the governments consent motion for extension of time [Dkt. 26]. Thereafter, the parties also jointly moved to stay the case because two other cases challenging Section 3 Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. OPM were then pending before the First Circuit and the parties agreed that resolution of those appeals would significantly affect the resolution of this case. [Dkt. 27]. On February 17, 2012, the Attorney General informed Congress that, as with Section 3, the Department of Justice would not defend equal protection challenges to 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and (31), which are identical in material respects to the language of Section 3. See AGs Letter, dated 2/17/12 [Dkt. 28-2]. The Department of Justice similarly notified this Court of that decision. See Notice to the Court [Dkt. 28-1]. In response, Plaintiffs moved to set a deadline for BLAGs intervention [Dkt. 30], which this Court denied because it saw no reason to set such a deadline given the posture of the case. See Minute Order dated 4/12/12. Thereafter, the government again moved to continue the stay because Massachusetts and Gill were still pending in the First Circuit [Dkt. 31]. BLAG then intervened in the case, despite Plaintiffs opposition. See Minute Order dated 5/15/13. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit decided Massachusetts and Gill, holding Section 3 unconstitutional, but staying the issuance of its mandate because Supreme Court review was highly likely. Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2012). In light of the First Circuits stay, the government again moved to continue the stay in this case [Dkt. 40]. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully opposed the motion [Dkt. 41]. See Minute Order date 6/6/2012. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675. This Court promptly ordered the parties to show cause why judgment should not be entered in favor of 3
Plaintiffs. Minute Order 6/27/13. The government argued that Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under Titles 10 and 32 were moot because the Department of Defense (DoD) intended to construe the term spouse in those titles to include same-sex spouses and was working expeditiously to make available Titles 10 and 32 benefits to the same-sex spouses of service members. See Response to Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 47] at 2-3. With respect to Plaintiffs request that the Department of Veterans Affairs process their benefits claims under Title 38, the government argued that no plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that he or she had applied for or would be entitled to veterans benefits. Id. at 3-4. The government also noted that in any event, the Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105, had divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear any claims of denial of veterans benefits. Id. at 4-5. On September 9, 2013, the government further informed this Court that, in light of Windsor, DoD had begun to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of uniformed service members and DoD civilian employees, and that with respect to veterans benefits, the President had directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcing the provisions of Title 38 that limited the definition of spouse and surviving spouse to opposite-sex married couples. [Dkt. 50]. The next day, Plaintiffs requested that this Court grant their motion for summary judgment. [Dkt. 51]. On September 12, 2013, this Court ordered the parties to propose a declaratory judgment [Dkt. 52]. The parties jointly filed a proposed judgment, which was entered on October 2, 2013. [Dkts. 53-55]. The judgment addressed only Plaintiffs equal protection claim. [Dkt. 55]. ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFFS FEE APPLICATION A. The United States Position Was Substantially Justified.
Under EAJA, the United States is not liable for attorneys fees if its position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The Supreme Court has explained that 4
substantially justified is not justified to a high degree, but rather justified in substance or in the mainthat is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). [I]f a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact, no award of fees under EAJA is proper. Id. at 566 n.2. Moreover, as Congress has made clear, the government need not show that it had a substantial probability of prevailing in order to demonstrate that its position was substantially justified. H.R. Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1980). The government must, however, justify the position it took both during the litigation and the agency proceedings that preceded that litigation, Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder, 723 F.3d 48, 73 (1st Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(D), and only one substantial justification finding for the entire civil action is to be made. INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 159 (1990). Further, the government must demonstrate that its position was substantially justified by a preponderance of the evidence. De Allende v. Baker, 891 F.2d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1989). The governments position was substantially justified in this case. This case was filed eight months after the Presidents determination that Section 3 was unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The President had directed the Department of Justice to cease defending equal protection challenges to Section 3, while providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to present arguments in defense of Section 3. See AG Letter dated 2/23/11 at 5. The President also had directed the Executive agencies to continue to enforce Section 3 unless and until Congress repealed the law or the judicial branch rendered a definitive verdict against the laws constitutionality. See id. The President considered that course of action to be the most appropriate way to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, U.S. Const. Art. II, 3. See AG Letter dated 2/23/11 at 5. As the Attorney General explained, this approach respect[ed] the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA and 5
recognize[d] the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised. Id. Thus, when Plaintiffs filed this case challenging the definitions of spouse and surviving spouse in Title 38, which are in all material respects identical to Section 3, the Attorney General similarly notified Congress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D, that the Executive Branch would pursue the same approach. See AG Letter dated 2/17/12 [Dkt. 28-2] at 2. As this Court is aware, the Supreme Court ultimately struck down Section 3s constitutionality in Windsor. The Executive Branch accordingly construed Titles 10 and 32, both of which define spouse to mean husband or wife, as the case may be, 10 U.S.C. 101(f)(5); 32 U.S.C. 101(18), to include same-sex spouses. And the President directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcing the provisions of Title 38 that limited the definitions of spouse and surviving spouse to opposite-sex married couples. Plaintiffs argument that the governments position lacked substantial justification hinges entirely upon the proposition that once the President determines a law to be unconstitutional, he must direct the Executive Branch to stop enforcing the law immediately. See Pls. Mem. at 2. According to Plaintiffs, the Presidents oath to uphold the Constitution necessarily encompasses a duty to disregard unconstitutional laws such as Section 3 of DOMA and the definitions in Title 38 even before any judicial determination of their constitutionality. Id. at 14. Thus, Plaintiffs argument for purposes of substantial justification is that no reasonable person could think that the governments continued enforcement of Section 3 had any basis in law and fact. The President, however, is under no constitutional compulsion to follow the course Plaintiffs suggest. Although the President may decide in certain circumstances not to enforce a statute he has determined to be unconstitutional, he may also properly determine, as he did in the DOMA litigation, that the proper course is to continue to enforce the duly enacted statute to
maintain an Article III case or controversy and obtain a definitive resolution of the constitutionality of the statute by the Judiciary. Accordingly, a reasonable person could conclude that the Presidents position was proper. Indeed, five members of the United States Supreme Court did just that, in holding that Windsor was justiciable despite the fact that the President agreed with the plaintiff that Section 3 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recognized that the Presidents approach properly respected the role of the judiciary: if the Executive's agreement with a plaintiff that a law is unconstitutional is enough to preclude judicial review, then the Supreme Court's primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law that has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff who has brought a justiciable legal claim would become only secondary to the Presidents. This would undermine the clear dictate of the separation-ofpowers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. , , 132 S.Ct. 1421, 14271428, 182 L.Ed.2d 423 (2012) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2688-89. The Court further recognized that significant separation-ofpowers concerns would have arisen if the President had simply declared Section 3 unconstitutional and ceased to enforce it prior to Supreme Court review: Similarly, with respect to the legislative power, when Congress has passed a statute and a President has signed it, it poses grave challenges to the separation of powers for the Executive at a particular moment to be able to nullify Congress enactment solely on its own initiative and without any determination from the Court. Id. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the difficult choice the President faced upon making a principled determination that a statute is unconstitutional. Id. at 2689. The President could have decided to no longer enforce Section 3, but he was not required to do so. On this latter point, the dissenting opinion cited by Plaintiffs (Pls. Memo. at 15) agreed: This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act . . . even though he believed it 7
unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitutional. Id. at 2702 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Aside from the significant separation-of-powers concerns that would arise from the nonenforcement approach that Plaintiffs incorrectly claim was constitutionally compelled, the Supreme Court also noted that the Presidents decision not to defend Section 3 was based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions. Id. at 2688; see also id. at 258384 (This case is unusual . . . because the 530D letter was not preceded by an adverse judgment but instead reflected the Executives own conclusion, relying on a definition still being debated and considered in the courts, that heightened equal protection scrutiny should apply to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation.). Indeed, at the time of the Windsor district court litigation, no court had held that classification based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened form of scrutiny, and every court that had considered the issue had ruled otherwise. See AG Letter dated 2/23/11 at 3. Although the Supreme Court has set forth certain criteria for determining whether heightened scrutiny applies to a particular classification, it had not yet determined whether that standard applied to classifications based on sexual orientation. The Presidents decision to continue to enforce Section 3 while awaiting a definitive judicial determination of its constitutionality was thus the more prudent course. The reasonableness of the governments enforce-but-not-defend posture is further supported by the breadth of Section 3s mandate and the magnitude of its impact. As the Windsor majority recognized, Section 3 was of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to hundreds of thousands of persons. 133 S. Ct. at 2689. The statute governed over 1,000 federal statutes and affected the rights and privileged of the tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples in this country. Thus, whereas the integrity of the political 8
process would be at risk if difficult constitutional issues were simply referred to the Court as a routine exercise, the majority found that Windsor was not routine. Id. In sum, by virtue of the difficulty the Executive face[d], id., and the unusual nature of the Section 3 litigation, the governments chosen approach was a reasonable one. In any event, both aspects of the government position as defined by EAJA that is, the position taken during litigation and the action of the agency upon which the civil action is based, see 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(D) were substantially justified. 1 Plaintiffs complained that they were forced to litigate their rights before this Court. Pls. Mem. at 11. But the agencies underlying action to continue to enforce the challenged statutes had a reasonable basis in law and fact. The Supreme Court has explained that a position can be justified even though it is not correct. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 n.2. The test is whether a reasonable person could think the agency position is correct. Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84, 94 (1st Cir. 2009) (en banc). Four Supreme Court justices would have upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 (as would one member of the Second Circuit panel in Windsor, 699 F.3d at 188). The 5-4 decision highlights the fact that Section 3 presented a significant constitutional issue. Cf. De Allende, 891 F.2d at 13 (reversing district courts fee award where governments position was supported by decision in parallel cases and by three members of the Supreme Court). Moreover, the challenged statutes were duly enacted by Congress, and the Court of Appeals has held that the substantial justification requirement in the EAJA means that the
Plaintiffs fee request encompasses litigation activities incurred as a result of BLAGs intervention. Under EAJA, the United States is defined to mean any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(C), and the term must be strictly construed because EAJA is a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, Castaneda-Castillo, 723 F.3d at 57. This Court, however, need not decide whether BLAG is distinguishable from the United States because BLAGs position and the governments continued enforcement of the challenged statutes was also substantially justified. Indeed, as a general rule, the governments defense of a congressional statute will usually be substantially justified. League of Women Voters v. FCC, 798 F.2d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Grace v. Burger, 763 F.2d 457, 458 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (situations in which the governments defense of the constitutionality of a federal statute fails the substantial justified test should be exceptional).
government, when adhering to the dictates of Congress, can be found to lack substantial justification only if, at the time the government acted, the statutes invalidity was clearly established. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 960 F.2d 200, 211 (1st Cir. 1992). When this instant case was filed, the government was awaiting the judiciarys definitive determination on the constitutionality of Section 3 that would have a binding effect on all federal courts. The First Circuit itself stayed the issuance of its mandate which in turn maintained the district courts stay of its injunctive judgment when it struck down Section 3 in Massachusetts and Gill, because the Court anticipated that certiorari would be sought and that Supreme Court review of Section 3 was highly likely. The governments cautious approach to continue enforcement of Section 3 and the other challenged statutes until the Supreme Court decided Windsor thus was reasonable and warranted. B. Special Circumstances Warrant Denial of An Award of Attorneys Fees.
Under EAJA, the United States is also not liable for attorneys fees if special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The special circumstances exception is a safety valve that gives the court discretion to deny awards where equitable considerations dictate an award should not be made. H.R. Rep. No. 96-1418, at 11 (1980); see also Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 422-23 (2004). Here, special circumstances warrant denial of Plaintiffs fee award. The above discussion already makes clear the unusual, nonroutine nature of the governments position in this and other litigation challenging Section 3. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2683, 2687. Moreover, the result Plaintiffs received was attributable to Windsor. By the time Plaintiffs counsel were conferring with prospective plaintiffs, see Ex. A to McKean Decl. [Dkt. 56-6] (June to Aug. 2011), the President already had directed the Department of Justice to cease defense of equal protection challenges to Section 3. In this Circuit, two other DOMA cases were 10
already pending in the Court of Appeals. This Court stayed the case from the outset and never ruled on Plaintiffs dispositive motion. Ultimately, the government provided the central relief requested in the Complaint, i.e., processing of Plaintiffs claims for military and veterans benefits without regard to the gender of their spouses, Compl. at 32, entirely due to its implementation of Windsor and a Presidential directive. Specifically, in implementing Windsor, DoD began to construe the term spouse in Titles 10 and 32 to include same-sex spouses. As for veterans benefits, after Windsor, the President directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of 38 U.S.C. 101(3), (31) to the extent the provisions limit veterans benefits to opposite-sex couples. As the Attorney General explained, that decision was due to three considerations: (1) Windsor reinforced the Executives determination that the Title 38 definitional provisions were unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment; (2) BLAG had withdrawn from pending litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions, and thus there was no need to continue enforcement to allow members of Congress to present a defense of those provisions; and (3) an Article III court had held the provisions unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment grounds in Cooper-Harris v. United States, No. 2:12-00887-CBM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013). See AG Letter, dated 9/4/13 [Dkt. 50-1]. Given the unique circumstances of this case, and particularly where Plaintiffs made no significant substantive contribution to the ultimate resolution of the constitutional questions at issue, this Court should exercise its discretion to deny a fee award against the United States. Cf. S & H Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commn, 672 F.2d 426, 429 (5th Cir. 1982) (declining to award fees where agency did not file a brief or participate in oral argument); League of Women Voters v. FCC, 568 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (declining to award fees where the government did not initiate this litigation, . . . did not oppose
11
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, . . . [and] took no position on appeal), affd on other grounds, 798 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1986). II. THIS COURT SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FEES REQUESTED A. The Hours Billed Are Excessive and Unreasonable.
Even if this Court determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees, the fee request is unreasonable and should be reduced. EAJA entitles a prevailing party only to reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. 28 U.S.C. 2412(d); Jean, 496 U.S. at 160-61. A fee applicant must make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983), 2 and bears the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of each element of its fee request. New Jersey v. EPA, 703 F.3d 110, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Where the applicant fails to carry this burden, the court makes adjustments, reducing the award as appropriate. See Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 554 n.2, 566-67 (1986) (expressing no disagreement with general fee reductions of 48% and 33-1/3% for unnecessary, unreasonable or unproductive work). [I]t is the courts prerogative (indeed, its duty) to winnow out excessive hours, time spent tilting at windmills and the like. Officer Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295-96 (1st Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiffs make a fee request of $170,229.69 for the work of six attorneys (913.6 hours) and two paralegals (45.8 hours) in a case that was stayed from the outset and remained so until the Supreme Courts ruling in Windsor. There were no court appearances and only minimal litigation activities occurred both before and following Windsor. 3 Although Plaintiffs indicate
2 3
Hensley did not involve EAJA but its analysis applies to EAJA cases. See Jean, 496 U.S. at 161. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs use of the rates of $187.26 per hour for 2011, $190.21 for 2012, and $192.24 for 2013 for attorneys, and $100 per hour for paralegals. See Castaneda-Castillo, 723 F.3d at 77.
12
that their requested amount already contained a 5% reduction, Pls Mem. at 16, that reduction is grossly insufficient due to numerous deficiencies in their billing records. 1. The degree of success does not warrant the requested amount.
The Supreme Court has held that the extent of a plaintiffs success is a crucial factor in determining the proper amount of an award of attorneys fees. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440; Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992) (Indeed, the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained.) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. 436). [W]here the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440; see also McDonald v. HHS, 884 F.2d 1468, 1479 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in not discounting the fee award to reflect plaintiffs limited success). Plaintiffs brought this suit to compel the Executive agencies to process their claims for benefits without regard to the fact that their spouses are of the same sex. As discussed before, the Executive agencies are now doing so, but not because of Plaintiffs litigation efforts; rather, they are doing so because of the Supreme Courts ruling in Windsor. See Minute Order dated 6/27/13 (ordering parties to submit reasons why judgment should not enter for plaintiffs in light of Windsor). Indeed, this Court did not grant Plaintiffs any injunctive relief. Although this Court did grant declaratory relief, presumably to address Plaintiffs concern that future administrations could change course and interpret Titles 10, 32 and 38 differently from the Supreme Courts mandate in Windsor, see Pls Response to Status Report [Dkt. 51], that success is about a future contingency and only a small part of this litigation. There is no doubt that Plaintiffs brought suit primarily to have their benefits claims processed. And on that central relief, Plaintiffs cannot attribute any success to their own litigation efforts.
13
Significantly, this Court did not rule on the only dispositive motion Plaintiffs filed. In fact, the summary judgment motion raised claims on which Plaintiffs certainly did not prevail, namely the Tenth Amendment, substantive due process, and Bill of Attainder claims. In general, work on an unsuccessful claim cannot be deemed to have been expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved . . . therefore no fee may be awarded. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 (internal quotation omitted). Even though the substantive due process claim may be interrelated with the equal protection claim, the same cannot be said about the Tenth Amendment and Bill of Attainder claims. To be sure, the Supreme Court has said that in cases where the plaintiffs claims for relief involve a common core of facts, it may be difficult to divide the hours expended on a claim-byclaim basis and thus, the district court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Id. at 434-5. At the same time, Plaintiffs should exercise billing judgment with respect to hours worked. Id. at 437. Here, Plaintiffs took only a 5% reduction, which is far from reasonable in light of the very large fee request as compared to the overall success they obtained in this case. Indeed, in addition to the fact that this Court never ruled on Plaintiffs dispositive motion, Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in all three of their non-dispositive motions/oppositions: a motion to set a briefing schedule for BLAGs intervention, an opposition to oppose BLAGs intervention, and a partial opposition to the governments motion for a stay pending the First Circuits issuance of mandate in Massachusetts and Gill. Following the Supreme Courts decision in Windsor, Plaintiffs filed only two documents: a response to this Courts order to show cause (2 pages) [Dkt. 45] and a response to Defendants status report (10 pages) [Dkt. 51]. They also worked with defendants to fashion a proposed judgment. Under these circumstances, the amount of fees requested for the minimal litigation activities that occurred in this case to 14
achieve a limited result is excessive. See United States v. Metro. Dist. Commn, 847 F.2d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (district court needs to retain a sense of overall proportion in analyzing fee request). Accordingly, a significant global reduction of Plaintiffs fee request is appropriate. 2. Plaintiffs have overstaffed this case.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that hours are not reasonably expended when a case is overstaffed or when the hours are duplicative. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. The First Circuit has similarly observed that a partys claim that several lawyers were required to perform a single set of tasks [is treated with] healthy skepticism. Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 938 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Hart v. Bourque, 798 F.2d 519, 523 (1st Cir. 1986). To this end, the First Circuit has held that a court should not hesitate to discount hours if it sees signs that a prevailing party has overstaffed a case. Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 297 (1st Cir. 2001). Such is the case here. The time records Plaintiffs submitted contain numerous instances of excessive and duplicative work, and excessive conferencing and conferring, all of which are unreasonable especially in light of the limited number of filings and lack of court appearances. A list of the overstaffing entries, which also contained entries of excessive conferencing, is attached as Exhibit A General Overstaffing. Specifically, a substantial portion of the work performed by the six attorneys was duplicative. The time entries contain numerous instances of multiple attorneys reviewing the same documents, performing or reviewing the same research and editing the same documents. For example, on October 25, 2011, three attorneys billed approximately 8 hours for editing and revising the complaint. The next day, six attorneys billed approximately another 25.1 hours for doing the same. On October 27, those same six attorneys billed approximately another 26.1 hours for more edits and review of the complaint. Such practices are excessive and redundant
15
(even if some of those hours are block-billed entries, in that multiple tasks are accounted for in a single time entry, rather than itemized for the time expended on specific tasks). The work done by Plaintiffs counsel was also inefficient. For example, between August 25 and November 21, 2011 (and to the extent Defendants are able to determine from the descriptions in the billing records), Plaintiffs counsel spent approximately 285.10 hours drafting the complaint and motion for summary judgment. At a rate of $187.26 an hour, this amounts to $53,387.83. Such a fee is excessive and should be reduced, not to mention the fact that time spent for the unsuccessful claims should be deducted as discussed before. See Walsh v. Boston Univ., 661 F. Supp. 2d 91, 107-08 (D. Mass. 2009) (finding an estimated 195 hours to oppose and argue a motion for summary judgment excessive). Indeed, drafting the complaint and the summary judgment motion should have been a straightforward task given the number of similar cases challenging Section 3 that were already pending at the time, and the fact that briefing on the Windsor dispositive motions in the district court was already complete a month before the Complaint was filed in this case and two months before Plaintiffs filed their summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs claimed hours spent consulting and conferring among the attorneys is also excessive. See Conservation Law Found. v. Patrick, 767 F. Supp. 2d 244, 254 (D. Mass. 2011) (applying a flat rate reduction in fees for excessive conferencing); see also E.E.O.C. v. AutoZone, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 342, 351 (D. Mass. 2013) (the time spent on conferencing must be within reason, and excessive conferencing is to be disallowed). Here, about 450 hours were spent in conferences, discussions, meetings, or telephone calls. Specifically, the attorneys at OutServeSLDN billed approximately 155 hours on telephone conferences and email correspondence, and the Chadbourne attorneys billed approximately 295 hours for discussion, e-mailing, or conferencing among co-counsel. These numbers do not even include block-billed entries in 16
which time spent on conferencing was accounted for in a single time entry with other tasks. This amount of conferencing is not reasonable; therefore, the amount of the award should be reduced. In sum, Plaintiffs billing records reflect significant amount of duplicative, excessive and unproductive charges, and thus, an across-the-board reduction is appropriate. 3. Time spent on media-related matters and matters not directly related to litigation is not recoverable.
Plaintiffs cannot recover attorneys fees for time spent on media-related matters. McLaughlin v. Bos. Sch. Comm., 976 F. Supp. 53, 72 (D. Mass 1997) (courts are unanimous in denying awards of attorneys fees for media-related time); accord AutoZone, 934 F. Supp.2d at 351; Parker v. Town of Swansea, 310 F. Supp. 2d 376, 393 (D. Mass. 2004). This is so because attorneys fees are permitted only for hours expended on the litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Thus, the approximately 29.8 media-related hours, outlined in Exhibit B Media-Related Matters, spent tracking news stories, watching clients on the television show Hardball and reviewing press about the case is not recoverable and should be deducted as unnecessary. Additionally, the 31.4 hours that counsel billed for talking to prospective plaintiffs and looking for local counsel is excessive. See Cushing v. McKee, 853 F. Supp. 2d 163, 174 (D. Me. 2012) (holding that nearly 10 hours spent looking for potential plaintiffs and local counsel was excessive and deducting 8.8 hours). Similarly, there is no basis for charging the United States time spent on complying with the Chadbourne firms internal administrative requirements, and yet the billing records contain entries relating to preparing documents for DOMA pro bono representation and engagement letters and perform[ing] conflicts check. See, e.g., 8/18/11, 10/13/11 and 10/21/11 entries [Dkt. 56-3] at 14, 18, 20. Compensation for other tasks, such as reviewing background of new judge and discussing possibility of amicus brief with Senate staff and Arnold Porter is also unnecessary to the legal issues of the case and should be 17
excluded. A full breakdown of the unnecessary, unreasonable and unproductive tasks is detailed in Exhibit C Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive Entries. B. The Billing Records Are Not Sufficiently Clear or Detailed to Assess Reasonableness.
The Court of Appeals has instructed that the absence of detailed contemporaneous time records, except in extraordinary circumstances, will call for a substantial reduction in any award or, in egregious cases, disallowance. Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 938 (internal quotation omitted). The itemized statement must be a full and specific accounting of the tasks performed, including among other things, the number of hours spent on each task as well as a description of the nature of the tasks. Castaneda-Castillo, 723 F.3d at 79 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, the billing records are replete with block-billing and vague entries, both of which are established bases for a fee reduction. At least fifty percent of Plaintiffs billing records, which accounts for roughly $125,000, includes block-billed entries in that multiple tasks are accounted for in a single time entry, rather than itemized for the time expended on specific tasks. A list of block-billed entries is attached as Exhibit D. Block-billing makes it difficult to determine whether time spent on any specific task was reasonable and thus requires deciphering on the part of the courts. Conservation Law Found., 767 F. Supp. 2d at 253 (D. Mass. 2011). In this case, for each of plaintiffs block-billed entries, it is impossible to evaluate the reasonableness of the time allotted to each discreet activity. For example, an October 24, 2011 entry indicates that associate Pusateri spent seven hours on the following seven tasks: Conduct interview of J. Darrah and compose declaration; revise complaint; revise category sheet and cover pages; compose pro hac vice motion and declaration for D. McKean; review local rules regarding filing fees; organize and collect supporting documentation; conference call with J. Henderson regarding declaration and 18
questions. [Dkt. 56-3] at 20. In this example, there is no way to ascertain how long the attorney spent for each task, including organizing and collecting supporting documentation, which arguably may be excluded from the fee award as administrative or secretarial work. See Conservation Law Found., 767 F. Supp. 2d at 254 (Whether performed by attorneys or legal assistants, purely administrative work ought to be either eliminated or paid at lower rates.). Rather than deciphering the bill, the Court should make an across-the-board reduction to account for Plaintiffs pervasive use of block-billing. See Torres-Rivera v. Espada-Cruz, 524 F.3d 331, 399-40 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding that the district court reasonably reduced the fee request by 50%); Conservation Law Found., 767 F. Supp. 2d at 253 (applying a 20% global reduction because of block-billing); AutoZone, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d at 355 (applying a 20% reduction for the imprecise construction of many of the time entries and their frequent lack of task differentiation). In addition, Plaintiffs bills are replete with overly vague entries that make it impossible to verify the reasonableness of the billing, either as to the necessity of that particular service or the amount of time expended on a given legal task. Many entries simply say email correspondence, memo, or telephone conference, without any sufficient elaboration. A detailed list of entries that do not adequately explain the task for which fees are being sought is attached as Exhibit E Vague Billing Entires. Consequently, the time claimed in Exhibit E should be deducted as unreasonably vague. See Torres-Rivera, 524 F.3d at 336; see, e.g., Stokes v. Saga Intl Holidays, Ltd., 376 F. Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D. Mass. 2005) (party requesting attorneys fees has the duty to provide adequate records to the court, and a record of telephone call without describing the reason for the call is insufficient).
19
C.
Defendants Proposed Calculation.
The above discussion illustrates that Plaintiffs attorneys fees request of $170,229.69 should be reduced to account for: (1) the degree of Plaintiffs success and extremely limited amount of litigation activity in this case; (2) overstaffing, duplicative and inefficient work, and excessive conferencing and consultation; (3) improper inclusion of non-compensable activities such as time spent on locating plaintiffs, media-related matters, performing conflicts checks and preparing engagements letters for pro bono representation; and (4) the pervasive use of blockbilling and vague entries. Given the numerous deficiencies in the billing records, Defendants respectfully submit that this Court should apply at least a 75% reduction to Plaintiffs fee request. See Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 957-58 (1st Cir. 1991) (denying fee award where the application reflected (1) no good faith effort to exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, (2) no reduction for time spent on unsuccessful claims, and (3) no allowance for the limited degree of success achieved by the plaintiff); Torres-Rivera , 524 F.3d at 339-40 (district courts decision to make a 50% percent global reduction plainly falls within the range of reasonableness); Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (applying a 50% reduction because of large number of deficiencies). Thus, even if this Court determines that the governments position was not substantially justified, it should award no more than $42,557.42 in fees, as well as $350 in costs. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Plaintiffs application for an award of attorneys fees and costs. Dated: December 11, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General
20
CARMEN M. ORTIZ United States Attorney ARTHUR R. GOLDBERG Assistant Branch Director /s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN Senior Trial Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-3716 Fax: (202) 616-8470 email: jean.lin@usdoj.gov
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 11, 2013, a true copy of the foregoing Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs was served upon following attorney of record for each other party through the Courts Electronic Case Filing system: Ian McClatchey, Esq. IMcClatchey@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Abbe David Lowell, Esq. ADLowell@Chadbourne.com Christopher D. Man CMan@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 John M. Goodman, Esq. JGoodman@SLDN.org David McKean DMcKean@SLDN.org SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK Post Office Box 65301 Washington, DC 20035 /s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN
22
Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 34
EXHIBIT A General Overstaffing
Legend:
Yellow Highlighting = Block-Billed Time; Blue Highlighting = Vague time entries; Green Highlighting = Overstaffing; Red Highlighting = Media-Related Matters; Orange Highlighting = Unnecessary, Unreasonable or Unproductive Work; The attorneys on this case are Noelle Francis (NF), John Goodman (JG) Abbe David Lowell (ADL), Christopher Man (CM), Ian McClatchey (IM), David McKean (DM) Michael Pusateri (MP) and the paralegals on this case are Michelle Chasse (MC) and Jamie Moses (JM)
General Overstaffing
Date
06/28/2011 06/28/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 08/06/2011 08/06/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/15/2011 08/15/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/25/2011 08/25/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 09/14/2011
Attorney
DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG CM MP DM JG DM JG DM JG CM
Description of Task
telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Bornhoft, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Bomhoft, conference Sarvis/McKean conference Sarvis/Goodman, Chadbourne & Parke conference Sarvis/McKean, Chadbourne & Parke Discuss DOMA issues with team. Meet with C . Man and representatives from SLDN regarding DOMA pro bona engagement. telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/McKean Discuss Complaint and strategy with SLDN; discuss attorneys' fees, exhaustion and attainder issues with M. Pusateri. Page 1 of 6
Hours
1.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.20 2.10 2.10 0.20 1.50 2.70 2.70 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.30
Legend:
Date
09/15/2011
Attorney
CM
Description of Task
Telephone call with SLDN regarding litigation strategy; discuss strategy with M. Pusateri; review draft Complaint. Participate in conference call with SLDN regarding upcoming filings; revise brief; review bills of attainder articles and filings; draft motion based upon bills of attainder; review Gills docket and discuss same with C. Man. telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/McKean Telephone call with SLDN regarding strategy; discuss briefs and Complaint with M. Pusateri; review Log Cabin ruling . Participate in conference call with C. Man and SLDN to discuss administrative procedures; review statutory bases for benefits; revise Complaint. telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Man, email correspondence telephone conference Man, email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence Discuss the Complaint with SLDN and team; make edits; edit Motion for Summary Judgment; incorporate SLDN edits; discuss plaintiff issues with M. Pusateri. revise complaint, email correspondence Discuss Complaint with SLDN and team. Review and revise complaint . Incorporate and synthesize edits into Complaint; discuss title 32 and title 38 with D. McKean; discuss edits with C. Man. Review and revise Complaint. Revise Complaint; incorporate and review edits of J. Goodman; review pro hac paperwork .
Hours
2.00
09/15/2011
MP
6.50
09/15/2011 09/15/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/22/2011 10/22/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011 10/25/2011 10/25/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011
DM JG DM JG CM MP DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG CM JG CM ADL MP ADL MP
0.60 0.60 1.70 1.70 1.00 1.50 2.30 2.30 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.20 2.50 2.50 0.50 5.00 0.60 4.30
Page 2 of 6
Legend:
Date
10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/27/2011
Attorney
CM IM DM JG IM
Description of Task
Edit and discuss Complaint wi th SLDN and team. Review and comment on draft Complaint and pro hac vice motions and related materials. revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean Final comments to draft Complaint; file Complaint, pro hac motions and related paperwork; multiple meetings C . Man and M. Pusateri regarding same. Finalize and file Complaint; meet with plaintiffs and SLDN; discuss potential new plaintiffs; discuss case with DOJ and re-cap with SLDN. Finalize Complaint; file Complaint; research service of process rules; communicate with E. Sussman regarding Department of Justice contacts; revise and disseminate amended declaration for C. Morgan. Review Complaint, motions. revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference, email correspondence, memo telephone conference, email correspondence, memo telephone conference, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference, conference Sarvis/McKean Team call regarding strategy. Participate in conference call about litigation strategy with C. Man and representatives from SLDN. revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/McKean Telephone call with SLDN regarding brief and strategy; discuss issues raised by other LGBT groups; discuss with DOJ. telephone conference, email correspondence telephone conference, email correspondence Telephone call with SLDN regarding brief and strategy. telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences, revise summary judgment Page 3 of 6
Hours
5.50 2.50 6.10 6.10 4.20
10/27/2011
CM
6.90
10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011
MP ADL DM JG JG DM DM JG CM MP DM JG CM DM JG CM DM JG
4.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.90 0.90 1.40 1.40 1.00 0.70 3.00 3.00 1.50 0.80 0.80 1.80 2.40 2.40
Legend:
Date
11/18/2011 11/18/2011 01/05/2012 01/05/2012 02/23/2012 02/23/2012 03/04/2012 03/04/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012 04/04/2012 04/04/2012 04/06/2012 04/06/2012 05/04/2012 05/04/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/31/2012 05/31/2012 06/03/2012 06/03/2012 06/04/2012 06/04/2012 08/05/2012 08/05/2012
Attorney
DM JG DM JG CM MP DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG CM IM DM JG ADL CM DM JG
Description of Task
telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences , revise summary judgment telephone conference Lin, Man et al. ; review BLAG motion to intervene telephone conference Lin, Man et al.; review BLAG motion to intervene Review California opinion finding DOMA unconstitutional; discuss same with team Review California District Court' s decision in Golinski case telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation telephone conference Man et al telephone conference Man et al conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence telephone conference Lin et al., conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Lin et al., conference Sarvis/McKean Review First Circuit DOMA decision; discuss same with DOJ and SLDN. Review 1st circuit decision. telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al. Review Court Opinion; meeting with C. Man regarding strategy. Discuss litigation strategy with SLDN, OOJ and A . Lowell. telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al.
Hours
0.80 0.80 1.40 1.40 1.00 0.30 1.30 1.30 0.70 0.70 1.20 1.20 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 2.50 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.90 1.20 0.30 0.30
Page 4 of 6
Legend:
Date
11/04/2012 11/04/2012 11/28/2012 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/25/2013
Attorney
DM JG CM DM DM JG JG CM
Description of Task
telephone conference Lin, Man et al. , revise motion to set deadline, correspondences with plaintiffs telephone conference Lin, Man et al., revise motion to set deadline Review DOMA issues headed to Supreme Court. telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean Discuss response to anticipated DOMA decision with D. McKean. Review Supreme Court decision on DOMA and Prop 8 regarding standing; discuss implications and next steps with clients and cocounsel; call DOJ regarding same; review implementation directives from DOD and President. Review U.S. Supreme Court opinions. telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions email correspondence, review Supreme Court ops conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence, revise show cause filing conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence, revise show cause filing telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman; email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean; rev papers; email correspondence Review DOJ status report, draft and circulate response and discuss same with team. review DoJ status report; revise response
Hours
0.80 0.80 1.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.30
06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/27/2013 07/15/2013 07/15/2013 07/19/2013 07/19/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013
CM ADL DM DM JG JG JG DM JG DM JG CM JG
4.20 0.50 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 1.40 1.10 1.10 2.30 2.30 3.70 0.90
Page 5 of 6
Legend:
Date
09/10/2013 09/10/2013
Attorney
NF ADL
Description of Task
Review and revise Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' status report. Review and revise status report; meeting with C. Man regarding status report.
Hours
1.30 0.80
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT B Media-Related Matters
Legend:
Media-Related Matters
Date
10/21/2011 10/24/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011
Attorney
CM ADL ADL MP CM
Description of Task
Edit Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with P. Smith; coordinate plaintiff issues and media issues with M. Pusateri and SLDN. Review and revise Complaint, press releases, motion. Review media reports ; meeting with C. Man regarding tasks Track news stories about SLDN lawsuit announcement ; review appellate brief in Gill/Massachusetts consolidated appeal. Monitor press and discus same with SLDN; discuss additional plaintiffs with Southern Poverty Law Center; review Gill brief in First Circuit. Review SLDN press and First Circuit briefs; discuss additional plaintiffs with the Southern Poverty Law Center; research standing issues for BLAG. Research BLAG standing issues, prior congressional intervention; research equal protection issues; review press. Discuss potential Senate brief with A.Franze; review press ; review new First Circuit briefs; telephone call with J. Lin at DOJ . Review press on case. Discuss SLDN litigation and expenses with A. Giaccia and SLDN; review press on case. Send Motion for Summary Judgment to P . Smith and send same to M. Nemetz; discuss amicus issues with M. Nemetz; watch clients on Hardball; discuss same with clients. Review press. Review article on case in Huffington Post. Review NY Times article on case. Discuss opposition to BLAG' s motion to intervene with SLDN; review press on BLAG intervention. Review press regarding plaintiffs. Review press regarding BLAG spending. Review Washington Post article regarding C. Morgan. Circulate recent press regarding DOMA suit. Review SLDN press. Discuss case status and remaining issues with clients, press and cocounsel; research jurisdictional issues. Discuss SLDN suit with media and LGBT groups. Total Hours:
Hours
4.30 0.70 0.50 1.50 5.00
10/31/2011 11/01/2011 11/03/2011 12/08/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011 12/20/2011 12/27/2011 12/30/2011 05/02/2012 10/09/2012 10/17/2012 11/22/2012 11/26/2012 06/23/2013 08/16/2013 10/02/2013
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
3.70 3.30 4.30 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 2.00 1.50 29.80
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive Entries
Legend:
Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive

Date 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/15/2011 08/15/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 09/20/2011 Attorney DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG MP CM Description of Task telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean Meet with C. Man and representatives from SLDN regarding pro bono engagement. Line up local counsel; discuss plaintiffs with SLDN; research and draft Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with M. Pusateri. Edit and finalize Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment drafts for dissemination to SLDN for DOMA representation; perform conflicts check; finalize and disseminate skeleton declaration and declaration of S. Hill; research court of veterans claims docket. Organize supporting documents for DOMA pro bono representation including declarations and engagement letters; conduct conference calls with SLDN, J. Darrah, S. Bornhoft, J. Snyder, and others regarding documents; disseminate documents Finalize and file Complaint; meet with plaintiffs and SLDN; discuss potential new plaintiffs; discuss case with DOJ and re-cap with SLDN. Monitor press and discuss same with SLDN; discuss additional plaintiffs with Southern Poverty Law Center; review Gill brief in First Circuit. Review SLDN press and First Circuit briefs; discuss additional plaintiffs with the Southern Poverty Law Center; research standing issues for BLAG. Discuss potential Senate brief with A.Franze; review press ; review new First Circuit briefs; telephone call with J. Lin at DOJ . Hours 1.10 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.40 2.70 2.70 1.50 5.20
10/13/2011
MP
6.70
10/21/2011
MP
8.70
10/27/2011 10/28/2011
CM CM
6.90 5.00
10/31/2011 11/03/2011
CM CM
3.70 4.30
Page 1 of 2
Legend:
Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive

Date 11/04/2011 Attorney CM Description of Task Edit and circulate Motion for Summary Judgment; telephone call with General Counsel of House regarding his question about a stay; discuss possibility of amicus brief with Senate staff and Arnold & Porter ; review new First Circuit briefs. Communicate with I. McClatchey and C. Man about transfer of case to new judge; research Judge Stearns' civil rights jurisprudence; begin cite checking and revising Motion for Summary Judgment. Edit Motion for Summary Judgment and send to A. Lowell; review background of new judge and discuss reassignment with team; discuss litigation with J. Lin at DOJ; discuss potential amicus with Senate staffers. Discuss timing for filing Motion for summary Judgment and potential new plaintiffs with team. Edit and discuss Motion for Summary Judgment with M. Pusateri; discuss timing for filing Motion for Summary Judgment and potential new plaintiffs with team . Multiple e-mails M . Flaherty in response to administrative requests for information ; telephone call and e-mail M . Pusateri and P. Creason regarding same; review and comment on draft memorandum of law in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Discuss Motion for Summary Judgment with ACLU and LBGT groups. Telephone call with SLDN regarding brief and strategy; discuss issues raised by other LGBT groups; discuss with DOJ. Proof-read DOMA Motion for Summary Judgment; disseminate changes; review and organize all supporting documentation for summary judgment motion; participate in conference call with C. Man and SLDN team; review documentation with J. Moses; review comments from GLAD ACLU and others. Telephone call with LGBT group regarding DOMA; edit brief and discuss same with SLDN; review BLAG brief; discuss same with DOJ and team. Discuss brief with ACLU. Telephone call with LGBT groups regarding Post -Windsor implementation. Hours 3.70
11/09/2011
MP
2.30
11/09/2011
CM
3.50
11/10/2011 11/11/2011
CM CM
2.70 2.70
11/15/2011
IM
1.80
11/15/2011 11/16/2011
CM CM
1.70 1.50
11/16/2011
MP
1.90
11/18/2011 11/19/2011 07/22/2013
CM CM CM
4.10 0.40 0.30
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT D Block-Billed Entries
Legend:
Block-Billed Entries
Date
06/28/2011 06/28/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/09/2011 08/15/2011 08/15/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/17/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/22/2011 08/24/2011 08/25/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/29/2011 08/30/2011 08/30/2011
Attorney
DM JG DM JG DM JG CM DM JG DM JG CM DM JG CM CM MP DM JG MP MP CM
Description of Task
telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean Discuss DOMA litigation with SLDN and review background materials. telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Bornhoft, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Bomhoft, conference Sarvis/McKean Review DOMA background materials and meet with SLDN regarding lawsuit; update A. Lowell regarding same. telephone conference Hudson; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean Discuss DOMA research with M. Pusateri and review background materials. Review exhaustion materials sent by SLDN and discuss same with M. Pusateri. Read DOMA briefs in Golinski case; begin drafting brief; summarize findings concerning exhaustion of remedies; research presidential authority to uphold constitution. telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/McKean Read brief of Department of Justice in Golinski case; continue drafting complaint and brief for DOMA representation. Review case law and continue drafting brief for DOMA pro bono representation. Review Tribe article on DOMA and discuss Complaint with M. Pusateri.
Hours
1.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.20 2.20 2.70 2.70 0.50 0.60 5.00 0.80 0.80 6.00 6.50 0.30
Page 1 of 15

Legend:
Date
08/31/2011
Attorney
MP
Description of Task
Read DOMA legislative history; review legislative history of military benefits programs, continue drafting brief for DOMA bono representation. Edit brief for DOMA pro bona representation; review statutory history of Don't Ask Don 't Tell; review senate reports and law review articles about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Review legislative history and house comments on DOMA for pro bona engagement; continue drafting and editing brief. Review DOMA roundtable materials for pro bono representation; continue editing brief. Research law review articles on rational basis review; continue editing and drafting brief for DOMA pro bono representation. Begin drafting Complaint in DOMA pro bono representation; correspond with J. Goodman regarding same; review biographies of putative plaintiffs; discuss strategy with C. Man . Discuss Complaint and strategy with SLDN; discuss attorneys ' fees, exhaustion and attainder issues with M. Pusateri. Telephone call with SLDN regarding litigation strategy; discuss strategy with M. Pusateri; review draft Complaint. Participate in conference call wi th SLDN regarding upcoming filings; revise brief; review bills of attainder articles and filings; draft motion based upon bills of attainder; review Gills docket and discuss same with C.Man. telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke Discuss SLDN matter with A. Giaccia, A. Lowell and discuss litigation issues with M. Pusateri and SLDN; review DADT guidance materials. Research standing and declaratory judgment rules for DOMA pro bono representation; review local rules for filing. Discuss litigation issues with SLDN; review briefs in other LGBT cases and revise case law; discuss Motion for Summary Judgment with M. Pusateri. Line up local counsel; discuss plaintiffs with SLDN; research and draft Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with M. Pusateri.
Hours
5.50
09/06/2011 09/07/2011 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 09/15/2011
MP MP MP MP MP CM CM
4.00 3.00 8.00 7.50 6.20 1.30 2.00
09/15/2011
MP
6.50
09/15/2011 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 09/19/2011
DM JG CM MP CM
0.60 0.60 1.20 2.50 6.30
09/20/2011
CM
5.20
Page 2 of 15

Legend:
Date
09/21/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/06/2011
Attorney
CM CM DM JG MP CM MP DM JG MP DM JG MP
Description of Task
Research and draft Complaint and Motion for summary Judgment; discuss same with M.Pusateri . Research and draft Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with M. Pusateri. telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/McKean Revise Motion for summary Judgment for DOMA pro bono representation; blue book motion . Telephone call with SLDN regarding strategy; discuss briefs and Complaint with M. Pusateri; review Log Cabin ruling . Participate in conference call with c. Man and SLDN to discuss administrative procedures; review statutory bases for benefits; revise Complaint. telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke Review DOMA Complaint; discuss with C. Man; disseminate Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment to C. Man. telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/McKean Review declaration rules for DOMA representation; correspond with SLDN team about declarations; review local rules regarding declarations. Conference call with C. Man and SLDN members and S. Hill regarding Hill's declaration for DOMA representation; review materials of S. Hill including proposed book and emails to compose declaration; compose draft declaration. Discuss plaintiffs and filings with M. Pusateri; review case law. Review A. Lowell comments on Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with M. Pusateri. Review materials from S. Hill regarding efforts to obtain benefits for DOMA representation; draft declaration for s. Hill; review edits of A . Lowell to Complaint ; discuss declaration with J. Snyder. Edit and finalize Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment drafts for dissemination toSLDN for DOMA representation; perform conflicts check; finalize and disseminate skeleton declaration and declaration of S. Hill; research court of veterans claims docket.
Hours
6.30 5.00 1.70 1.70 8.00 1.00 1.50 2.30 2.30 1.50 0.70 0.70 0.30
10/11/2011 10/11/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011
MP CM CM MP
2.20 1.50 0.60 2.40
10/13/2011
MP
6.70
Page 3 of 15

Legend:
Date
10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/15/2011 10/17/2011 10/18/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/21/2011
Attorney
CM MP DM JG JG JG JG MP IM DM CM
Description of Task
Work with M. Pusateri on Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment and in lining up plaintiffs; discuss filings with J. Goodman . Revise DOMA Complaint ; review materials from J. Goodman; interview J. Snyder about declaration of S. Hill; interview G. Ross for declaration; review tenth amendment case law. telephone conference Man, email correspondence telephone conference Man, email correspondence revise summary judgment brief; investigation of law re legislative history of "spouse" revise motion papers; email correspondence telephone conference Ladner; revise summary judgment brief Conduct interviews of D. Henderson and C. Morgan; organize supporting materials; revise and prepare and disseminate declarations; follow up regarding declarations of S. Bornhoft and G. Ross. Review MA Local Rules regarding filing of Complaint; correspondence C. Man and M. Pusateri regarding same. conference Sarvis/Goodman, correspondences Edit Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment; discuss same with P. Smith; coordinate plaintiff issues and media issues with M. Pusateri and SLDN. Organize supporting documents for DOMA pro bono representation including declarations and engagement letters; conduct conference calls with SLDN, J. Darrah, S. Bornhoft, J. Snyder and others regarding documents; disseminate documents. investigation of law re legislative history of "spouse"; revise summary judgment brief Participate in conference call with SLDN and plaintiffs; address concerns and questions of plaintiffs in follow-up conversations; discuss plans for conference call with D. McKean; follow up with D. McKean after call; revise declarations; collect and organize documentation; correspond with C. Man about day 's activities and Complaint. telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence Discuss Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment with M. Pusateri. revise summary judgment brief, email correspondence
Hours
2.30 8.70 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.10 1.90 6.10 0.60 1.30 4.30
10/21/2011
MP
8.70
10/21/2011
JG
1.30
10/22/2011
MP
7.00
10/22/2011 10/22/2011 10/23/2011 10/23/2011
DM JG CM JG
2.00 2.00 0.30 1.00
Page 4 of 15

Legend:
Date Attorney Description of Task
Conduct interview of J . Darrah and compose declaration; revise complaint; revise category sheet and cover pages; compose pro hac vice motion and declaration for D. McKean; review local rules regarding filing fees; organize and collect supporting documentation; conference call with J. Henderson regarding declaration and questions. Discuss the Complaint with SLDN and team; make edits; edit Motion for Summary Judgment; incorporate SLDN edits; discuss plaintiff issues with M. Pusateri. Prepare civil cover sheet and category sheet; telephone call and e-mail M. Pusateri regarding same; review MA local rules in anticipation of filing of Complaint and motions for admission. revise complaint, email correspondence Incorporate and synthesize edits into Complaint; discuss title 32 and title 38 with D. McKean; discuss edits with C. Man. revise complaint, email correspondence Revise Complaint; incorporate and review edits of J. Goodman; review pro hac paperwork . revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean Final comments to draft Complaint; file Complaint, pro hac motions and related paperwork; multiple meetings C. Man and M. Pusateri regarding same. Finalize and file Complaint; meet with plaintiffs and SLDN ; discuss potential new plaintiffs; discuss case with DOJ and re-cap with SLDN . Finalize Complaint; file Complaint; research service of process rules; communicate with E. Sussman regarding Department of Justice contacts; revise and disseminate amended declaration for C. Morgan. revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean Review media reports ; meeting with C. Man regarding tasks Track news stories about SLDN lawsuit announcement ; review appellate brief in Gill/Massachusetts consolidated appeal.
Hours
10/24/2011
MP
7.00
10/24/2011
CM
4.20
10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011 10/25/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/27/2011
IM JG MP JG MP DM JG IM
1.40 2.50 5.00 7.00 4.30 6.10 6.10 4.20
10/27/2011
CM
6.90
10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011
MP DM JG ADL MP
4.00 5.00 5.00 0.50 1.50
Page 5 of 15

Legend:
Date
10/28/2011
Attorney
CM
Description of Task
Monitor press and discus same with SLDN; discuss additional plaintiffs with Southern Poverty Law Center; review Gill brief in First Circuit. Review SLDN press and First Circuit briefs; discuss additional plaintiffs with the Southern Poverty Law Center; research standing issues for BLAG. Review Affidavits of Service; review federal rules governing service; review motion to intervene of BLAG; prepare summary of motion to intervene for C. Man. telephone conference, email correspondence, memo telephone conference, email correspondence, memo Research and obtain Golinski filings regarding standing; read filings; share findings with C. Man. Research BLAG standing issues, prior congressional intervention ; research equal protection issues; review press. telephone conference, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference, conference Sarvis/McKean Obtain and review amicus briefs in Gill case; discuss findings with C. Man. Discuss potential Senate brief with A.Franze; review press ; review new First Circuit briefs; telephone call with J. Lin at DOJ . investigation of law, email correspondence Edit and circulate Motion for Summary Judgment; telephone call with General Counsel of House regarding his question about a stay; discuss possibility of amicus brief with Senate staff and Arnold & Porter ; review new First Circuit briefs. Review First Circuit case; telephone call with U .S. House Counsel regarding status. Review local rules regarding redaction; redact declaration exhibit for V. Hudson Research Motion for Summary Judgment and defenses to potential challenges; review DOMA briefs in other cases; discuss litigation issues with J. Goodman. Review activity posted to ECF; telephone call R. Toro regarding same. Communicate with I. Mcclatchey and C. Man about transfer of case to new judge; research Judge Stearns' civil rights jurisprudence; begin cite checking and revising Motion for Summary Judgment.
Hours
5.00
10/31/2011
CM
3.70
10/31/2011 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/03/2011 11/03/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011
MP JG DM MP CM DM JG MP CM JG CM
1.90 0.90 0.90 0.50 3.30 1.40 1.40 0.60 4.30 0.70 3.70
11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011
ADL MP CM IM
0.90 0.20 4.00 0.30
11/09/2011
MP
2.30
Page 6 of 15

Legend:
Date
11/09/2011
Attorney
CM
Description of Task
Edit Motion for Summary Judgment and send to A. Lowell; review background of new judge and discuss reassignment with team; discuss litigation with J. Lin at DOJ; discuss potential amicus with Senate staffers. E-mail M. Pusateri in anticipation of Motion for Summary Judgment filings; review ECF activity; telephone call and multiple e-mails R. Toro with respect to al1 of the foregoing. Review cite -checking done by J. Moses; review local rules and federal rules of civil procedure regarding amended complaints. Proof -read DOMA Motion for summary Judgment and make edits; pull sources to confirm citations; ensure that declarations are properly redacted. Edit and discuss Motion for Summary Judgment with M. Pusateri; discuss timing for filing Motion for Summary Judgment and potential new plaintiffs with team . Communicate with D. McKean regarding dual status of S. McLaughlin; revise statement of undisputed facts; discuss standing issues with c. Man; research standing to bring claims on behalf of those similarly situated; research declaratory judgment act in civil rights context. Edit and discuss Motion for Summary Judgment with team; research standing issues Multiple e-mails M . Flaherty in response to administrative requests for information; telephone call and e-mail M. Pusateri and P. Creason regarding same; review and comment on draft memorandum of law in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/McKean Telephone call with SLDN regarding brief and strategy; discuss issues raised by other LGBT groups; discuss with DOJ. Comments to draft motion for summary judgment; e -mail M. Pusateri re: same. Proof-read DOMA Motion for Summary Judgment; disseminate changes; review and organize all supporting documentation for summary judgment motion; participate in conference call with C. Man and SLDN team; review documentation with J. Moses; review comments from GLAD ACLU and others. telephone conference, email correspondence telephone conference, email correspondence
Hours
3.50
11/09/2011 11/10/2011 11/11/2011
IM MP MP
0.50 1.20 2.20
11/11/2011
CM
2.70
11/14/2011
MP
2.30
11/14/2011
CM
1.30
11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011
IM DM JG CM IM
1.80 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.20
11/16/2011
MP
1.90
11/16/2011 11/16/2011
DM JG
0.80 0.80
Page 7 of 15

Legend:
Date
11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/21/2011 11/21/2011 11/22/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011 01/05/2012 01/05/2012 02/01/2012 02/07/2012 02/17/2012 02/21/2012 02/23/2012 03/04/2012 03/04/2012 03/05/2012
Attorney
IM DM JG CM DM JG CM JM CM CM CM DM JG CM CM CM CM CM DM JG CM
Description of Task
E-mail correspondence J . Moses re: MSJ filing; telephone calls and meet with R. Toro re: same. telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences, revise summary judgment Telephone call with LGBT group regarding DOMA; edit brief and discuss same with SLDN; review BLAG brief; discuss same with DOJ and team . telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences , revise summary judgment Discuss brief with A. Lowell and SLDN; edit same and coordinate filing; discuss same with DOJ . Locate sample Motion for Summary Judgment filed in DC; gather information for c. Man regarding Hudson declaration. Coordinate service issues with J. Moses; discuss brief and scheduling issues with J. Lin at DOJ. Discuss SLDN litigation and expenses with A. Giaccia and SLDN; review press on case. Send Motion for Summary Judgment to P . Smith and send same to M. Nemetz; discuss amicus issues with M. Nemetz; watch clients on Hardball; discuss same with clients. telephone conference Lin, Man et al. ; review BLAG motion to intervene telephone conference Lin, Man et al.; review BLAG motion to intervene Review materials regarding C. Morgan meeting with Speaker Boehner; discuss with team. Review Ninth Circuit marriage decision and related press; discuss same with SLDN. Review AG's letter to Congress regarding non-defense; discuss same with J. Lin, SLDN and team. Review and send recent filings to SLDN; discuss same with J. Lin. Review California opinion finding DOMA unconstitutional; discuss same with team telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence Research objections to intervention and discuss same with J. Esseks and A. Lowell; discuss F'irst Circuit argument date with J. Lin and team.
Hours
0.30 2.40 2.40 4.10 0.80 0.80 3.30 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.50 1.40 1.40 0.40 2.50 1.80 0.20 1.00 1.30 1.30 3.20
Page 8 of 15

Legend:
Date
03/06/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/09/2012 03/10/2012 03/14/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012 03/21/2012 03/23/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012
Attorney
MP MP CM CM CM CM CM CM CM DM JG CM CM CM CM
Description of Task
Participate in conference call regarding stay and opposition to motion to intervene; discuss prior positions of Paul Clement regarding intervention as right with C. Man Participate in conference call regarding motion to intervene and answer; review calendar for First Circuit Court of Appeals Team call regarding intervention; discuss intervention issues with K. Kircher; research opposition. Research challenge to intervention and discuss same with D. McKean, J. Esseks and J. Lin; review and discuss article on same with M. Hall; review BLAG discovery filed in Windsor. Research standing challenge; discuss same with M. Hall. Research and draft opposition to intervention; research and discuss with team appellate issues with challenging intervention. Team cal1 regarding in intervention; research same. Research and draft opposition to intervention; discuss same with P. Marple. Research and draft opposition to intervention; discuss C. Morgan illness and related issues with team. telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean Research and draft opposition to intervention; discuss BLAG's timing to intervene with J. Lin. Research and draft opposition to intervention; discuss same with I. Mcclatchey. Discuss BLAG intervention with K. Kircher, J. Lin and SLDN; draft opposition to intervention; review DOJ petition for en bane review in Golinski. Research and draft opposition to intervention; discuss BLAG intervention with J. Lin. Telephone call with SLDN and DOJ regarding stipulation for C. Morgan and case status; research and discuss nunc pro tune relief with SLDN; discuss stipulation regarding C. Morgan; review news regarding First Circuit argument. telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation
Hours
0.40 0.40 4.30 7.30 4.50 7.80 2.40 1.50 5.00 0.70 0.70 7.30 8.30 6.20 6.30
04/04/2012
CM
2.40
04/04/2012 04/04/2012
DM JG
1.20 1.20
Page 9 of 15

Legend:
Date
04/05/2012
Attorney
CM
Description of Task
Review news regarding First Circuit arguments and C. Morgan's health; discuss same with A.Lowell . Edit and discuss motion to set intervention deadline and discuss C. Morgan's medical condition and stipulation issue with SLDN; discuss same with J. Lin; discuss edits to BLAG intervention opposition with M. Chasse; review DEERS materials sent by D. McKean. Edit and file motion to set a deadline for intervention; discuss same with SLDN; team call with SLDN regarding continuance and a stipulation regarding C. Morgan. Review and discuss proposed continuance motion with DOJ; review SLDN's proposed stipulation regarding C . Morgan. Review BLAG motion to intervene; edit and circulate opposition. Discuss opposition to BLAG' s motion to intervene with SLDN; review press on BLAG intervention. conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence Review Brief in Opposition of Intervention and revise Table of Authorities and Table of contents to reflect revisions Finalize and circulate filings regarding opposition to BLAG intervention; discuss same and C. Morgan stipulation. Review documents in anticipation of filing; telephone calls and e-mails re: same. Review Opposition to BLAG' s Motion to Intervene and finalize the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities to reflect the last edits to the brief File opposition to BLAG intervention; discuss extending response time and pages with K. Kircher; review press on President's statements on marriage equality. telephone conference Lin et al.,conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Lin et al., conference Sarvis/McKean Discuss intervention order with J. Lin, K. Kircher and SLDN; discuss C. Morgan stipulation. Review Dragovich Order invalidating DOMA; discuss same with team. Review First Circuit DOMA decision; discuss same with DOJ and SLDN. Review Court Opinion; meeting with C. Man regarding strategy.
Hours
0.30
04/09/2012
CM
1.80
04/11/2012 04/19/2012 05/01/2012 05/02/2012 05/04/2012 05/04/2012 05/07/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012
CM CM CM CM DM JG MC CM IM MC
1.30 0.30 4.50 0.30 0.40 0.40 2.70 2.30 0.50 2.60
05/09/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/16/2012 05/29/2012 05/31/2012 06/04/2012
CM DM JG CM CM CM ADL
2.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.70 2.50 0.90
Page 10 of 15

Legend:
Date
06/05/2012 06/06/2012 06/13/2012 11/04/2012 11/04/2012 06/08/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/27/2013 06/27/2013 07/01/2013 07/04/2013 07/05/2013 07/15/2013 07/15/2013 07/15/2013 07/18/2013 07/18/2013 07/19/2013
Attorney
CM CM CM DM JG JG CM DM DM JG JG CM JG CM NF CM CM DM JG CM JG CM
Description of Task
Review DOJ stay motion; draft and circulate response to same; discuss proposed stay language with DOJ; discuss denial of en bane review in Perry with team. Finalize and file response to stay; discuss same with team and DOJ; review and discuss Order granting stay with team. Review letter from DOJ regarding C. Morgan ; discuss same with team. telephone conference Lin, Man et al. , revise motion to set deadline, correspondences with plaintiffs telephone conference Lin, Man et al., revise motion to set deadline factual investigation re lost benefits, email correspondence Review Supreme Court decision on DOMA and Prop 8 regarding standing; discuss implications and next steps with clients and co-counsel; call DOJ regarding same; review implementation directives from DOD and President. telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions Discuss next steps with DOJ and SLDN; review Court Order regarding same; request background documents for fee request. email correspondence, review Supreme Court ops Discuss equal access to justice acts with N. Francis; discuss fee issues with J. Lin. E-mail exchange with C. Man regarding letter to DOJ regarding attorney fees; edit letter to DOJ to include C. Man's comments. Prepare and send fee discussion to J . Lin; notify SLDN of same. Research and draft response to Court Order regarding Windsor; discuss same with SLDN and A. Lowell. conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence, revise show cause filing conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence, revise show cause filing Review BLAG/DOJ filings; discuss DOJ position with J. Lin; discuss strategic issues with the team and plaintiffs. review show cause filings; email correspondence Discuss research needs with P. Asnani; review and discuss Orders with team; discuss case status and fact development with plaintiffs.
Hours
3.20 1.80 0.30 0.80 0.80 1.40 4.20 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 0.60 1.40 0.60 1.80 0.50 1.80 1.10 1.10 2.50 2.10 1.30
Page 11 of 15

Legend:
Date
07/19/2013 07/19/2013 07/20/2013 07/21/2013 07/21/2013 07/23/2013 08/01/2013 08/05/2013 08/07/2013
Attorney
DM JG JG DM JG CM CM CM CM
Description of Task
telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman; email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean; rev papers; email correspondence email correspondence, benefits lost DoD conference call re Windsor implementation, email correspondence DoD conference call re Windsor implementation, email correspondence Discuss strategic issues with M. Bonato regarding Title 38 and related issues; discuss case with press . Discuss DOJ litigating position with DOJ; discuss strategic issues regarding litigating remaining issues with team; review research regarding jurisdiction on Title 38 claims. Review plaintiffs' damages estimates, research cases regarding mootness and jurisdiction. Review Windsor-related legal articles; review plaintiffs damages estimates. Discuss case status issues with plaintiff; discuss strategic issues with team; discuss litigating position for DOJ with J. Lin; research objections to DOJ; review and discuss jurisdictional memo with P. Asnani. Discuss veterans benefits issues with J. Lin; review recent Windsor-related decisions; research objections to DOJ position on mootness and jurisdiction. Continue reviewing materials relevant to a determination of whether the Government's position was substantially justified; Meeting with C. Man regarding same; Begin researching the Presidents power to refuse to enforce statutes he deems unconstitutional. Review jurisdictional issues and discuss Same with P. Asnani; research case law on jurisdictions, mootness and standing; research Tricare availability issues and discuss same with DOJ and co-counsel; review plaintiff damages estimates. Research jurisdictional issues; discuss damages issues with clients and cocounsel; review and discuss new DoD policy on benefits with DOJ. Continue researching the Presidents power to refuse to enforce statutes he deems unconstitutional; Meeting with C. Man regarding main argument for award of attorney fees; Plan brief; Begin drafting brief.
Hours
2.30 2.30 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.40 1.80 3.30 1.00
08/09/2013
CM
3.80
08/12/2013
CM
3.60
08/13/2013
NF
1.60
08/13/2013
CM
4.50
08/14/2013
CM
4.20
08/14/2013
NF
3.00
Page 12 of 15

Legend:
Date
08/15/2013 08/16/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/21/2013 08/22/2013
Attorney
CM CM CM NF NF CM JG NF NF
Description of Task
Discuss benefits issues wit h DOJ and co-counsel; review damages estimates and discuss same with clients; research jurisdictional issues. Discuss case status and remaining issues with clients, press and cocounsel; research jurisdictional issues. Review new DOMA/marriage -related litigation and news; review military implementation proposal; research jurisdictional issues. Draft argument section of motion for award of attorney fees; Research related to same. Continue drafting argument section of motion for award of attorney tees; Research related to same; E-mail to C. Man regarding same. Discuss benefits issues with clients and co-counsel; discuss fee award issues with N. Francis. email correspondence, telephone conference McLaughlin, factual investigation re lost benefits Draft application for fees and declarations of A. Lowell and C. Man; revise brief in support of application; research related to same. Continue revising brief in support of application; research related to same. Research and edit motion for attorneys' fees; discuss benefits issues and status of DOJ decision with co-counsel and review VA letter regarding benefits to Senator Shaheen; discuss fee issues with N. Francis and N. Minahan. Review Cooper-Harris decision regarding veteran's benefits; discuss same with client and DOJ; review and discuss benefits calculations with cocounsel. review Cooper-Harris decision, email correspondence, factual investigation re lost benefits Discuss benefits issues with DOJ; research fee, mootness and VJRA issues. Review VA policy decision reversal on benefits; discuss same with DOJ, co - counsel and clients; review draft of fee application and research mootness issues. Discuss VA losing K. Morgan benefits application and other case issues with DOJ; review documents regarding DOD/VA policy changes; draft response to anticipated status report; research and discuss fee issues with cocounsel. Research and draft response to defendants anticipated status report; research fee issues and discuss potential consent decree with DOJ.
Hours
3.20 2.00 3.30 6.80 6.40 1.10 1.40 6.10 4.00
08/28/2013
CM
4.70
08/30/2013 08/30/2013 09/03/2013 09/04/2013
CM JG CM CM
2.40 1.20 3.20 3.80
09/05/2013
CM
5.10
09/06/2013
CM
4.20
Page 13 of 15

Legend:
Date
09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013
Attorney
CM JG ADL CM
Description of Task
Review DOJ status report, draft and circulate response and discuss same with team. review DOJ status report; revise response Review and revise status report; meeting with C. Man regarding status report. Discuss recent filing and case status with clients; edit and file response to DOJs status report; discuss Morgan application for benefits with DOJ. Review Order regarding drafting judgment; discuss same with clients and co-counsel and counsel in Cooper-Harris; research fee award issues. Review possible language and issues for a judgment; discuss case status with clients; research fee award issues. revise proposed judgment , email correspondence revise proposed judgment, email correspondence Negotiate proposed judgment with DOJ and SLDN; discuss fee issues with SLDN. revise proposed judgment, email correspondence, telephone conference Man Negotiate draft judgment with DOJ; research and edit fee application and discuss same with N. Francis and SLDN. Research and draft/edit fee application; edit bills; discuss fee declarations with clients and N. Francis; discuss proposed judgment with DOJ. Draft plaintiffs' declaration in support of application for attorney fees and costs; meeting with C. Man regarding same; email to A. Banks regarding same. Research and draft/edit fee application; edit bills; discuss fee declarations with clients and N. Francis and A. Lowell. Review and revise Plaintiffs' declarations in support of application for attorney fees; emails to plaintiffs regarding same. Discuss proposed judgment with DOJ, co-counsel and clients; discuss fee application with co-counsel and clients; edit fee application and discuss same with N. Francis. Discuss proposed judgment issues with DOJ and clients; review fee pleading s and discuss same with N. Francis. Review final judgment; discuss same with clients. Discuss client assess to benefits issues with client and SLDN; draft/edit fee application materials and discuss related issues with SLDN.
Hours
3.70 0.90 0.80 2.70
09/12/2013 09/13/2013 09/19/2013 09/20/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013 09/24/2013 09/25/2013
CM CM JG JG CM JG CM CM
1.80 0.80 0.90 1.20 3.80 0.80 3.60 5.00
09/25/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013 09/27/2013 09/30/2013 10/02/2013 10/08/2013
NF CM NF CM CM CM CM
1.10 4.70 5.00 5.50 1.30 0.30 2.90
Page 14 of 15

Legend:
Date
10/09/2013
Attorney
CM
Description of Task
Discuss client access to benefits issues with client and SLDN; edit/draft declarations and discuss fee application materials with SLDN; discuss fee issue application materials with SLDN; discuss fee issue with J. Lin at DOJ. Discuss fee application issues with SLDN; discuss client access to benefits issue with team. Discuss access to benefits issues with client and National Guard counsel; discuss fee application with SLDN and review their edits to application materials. revise fee dec, email correspondence revise fee brief, email correspondence Research whether the 30-day deadline in 28 U. S. C. s2412 (d) (1)(B) is jurisdictional; review and edit declarations of A. Lowell and C. Man. Discuss client access to benefits issues with client and SLDN; discuss fee application with SLDN. Discuss fee issues with SLDN; prepare fee application materials. Discuss fee issues with DOJ and SLDN; work with N. Francis on edits to brief and declarations for same. Discuss fee application with co-counsel; prepare fee application materials. revise fee dec, email correspondence Discuss fee issues with co-counsel; prepare fee application. Review time records; prepare declaration in support of application for attorneys' fees Review application materials; discuss and edit same with team. Review time records; prepare declaration in support of application for attorneys' fees Edit declarations of A. Lowell, C. Man, J. Goodman and J. McKean; discussions with C. Man regarding same; attention to matters regarding C&P bill for DOMA matter; draft proposed order regarding application for award of attorneys' fees. revise fee brief, email correspondence Total Hours in 2011 Total Hours in 2012 Total Hours in 2013 Total Fees
Hours
4.40
10/10/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/12/2013 10/14/2013 10/15/2013 10/16/2013 10/17/2013 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/21/2013 10/22/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013
CM CM JG JG NF CM CM CM CM JG CM DM CM DM
0.40 1.30 1.20 0.40 0.90 0.20 0.40 1.70 1.30 0.60 0.80 1.80 0.40 2.20
10/25/2013 10/25/2013
NF JG
3.00 0.30 353.30 116.00 189.90 $ 124,729.69
Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT E Vague Billing Entries
Legend:
Yellow Highlighting = Block-Billed Time; Blue Highlighting = Vague time entries; Green Highlighting = Overstaffing; Red Highlighting = Media-Related Matters; Orange Highlighting = Unnecessary, Unreasonable or Unproductive Work. The attorneys on this case are Noelle Francis (NF), John Goodman (JG) Abbe David Lowell (ADL), Christopher Man (CM), Ian McClatchey (IM), David McKean (DM) Michael Pusateri (MP) and the paralegals on this case are Michelle Chasse (MC) and Jamie Moses (JM)
Vague Billing Entries

Date Attorney Description of Task 06/08//2011 DM telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke 06/08/2011 JG telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke 06/28/2011 06/28/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/15/2011 08/15/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/25/2011 08/25/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 09/15/2011 09/15/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM DM JG telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Bornhoft, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Bomhoft, conference Sarvis/McKean conference Sarvis/Goodman, Chadbourne & Parke conference Sarvis/McKean, Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson ; telephone conference prospective plaintiffs, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Mclaughlin, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Snyder, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hill, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Hudson, conference Sarvis/McKean Correspondences w/ Shannon telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke telephone conference Hudson, telephone conference Chadbourne & Parke Hours 1.30 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.20 2.10 2.10 2.70 2.70 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 1.70 1.70 0.20 2.30 2.30
Page 1 of 5
Legend:

Date Attorney Description of Task 09/30/2011 DM telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/Goodman 09/30/2011 JG telephone conference Rossr, conference Sarvis/McKean 10/11/2011 CM Discuss plaintiffs and filings with M. Pusateri; review case law. 10/11/2011 DM Correspondences w/ Mike Pusateri 10/14/2011 DM telephone conference Man, email correspondence 10/14/2011 JG telephone conference Man, email correspondence 10/17/2011 DM Correspondences w/ Mike Pusateri 10/17/2011 JG revise motion papers; email correspondence 10/18/2011 JG telephone conference Ladner; revise summary judgment brief 10/20/2011 ADL Prepare for Complaint filing. 10/20/2011 DM conference Sarvis/Goodman, correspondences 10/20/2011 JG conference Sarvis/McKean 10/22/2011 DM telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence 10/22/2011 JG telephone conference plaintiffs; email correspondence 10/25/2011 JG revise complaint, email correspondence 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/03/2011 11/04/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 01/13/2012 02/10/2012 02/10/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 DM JG DM JG JG DM DM JG JG JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM JG DM revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise complaint, email correspondence, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference, email correspondence, memo telephone conference, email correspondence, memo telephone conference, conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference, conference Sarvis/McKean email correspondence investigation of law, email correspondence revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/Goodman revise summary judgment, conference Sarvis/McKean telephone conference, email correspondence telephone conference, email correspondence telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences, revise summary judgment telephone conferences , revise summary judgment correspondences telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al. Page 2 of 5 Hours 0.70 0.70 1.50 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.50 2.10 1.90 0.50 1.30 0.80 2.00 2.00 7.00 6.10 6.10 5.00 5.00 0.90 0.90 1.40 1.40 0.30 0.70 3.00 3.00 0.80 0.80 2.40 2.40 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40
Legend:

Date Attorney Description of Task 03/06/2012 JG telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference 03/19/2012 DM Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence, conference 03/19/2012 JG Sarvis/McKean 04/03/2012 DM telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence 04/03/2012 JG telephone conference Man et al., email correspondence 04/04/2012 04/04/2012 04/05/2012 04/05/2012 04/09/2012 04/11/2012 04/11/2012 04/17/2012 04/18/2012 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/31/2012 06/04/2012 06/04/2012 06/04/2012 02/09/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 DM JG DM JG IM JG DM JG JG DM JG DM JG DM JG IM ADL DM JG JG DM DM JG JG DM DM JG JG telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation telephone conference Lin, Man et al., email correspondence, stipulation conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence E-mails. telephone conference Lin, Man et al., revise motion to set deadline telephone conference Lin, Man et al. , revise motion to set deadline, correspondences with plaintiffs email correspondence email correspondence telephone conference Lin, Man et al. ; review BLAG motion to intervene telephone conference Lin, Man et al. ; review BLAG motion to intervene telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Man et al. telephone conference Lin et al., conference Sarvis/Goodman telephone conference Lin et al., conference Sarvis/McKean Review 1st circuit decision. Review Court Opinion; meeting with C. Man regarding strategy. telephone conference Man et al telephone conference Man et al factual investigation re lost benefits, email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions telephone conference plaintiffs, review Supreme Court opinions Hours 0.40 0.70 0.70 1.30 1.30 1.20 1.20 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.40 1.40 1.40 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.90 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10
Page 3 of 5
Legend:

Date Attorney Description of Task 06/27/2013 JG email correspondence, review Supreme Court ops 06/27/2013 JG email correspondence conference Sarvis/Goodman, email correspondence, revise show cause 07/15/2013 DM filing conference Sarvis/McKean, email correspondence, revise show cause 07/15/2013 JG filing 07/18/2013 JG review show cause filings; email correspondence 07/19/2013 07/19/2013 07/20/2013 07/21/2013 07/21/2013 08/05/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/08/2013 08/09/2013 08/15/2013 08/16/2013 08/20/2013 08/21/2013 08/23/2013 08/30/2013 09/02/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/18/2013 09/19/2013 09/20/2013 09/23/2013 09/25/2013 10/08/2013 DM JG JG DM JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG JG IM JG JG JG JG JG JG JG telephone conference plaintiffs, Goodman; email correspondence telephone conference plaintiffs, McKean; rev papers; email correspondence email correspondence, benefits lost DoD conference call re Windsor implementation, email correspondence DoD conference call re Windsor implementation, email correspondence email correspondence factual investigation re lost benefits, email correspondence factual investigation re lost benefits, email correspondence email correspondence email correspondence email correspondence email correspondence email corespondence, telephone conference McLaughlin, factual investigation re lost benefits email correspondence email correspondence review Cooper-Harris decision, email correspondence, factual investigation re lost benefits factual investigation re lost benefits, email correspondence Attention to filing. revise response to DoJ; email correspondence revise proposed judgment, email correspondence revise proposed judgment, email correspondence revise proposed judgment, email correspondence revise proposed judgment, email correspondence, telephone conference Man email correspondence email correspondence Page 4 of 5 Hours 1.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 2.10 2.30 2.30 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.20 1.40 1.40 0.30 0.20 0.50 0.50 1.40 0.30 0.30 1.20 0.50 0.80 1.20 0.80 0.90 1.20 0.80 0.70 0.30
Legend:

Date Attorney Description of Task 10/11/2013 JG revise fee dec, email correspondence 10/12/2013 JG revise fee brief, email correspondence 10/14/2013 JG email correspondence 10/18/2013 JG revise fee dec, email correspondence 10/25/2013 JG revise fee brief, email correspondence Hours 1.20 0.40 0.30 0.60 0.30
Page 5 of 5

1:11-cv-11905 #59

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1:11-cv-11905 #59

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 11 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 13 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 14 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 15 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 16 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 18 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 19 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 20 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 21 of 23

Defendants Proposed Calculation.

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 22 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59 Filed 12/11/13 Page 23 of 23

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 34

EXHIBIT A General Overstaffing

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 34

EXHIBIT B Media-Related Matters

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 34

EXHIBIT C Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive Entries

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 11 of 34

Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 34

Unnecessary, Unreasonable and/or Unproductive

11/18/2011 11/19/2011 07/22/2013

4.10 0.40 0.30

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 13 of 34

EXHIBIT D Block-Billed Entries

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 14 of 34

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 15 of 34

09/06/2011 09/07/2011 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 09/15/2011

4.00 3.00 8.00 7.50 6.20 1.30 2.00

09/15/2011 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 09/19/2011

0.60 0.60 1.20 2.50 6.30

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 16 of 34

10/11/2011 10/11/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011

2.20 1.50 0.60 2.40

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 34

10/22/2011 10/22/2011 10/23/2011 10/23/2011

2.00 2.00 0.30 1.00

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 18 of 34

10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011 10/25/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/26/2011 10/27/2011

1.40 2.50 5.00 7.00 4.30 6.10 6.10 4.20

10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011

4.00 5.00 5.00 0.50 1.50

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 59-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 19 of 34

11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011