3:13-cv-24068 #146

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 4635
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH

ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM
GLAVARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH
MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON,
individually and as next friends of A.S.M., a minor
child;
No. 3:13-cv-24068
Hon. Robert Chambers
Plaintiffs,
v.
KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity as
CABEL COUNTY CLERK; and VERA J.
MCCORMICK, in her official capacity as
KANAWHA COUNTY CLERK;
Defendants,
and
STATE of WEST VIRGINIA,
Intervenor-Defendant.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS

FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum in support in support of their Motion for
Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
Based on this memorandum, the attached supporting materials, and the record in this case,
Plaintiffs seek a total sum of $350,256.19 in fees, expenses, and costs.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
overturning West Virginia Code section 48-2-104 and 48-2-4021, as well as any other sources
of West Virginia law that exclude same-sex couples from marriage (collectively, the marriage
ban), and permitting same-sex couples to marry. The marriage ban required that each marriage
license contain the names of both the female and the male parties and must contain the
statement that [m]arriage is designed to be a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a
man. W. Va. Code 48-2-104(a), (c).
Plaintiffs are six gay and lesbian West Virginians, comprising three same-sex adult
couples: Casie Joe McGee and Sarah Elizabeth Adkins; Justin Murdock and William Glavaris;
and Nancy Elizabeth Michael and Jane Louise Fenton, and A.S.M., their minor child. Plaintiffs
sued Karen S. Cole and Vera J. McCormick in their official capacities as Cabell County Clerk
and Kanawha County Clerk, respectively. The State of West Virginia intervened as a defendant
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1(c) and 24(a).
On December 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40),
alleging that the marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Docs. 26, 31, 85), as well as
motions for summary judgment (Docs. 62, 66).
On June 10, 2014, the Court stayed the case pending a decision from the Fourth Circuit in
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). (Doc. 125) In Bostic, the Fourth Circuit held
that Virginias ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Id. at 384. The Supreme Court
denied review in Bostic on October 6, 2014. Rainey v. Bostic, 135 S. Ct. 286 (2014); Schaefer v.
Bostic, 135 S. Ct. 308 (2014).
On November 7, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and
denied Defendants pending motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 140).
The Court concluded that the marriage ban directly violate[s] the due process and equal
protection rights of same-sex couples (id., slip op. at 18) and accordingly grant[ed] the
Plaintiffs requested relief and declared the marriage can unconstitutional (id. at 20).
On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to extend the time in which
to file a motion seeking attorneys fees and other costs. (Doc. 143). The Court granted the
motion and extended the deadline for filing a petition for fees and costs to December 2, 2014.
Plaintiffs are undoubtedly the prevailing parties in this case, and accordingly, they now
seek attorneys fees, expenses, and costs for their success in this action.
ARGUMENT
The Court granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, alleging violations of 42
U.S.C. 1983, and denied Defendants motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Doc.
140). As a result, Plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees. As Congress has
provided: In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982,
1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party,
other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys fee as part of the costs . . . . 42 U.S.C.
1988(b). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that the enforcement of federal
civil rights laws depends upon private litigation as a means of securing compliance with the
law. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-02 (1968). The availability of fee
awards for prevailing parties is critical if private parties are to undertake litigation to vindicate
the civil rights laws. See id. The purpose of providing for an award of such fees and expenses to
prevailing parties is to encourage private litigants to act as private attorneys general in
seeking to vindicate the civil rights laws. . . . Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to
enforce the fundamental rights involved. The awards are a necessary means of enabling private
citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240, 245 (D.C.
Cir. 1982) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-295 at 40 (1975), 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 774, 807).
As the Fourth Circuit has held, [i]n light of Section 1988s language and purpose, a
prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorneys fee unless special circumstances
would render such an award unjust. Lefemine v. Wideman, 758 F.3d 551, 555 (4th Cir. 2014)
(quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).
I.
Plaintiffs Are Entitled to the Requested Attorneys Fees and Costs.

A.
Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties.
The Supreme Court has held that civil rights parties are prevailing parties if they
succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties
sought. Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989)
(quotation marks omitted); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 756-58 (1980). Plaintiffs here
succeeded on every significant issue in litigation: the marriage ban has been struck as
unconstitutional, and Defendants motions to dismiss and for summary judgment (raising various
merits and procedural arguments) were denied. Plaintiffs are clearly the prevailing parties in this
case.
B.
Plaintiffs Fees are Reasonable.
The only remaining question is whether the fees sought are reasonable. As explained
below, the fees, expenses, and costs that Plaintiffs seek are reasonable for litigation of this type
and scope.
An award of attorneys fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which is determined
by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable
hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar is presumed to be the reasonable fee, Blum, 465 U.S. at
897; accord People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996), and
includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a reasonable attorneys fee.
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566 (1986),
supplemented by 487 U.S. 711 (1987); see also Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Hurst,
No. 3:03-cv-2281, 2011 WL 3563295, at *10 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 11, 2011).
Two issues are addressed below demonstrating the reasonableness of Plaintiffs requested
fees: 1) the reasonable number of hours expended by Plaintiffs attorneys to litigate this case;
and 2) the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs counsel. As explained further below, both the hours
incurred and the rates charged were reasonable for a case of this nature.
1.
Plaintiffs Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours.
As the Court noted, this case is one of many proceeding through the federal courts to
challenge same-sex marriage bans in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in
Windsor, decided just over one year ago. (Doc. 140, slip op. at 1). This case involved a
fundamental rightthe right given to every individual to exercise choice in the important
relationship of marriage. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiffs thus appropriately hired experienced attorneys who have substantial experience
in civil rights cases, including gay and lesbian rights.
Declaration of Paul M. Smith (Smith
Decl.) 2 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). For example, Plaintiffs attorneys in this case have
represented clients in numerous prior suits challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage
bans.1 Mr. Smith has extensive litigation experience, having argued fifteen cases in the United
States Supreme Court, including the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.
558. See Smith Decl. 3. Lambda Legal was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
(1996), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing sexual orientation
discrimination. See Declaration of Camilla B. Taylor (Taylor Decl.) 2 & n.1 (attached hereto
as Exhibit C).
The extensive experience of Plaintiffs counsel, particularly in cases challenging
discrimination against gay and lesbian clients, made them well-suited to these responsibilities.
See, e.g., Sevcik v. Sandoval, __F.3d __, No. 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir.
Nov. 6, 2014) (holding Nevadas marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648
(7th Cir. 2014) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d
352 (4th Cir. 2014) (counsel for intervening appellee class of Virginia same-sex couples)
(holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L.
Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub nom.
McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio
2014) (invalidating Ohios ban on recognition of same-sex couples out-of-state marriages),
revd sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, __F.3d__, No. 14-3464, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014), cert
petition pending; Condon v. Haley, __F.Supp.3d __, No. 2:144010RMG, 2014 WL 5897175
(D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolinas marriage ban unconstitutional), appeal
pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, __F.Supp.3d__, No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG, 2014 WL
5361987 (D.P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Ricos marriage ban), appeal pending;
Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (holding Arizonas marriage ban
unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014), appeal and cert
petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (holding
Illinois marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL 6355918 (N.D.
Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex couple to marry);
Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013) (holding New
Jerseys marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009)
(holding Iowas marriage ban unconstitutional); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)
(holding Californias marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)
(finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-19718 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois marriage ban); Inniss v. Aderhold, No.
1:14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgias marriage ban);
Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9, 2014)
(challenging North Dakotas marriage ban).
6
Given the importance of the issues presented in this case, and the fact that Plaintiffs lawyers had
handled similar cases in the past (and thus could perform their duties more efficiently than
counsel with less experience in this area of law), Plaintiffs were quite reasonable in retaining
attorneys from Lambda Legal and Jenner & Block to advance their interests throughout the
course of this litigation.
Plaintiffs lawyers also leanly staffed this case, working to avoid duplication of effort and
using attorneys with appropriate levels of experience to handle the various litigation tasks. See
Smith Decl. 4-8. In order to avoid unnecessary or duplicative work or the inefficient use of
resources, responsibilities in this case were allocated among several different attorneys only
when necessary, and according to the experience and expertise of each attorney. See id. For
example, the work required to locate suitable plaintiffs was performed by Lambda Legal, which
has considerable expertise in that area, see Taylor Decl. 2-3 & n.1; and significant portions of
the briefing in this case were performed by Nicholas Tarasen and Trent McCotter, both of whom
are junior associates at Jenner & Block, see Smith Decl. 5; and the majority of this motion for
fees was prepared by Mr. McCotter, see id.
Plaintiffs attorneys are seeking compensation for the hours and legal work listed in the
time sheets and invoices attached to the Declaration of Paul M. Smith, Affidavit of John H.
Tinney, Jr. (Tinney Aff.) (attached hereto as Exhibit B), Declaration of Camilla B. Taylor,
Declaration of Karen L. Loewy (Loewy Decl.) (attached hereto as Exhibit D), Affidavit of
Elizabeth Littrell (Littrell Aff.) (attached hereto as Exhibit E). As noted above, these fees
pertain to work performed by Plaintiffs attorneys throughout the course of this intensive
litigation, which included, among other things: preparing and filing a motion for summary
judgment; responding to Defendants motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment;
attending a scheduling conference; preparing and filing briefs on the issue of staying the case
pending Bostic; and ultimately obtaining a favorable final judgment.
Based on contemporaneous time records, Plaintiffs attorneys and paralegal and legal
support staff spent the following hours working on this case (as verified and substantiated in
detail in the attached Declarations and Affidavits of Smith, Tinney, Taylor, Loewy, and
Littrell):2
ATTORNEY
Paul M. Smith
Lindsay C. Harrison
R. Trent McCotter
Nicholas W. Tarasen
HOURS
22.5
91.25
95.75
147.75
John H. Tinney, Jr.

James K. Tinney
Heather Foster Kittredge
John K. Cecil
92.9
25.6
52
0.4
Camilla B. Taylor
Karen L. Loewy
Elizabeth L. Littrell
155.2
118.1
157.7
NON-ATTORNEY STAFF
Cheryl Olson (paralegal)
Nodgie P. Kennedy (paralegal)
HOURS
13.5
60.6
Expenses incurred for paralegal services are recoverable. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491
U.S. 274, 289 (1989). Delegating appropriate tasks to paralegals reduces the overall costs of civil
rights litigation. Id. at 288. Also, time spent preparing and defending a fee petition is
compensable under 42 U.S.C. 1988. See Ganey v. Garrison, 813 F.2d 650, 652 (4th Cir.
1987).
8
Plaintiffs attorneys have reviewed the time records summarized above and reprinted in
the Attachments to their Declarations.
These records show sound and reasonable billing
judgment. For example, Plaintiffs counsel often excluded considerable time for which their
firms did not feel it was appropriate to bill during the course of the litigation, and also excluded
additional hours to ensure that compensation is not sought for work that might be deemed as
properly excluded from a court-ordered fee award. See Smith Decl. 8; Tinney Aff. 4; Taylor
Decl. 7; Loewy Decl. 7; Littrell Aff. 4. For example, as shown by the Requested Amount
column in Exhibit A-2, travel time and duplicate time entries for conference calls were often
eliminated. Smith Decl. 8.
Plaintiffs counsel also do not seek any fee enhancement above
the lodestar method despite their considerable expertise and experience in this area.
2.
Plaintiffs Seek Reasonable Hourly Rates For Their Attorneys.
The hourly rate included in an attorneys fee calculation must also be reasonable. See
Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 1994). This requirement is
met by compensating attorneys at the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. Id.
In cases that require only a relatively straightforward procedural analysis, the relevant
community will be the one in which the court sits. Allen v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:05-cv-0578,
2007 WL 1859046, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. June 26, 2007). However, [i]n circumstances where it is
reasonable to retain attorneys from other communities, . . . the rates in those communities may
also be considered. Rum Creek, 31 F.3d at 175.
Given the formidable task of seeking to have the marriage ban struck down as
unconstitutionalwhich was certainly not a relatively straightforward procedural analysis, as
shown by the bevy of arguments made in Defendants motions to dismiss and for summary
judgmentit was reasonable for Plaintiffs to seek outside counsel with considerable experience
handling suits alleging discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, as well as
violations of fundamental rights.
The hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs attorneys (from Jenner & Block, Lambda Legal,
and The Tinney Law Firm), as well as their paralegal/legal support staff, reflect their years of
practice, litigation experience, expertise. We explain below for each attorney the exceptionally
high level of experience and expertise justifying their hourly rates.
JENNER & BLOCK
The hourly rates established by the Laffey Matrix (attached hereto as Exhibit F) are
customarily used by courts in the District of Columbia to determine the reasonable rates for
attorneys located in Washington, D.C. See Harvey v. Mohammed, 951 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54
(D.D.C. 2013) (To determine reasonable hourly rates, it is customary in this District to apply
the Laffey Matrix . . . .); McDowell v. D.C., Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. D.C., 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). Accordingly, the
Laffey Matrix rates have been used below as the reasonable hourly rates for the Jenner & Block
attorneys, all of whom are located in Washington, D.C. Oftentimes, the Laffey Matrix rates were
substantially lower than the actual rates that the Jenner attorneys would charge their clients for
similar work.
However, Jenner attorneys here request only the lower Laffey Matrix rates
because they are customarily deemed reasonable for Washington attorneys (and accepted by the
federal government when it is responding to fee petitions without any further showing).
Paul M. Smith
Jenner & Block attorney Paul M. Smith graduated from Yale Law School in 1979, where
he served as Editor in Chief of the Yale Law Journal. Upon graduation from law school, he
clerked for Judge James L. Oakes, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and Supreme Court
10
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Mr. Smith is Chair of the firms Appellate and Supreme Court
Practice and Co-Chair of the Media and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting
Practices. He has had an active Supreme Court practice for nearly three decades, including oral
arguments in fifteen Supreme Court cases involving matters ranging from free speech and civil
rights to civil procedure. Among his important victories has been Lawrence v. Texas, the
landmark gay rights case, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn, establishing the First
Amendment rights of those who produce and sell video games.
Chambers USA has repeatedly named Mr. Smith one of the countrys leading lawyers in
appellate litigation, media and entertainment law, and First Amendment litigation for multiple
years. In 2010, Washingtonian magazine recognized him as one of Washington's Top
Lawyers, Washington DC Super Lawyer named him one of the Top 10 Lawyers in D.C., and
The National Law Journal named him one of the Decades Most Influential Lawyers. Best
Lawyers named him the Washington DC First Amendment Lawyer of the Year for 2012. Mr.
Smith was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award from the American Bar Association Section
of Individual Rights and Responsibilities for his work promoting civil rights and civil liberties.
He is AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbells highest peer recognition for ethical
standards and legal ability.
Lindsay C. Harrison
Ms. Harrison graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2003, where she served
as Articles Editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and was voted Best
Oralist at the Ames Moot Court Competition. She clerked for the Honorable Alan S. Gold, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida; and for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett, Court of
Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Harrison, a partner at Jenner & Block, concentrates her practice
11
in appellate and Supreme Court matters. She has significant experience briefing and arguing
matters before both federal and state appellate courts and has filed numerous merits and amicus
briefs with the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Harrison also presented a successful argument
before the Supreme Court in the landmark immigration case of Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749
(2009). Ms. Harrisons practice also focuses on issues involving gender and sexual orientation
discrimination. For example, she has filed significant amicus briefs in cases such as FloresVillar v. United States, No. 09-5801 (S. Ct. 2010), which involved an equal protection challenge
to gender discrimination in citizenship laws. For her work, Ms. Harrison has been named by The
National Law Journal as one of forty game-changing lawyers age 40 and under who are
leaders in the law, and was named by the National LGBT Bar Association in 2012 as one of
the best LGBT Lawyers Under 40.
THE TINNEY LAW FIRM
For The Tinney Law Firm attorneys, who are located in West Virginia, the determination
of reasonable rates is best guided by what [those] attorneys earn from paying clients for similar
services in similar circumstances. Rum Creek, 31 F.3d at 175 (quotations omitted); see also
Fogle v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc. 275 F.3d 613, 615 (7th Cir. 2001) (The best evidence of
the lawyers quality is the fee he commands in the market.). In other words, market rates may
be proved by the rate which clients normally and willingly pay the petitioning attorneys. Rum
Creek, 31 F.3d at 175. Accordingly, the actual rates charged by The Tinney Law Firm attorneys
are used below as their reasonable rates. See Tinney Aff. 3-4. Additionally, an affidavit from
Michael O. Callaghan, Esq., has been attached as further support of the reasonableness of the
requested rates. See Affidavit of Michael O. Callaghan (attached hereto as Exhibit G).
12
John H. Tinney, Jr.

Mr. Tinney graduated in 1995 from Wake Forest University School of Law, where he
was a recipient of the Bennett Liverman Scholarship. He was then in private practice for three
years before serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert B. King, United States Court of
Appeals, Fourth Circuit. He then joined the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern
District of West Virginia, where he was an Assistant United States Attorney. While there, he
prosecuted a variety of cases and represented the United States at the Fourth Circuit.
After spending almost three years at the United States Attorneys Office, Mr. Tinney
returned to private practice at The Tinney Law Firm in Charleston, where he has represented
diverse clients in both state and federal courts. For example, he has represented companies like
Ernst & Young and Schering Plough, Inc., and he also defended the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia in constitutional challenges to the courts trial court rules and recusal
proceedings. He has been a member of the Judge John A. Field American Inns of Court since
2002 and is also a member of the Federal Bar Association, Defense Research Institute, and West
Virginia Defense Trial Counsel.
LAMBDA LEGAL
Lambda Legal is the nations oldest and largest legal organization committed to
achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and
those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work. Lambda
Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge its clients, but relies in part
upon fees awarded by the courts. Legal services and other non-profit organizations are entitled
to have 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of reasonable market rates even if lower
salaries are paid to the organizations attorneys. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984);
13
accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457 n.37 (1982). The rates requested by
Lambda Legal attorneys (between $300 and $350, depending on experience, see Taylor Decl. 6
& n.2; Loewy Decl. 6 & n.2; Littrell Aff. 3) are well within the range of fees awarded in this
jurisdiction, and significantly below the market rates for civil rights lawyers with comparable
experience, ability, and reputation. See, e.g., Stiltner v. Cabell County Commn, No. 3:13cv
07513, 2014 WL 1330206 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 1, 2014); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 873 F.Supp.2d
973 (N.D. Ill. 2012); Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127890, 10
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012).
Camilla B. Taylor
Ms. Taylor received her law degree from Columbia Law School in 1996 and her
bachelors degree from Yale College in 1993. She has been admitted to practice law in New
York since 1997 and in Illinois since 2004.
After working as a litigation associate with
Shearman & Sterling LLP in New York City and as an attorney with the Criminal Appeals
Bureau of the Legal Aid Society of New York City, Ms. Taylor joined Lambda Legal in July,
2002. Ms. Taylor was promoted to National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal in the
spring of 2010. Ms. Taylor has extensive expertise briefing and arguing cases before both state
and federal trial and appellate courts in cases challenging the constitutionality of marital
exclusions around the country, including Baskin, 766 F.3d 648, Lee, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 21, 2014), Garden State Equal., 82 A.3d 336, and Gartner v. Iowa Dept of Public Health,
830 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2013), to name just a few. Recently, Ms. Taylor argued Baskin, supra,
766 F.3d 648, before the district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which resulted in a
decision authored by Judge Posner striking down Indianas marriage ban. She was lead counsel
in Varnum, 763 N.W. 2d 862, in which the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down
14
Iowas marriage ban in April, 2009, making Iowa the third state in the nation to permit same-sex
couples to marry.
Ms. Taylor is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and serves
on the American Constitution Society Chicago Chapter Board of Advisors. Recognition for her
work includes the Columbia Law School Distinguished Graduate in the Public Interest award
(2012), the American Constitution Society Ruth Goldman Award (2012), and Crain's Chicago
Business' 40 under 40 (2009), among others.
a.
Plaintiffs Attorneys Hourly Rates
ATTORNEY
RATE
Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14)

Paul M. Smith (6/1/2014-12/2/14)
Lindsay C. Harrison (9/10/2013-5/31/14)
R. Trent McCotter (9/10/2013-5/31/14)
R. Trent McCotter (6/1/2014-12/2/14)
Nicholas W. Tarasen (9/10/2013-5/31/14)
$771
$789
$567
$655
$320
$328
$320
$328
John H. Tinney, Jr.

James K. Tinney
John K. Cecil
$300
$240
$225
$205
Camilla B. Taylor
Karen L. Loewy
$350
$325
$300
NON-ATTORNEY STAFF
RATE
Cheryl Olson
Nodgie P. Kennedy
$175
$100
15
b.
Plaintiffs Fee Award Should Equal $342,576.25
Multiplying the time worked by each attorney by the hourly rates for each year yields the
following calculation:
ATTORNEY
HOURS
RATE
TOTAL
Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14)

Paul M. Smith (6/1/2014-12/2/14)
R. Trent McCotter (9/10/2013-5/31/14)
R. Trent McCotter (6/1/2014-12/2/14)
18
4.5
79
12.25
85
10.75
136
11.75
$771
$789
$567
$655
$320
$328
$320
$328
$13,878.00
$3,550.50
$44,793.00
$8,023.75
$27,200.00
$3,526.00
$43,520.00
$3,854.00
John H. Tinney, Jr.

James K. Tinney
John K. Cecil
92.9
25.6
52
0.4
$300
$240
$225
$205
$27,870.00
$6,144.00
$11,700.00
$82.00
Camilla B. Taylor
Karen L. Loewy
155.2
118.1
157.7
$350
$325
$300
$54,320.00
$38,382.50
$47,310.00
HOURS
RATE
TOTAL
13.5
60.6
$175
$100
$2,362.50
$6,060.00
NON-ATTORNEY STAFF
Cheryl Olson
Nodgie P. Kennedy
ATTORNEYS' FEES SUBTOTAL:
$342,576.25
16
C.
Plaintiffs are Entitled to the Requested Expenses and Costs
With regard to expenses and costs, the invoices attached to the Tinney and Taylor
Declarations detail the out-of-pocket expenses incurred. See Tinney Aff. 4; Taylor Decl. 8.3
These expenses were necessarily incurred and are the type of out-of-pocket expenses normally
billed to fee-paying clients. As such, they are recoverable as part of Plaintiffs attorneys fees.
See West Virginia Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 87 n.3 (1991). These costs are
recoverable as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), as well as other
disbursements that were billed to and paid by Plaintiffs as a component of attorneys fees.
It is also appropriate to require Defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs attorneys for
reasonable costs. A reasonable attorneys fee includes those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee-paying client, in the course of
providing legal services. Spell v. McDaniel, 852 F.2d 762, 771 (4th Cir.1988). Here, Plaintiffs
counsel have included in the supporting affidavits a detailed accounting requesting compensation
for such out of pocket expenses as travel, exhibit preparation, copies, postage, deposition costs,
printing costs, and the like. These are the sorts of expenses generally charged to a fee paying
client and should be reimbursed fully.
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the following costs (detailed in the attached
Declarations): John H. Tinney, Jr.: $896.35, see Tinney Aff. 4 & Ex. 1; Camilla B. Taylor:
$6,783.59, see Taylor Decl. 8 & Ex. 2. The total out-of-pocket expenses requested is
$7,679.94.
Jenner attorneys are not seeking reimbursement of their expenses, see Smith Decl. 14,
and the Lambda Legal attorneys are not seeking reimbursement of the hours spent by their legal
assistants, see Taylor Decl. 7.
17
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this litigation and as such are entitled to their
attorneys fees and costs. The attorneys fees sought here are reasonable and not excessive.
They are consistent with those rates normally charged by Plaintiffs attorneys to their fee-paying
clients for the type of work in question, and they are within the prevailing market rate charged by
attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Likewise, the expenses and costs sought here
are due to be recovered as they were necessarily incurred during the course of the lawsuit as outof-pocket expenses, and are of the same type as those ordinarily charged to clients by counsel.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should award Plaintiffs the
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs as requested.
Dated: December 2, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
ADKINS, et al.
By Counsel:
/s/ John H. Tinney, Jr.

THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC
THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC

John H. Tinney, Jr. (WVSB #6970)
Heather Foster Kittredge (WVSB #8543)
PO Box 3752
Charleston, West Virginia 25337-3752
Phone: (304) 720-3310
Fax: (304) 720-3315
JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com
HKittredge@tinneylawfirm.com
Camilla B. Taylor (pro hac vice)
105 West Adams, 26th Floor
18
Chicago, Illinois 60603-6208

Phone: (312) 663-4413
Fax: (312) 663-4307
ctaylor@lambdalegal.org
Elizabeth L. Littrell (pro hac vice)
730 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 1070
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-1210
Phone: (404) 897-1880
Fax: (404) 897-1884
blittrell@lambdalegal.org
Karen L. Loewy (pro hac vice)
120 Wall Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10005-3904
Phone: (212) 809-8585
Fax: (212) 809-0055
kloewy@lambdalegal.org
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Paul M. Smith (pro hac vice)
Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice)
Luke C. Platzer (pro hac vice)
R. Trent McCotter (pro hac vice)
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Phone: (202) 639-6000
Fax: (202) 639-6006
psmith@jenner.com
lharrison@jenner.com
lplatzer@jenner.com
rmccotter@jenner.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of December 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
memorandum with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participants:
Elbert Lin, Esquire
Julie Ann Warren, Esquire
Julie Marie Blake, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General
State Capitol Building 1, Room E-26
Charleston, WV 25305
Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor State of West Virginia
Charles R. Bailey, Esquire
Michael W. Taylor, Esquire
Bailey & Wyant, PLLC
500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600
Post Office Box 3710
Charleston, WV 25337-3710
Counsel for Defendant Vera J McCormick
Lee Murray Hall, Esquire
Sarah A. Walling, Esquire
Jenkins Fenstermaker, PLLC
325 Eight Street
Huntington, WV 25701-2225
Counsel for Defendant Karen S. Cole
/s/ John H. Tinney, Jr.
John H. Tinney, Jr.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
20
Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 4655

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

MIrHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON,
child;
No. 3:13-cv-24068
Plaintiffs,
v.
KAREN S. COLE,in her official capacity as
MCCORMICK,in her official capacity as
Defendants,
and
STATE of WEST VIRGINIA,
Intervenor-Defendant.
DECLARATION OF PAUL M.SMITH

I, Paul M. Smith, hereby declare as follows:
I am a partner at Jenner &Block LLP ("Jenner") and counsel for Plaintiffs in the
above-captioned case. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand
knc~~~ledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to
do so, and on records contemporaneously generated and kept by my Firm in the ordinary course
of its law practice. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
2.
Jenner became involved in this litigation in September of 2013 to provide
Jenner's unique expertise in litigation advancing the rights of gay and lesbian individuals, as well
as its considerable expertise in appellate and Supreme Court practice. Given the challenge of
seeking to have several duly-passed state statutes struck down as unconstitutional, Plaintiffs were
quite reasonable in seeking the assistance of attorneys located outside of West Virginia who have
considerable expertise in civil rights litigation, and, in particular, experience in litigation focused
on vindicating the rights of the gay and lesbian community.
3.
I chair Jenner's Appellate and Supreme Court practice, and serve as co-chair of
Jenner's Media and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting practices. I have
argued fifteen cases before the United States Supreme Court, beginning with Celotex Corp. v:
Cattrett, 477 U.S.. 317(1986). I also have extensive experience litigating complex cases in
federal and state courts across the country, including major civil rights cases. My experience
with civil rights litigation includes:(1)arguing Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case;
(2) other constitutional challenges to state and federal laws that discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation, including the litigation in Virginia that ultimately led to the Fourth Circuit's
decision in Bostic v. Schaefer, which held that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional;
(3) multiple cases in the 1980s involving the rights of residents of state mental health facilities;
(4) a large gender bias case brought against Nassau County, NY in the 1990s; and (5)
constitutional challenges to state and federal laws that restrict freedom of expression. In 2010, I
was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award from the American Bar Association Section of
Individual Rights and Responsibilities, and was named one of the "Decade's Most Influential
Lawyers" by The National Law Journal. In addition, I am a member of the Board of Directors of
the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
4.
Jenner provided considerable support throughout this entire case. Jenner was the
primary drafter of almost all pleadings and submissions, including Plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment (which was ultimately granted in-full by the Court), as well as oppositions to
the motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment filed by the three defendants,
including the defendant-intervenor West Virginia. Jenner participated in conference calls with
co-counsel to determine litigation strategy and also frequently communicated with opposing
counsel regarding scheduling matters and potential settlement issues.
5.
To reduce billing costs, Nicholas W. Tarasen and R. Trent McCotter, both of
whom are junior associates at Jenner, were primarily responsible for researching and drafting the
briefs and motions in this case, with oversight from Lindsay C. Harrison and me. Mr. McCotter
was responsible for preparing this fee petition. Brief biographies of the Jenner attorneys
involved in this matter are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are time records for this case detailing the time for
which Jenner is seeking compensation in this case.

7.
Throughout the time Jenner worked on this matter, its timekeepers have been
required to keep daily time-records that reflect the amount of time spent on this matter each day,
along with a description of the tasks performed. These records are entered into a computer
database, checked, and maintained in computer-readable format.
8.
Jenner attorneys expended the following hours in this litigation: September 2013
through May 31, 2014: Paul Smith (18.0 hours), Lindsay C. Harrison (79.0 hours), R. Trent
McCotter (85.0 hours), and Nicholas W. Tarasen (136.0 hours); June 1, 2014, through present:
Paul Smith (4.5 hours), Lindsay C. Harrison (12.25 hours), R. Trent McCotter (10.75 hours), and
Nicholas W. Tarasen (11.75 hours). Where necessary, I exercised my billing judgment and
reduced or eliminated the fees sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a
Court-ordered fees award. For example, when numerous Jenner attorneys participated on calls, I
often reduced or eliminated the Amount Requested for any duplicate time entries. I also reduced
travel time, such as when Ms. Harrison traveled to Charleston for a hearing in early January
2014.
9.
Jenner normally charges for the services of its attorneys on the basis of hourly
rates. Here, Jenner attorneys are seeking hourly fees based on the Laffey Matrix rates, which
were often substantially lower than the Jenner attorneys' actual hourly rates. The Laffey Matrix
shows hourly rates for attorneys in Washington, D.C., based on each attorney's years of
experience. The federal courts in the District of Columbia customarily consider the Laffey
Matrix rates to be reasonable for work performed by attorneys located in Washington, D.C. See
HaNvey v. Mohammed,951 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54(D.D.C. 2013)("To determine reasonable hourly
rates, it is customary in this District to apply the Laffey Matrix ...."). Accordingly, the lodestar
calculation is made based upon reasonable hourly rates for all current attorneys, as determined
by the Laffey Matrix rates. In the Laffey Matrix, these rates change each year on June 1. From
the beginning of the litigation through May 31, 2014, the following rates were in effect in the
Laffey Matrix: Paul Smith: $771; Lindsay C. Harrison: $567; R. Trent McCotter: $320; Nicholas
W. Tarasen: $320. From June 1, 2014, until the present, the following rates were in effect in the
Laffey Matrix: Paul Smith: $789; Lindsay C. Harrison: $655; R. Trent McCotter: $328; Nicholas
W. Tarasen: $328. In the attached time sheets, the Jenner attorneys' actual rates are labeled as
"Or~g Rate"; their requested rates, per the Laffey Matrix, are labeled as "Req Rate."
10.
Applying these rates to the hours expended, Jenner seeks the following in
attorneys' fees: September 2013 through May 31, 2014: Paul Smith: $13,878.00; Lindsay C.
G~
Harrison: $44,793.00; R. Trent McCotter: $27,200.00; Nicholas W. Tarasen: $43,520.00; June 1,

2014, through the present: Paul Smith: $3,550.50; Lindsay C. Harrison: $8,023.75; R. Trent
McCotter: $3,526.00; Nicholas W. Tarasen: $3,854.00. The total amount of fees sought for
Jenner attorneys is $148,345.25.
11.
In addition to the participation of Jenner's attorneys, a Jenner paralegal, Cheryl L.
Olson, provided assistance in cite-checking, editing, and filing logistics. In 2014, Cheryl Olson
expended 13.5 hours.
12.
Jenner normally charges for the services of its paralegals on the basis of hourly
rates. Again, Jenner is seeking the lower Laffey Matrix paralegal rate, rather than the actual
hourly rate charged by Ms. Olson. During the time during which Ms. Olson assisted with this
case, the Laffey Matrix rate for a paralegal in Washington, D.C., was $175.
13.
Applying these rates to the hours Cheryl Olson expended, Jenner seeks the
following in fees: 2014: Cheryl Olson: $2,362.50.

14.
In the exercise of my billing judgment, Jenner has determined it will not seek any
costs in this Court.

r
15.
The total fees sought by Jenner are $150,707.75.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in the District o~olumbia on December 2,
M. Smith
F~
Paul M. Smith
Paul M. Smith is Chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and Co-Chair of the Media
and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting Practices. He has had an active
Supreme Court practice for three decades, including oral arguments in 15 Supreme Court cases
involving matters ranging from free speech and civil rights to civil procedure. Among his
important victories have been Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case, and Brown v.
Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, establishing the First Amendment rights of those who produce
and sell video games.
Chambers USA has named Mr. Smith one of the country's leading lawyers in appellate litigation,
media and entertainment law, and First Amendment litigation for multiple years. In 2010,
Wa~~hingtonian magazine recognized him as one of "Washington's Top Lawyers," Washington
DC'Super Lawyer named him one of the "Top 10 Lawyers in D.C.," and The National Law
Journal named him one of the "Decade's Most Influential Lawyers." Best Lawye~^s named him
the Washington DC First Amendment Lawyer of the Year for 2012. Mr. Smith was awarded the
Thurgood Marshall Award by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and
Responsibilities for his work promoting civil rights and civil liberties. He is AV Peer Review
Rated, Martindale-Hubbell's highest peer recognition for ethical standards and legal ability.
Mr. Smith is a member of the firm's Content, Media &Entertainment Practice and serves on the
Policy Committee. He also serves the firm as a member of the Diversity &Inclusion Committee.
He represents the members of the D.C. Bar in the ABA House of Delegates. Mr. Smith was a
member of the D.C. Bar Board of Governors from 2002-2008. He is a member and former chain
of the National Board of Directors of the American Constitution Society and former board
member and co-chair of Lambda Legal. Mr. Smith is also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
Mr. Smith is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and New York
Lindsay C. Harrison
Lindsay C. Harrison regularly participates in appellate litigation matters before the federal
appellate courts and the Supreme Court in a wide variety of subject matters. Corporations and
individuals turn to her for help with litigation in federal and state trial courts, as well as in
arbitration, including international arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute
Resolution. She has substantial experience litigating matters involving the hospitality industry,
successfully representing hotel management companies in high-stakes, multi-million dollar
lawsuits and arbitrations.
In 2014, Law360 named Ms. Harrison a "Rising Star" in the hospitality practice area, one of only
four young attorneys chosen nationwide for this recognition, and The National Law Journal
selected her as a "D.C. Rising Star" one of 40 "game-changing lawyers age 40 and under" who
are "leaders in the law" in the nation's capital. In 2013, she was named to the BTI Consulting
GrLap's Client Service All-Star List.
Ms. Harrison has a substantial pro bono practice, which has included a successful argument
before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an asylum-seeker and the ongoing representation of
7
a death row inmate in Georgia. For her work in the landmark immigration case of Nken v.
Holde~~, Ms. Harrison was awarded the 2008 Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Pro Bono Award. In 2010, she
received the inaugural Rosner and Rosner Young Professionalism Award from the American Bar
Association, in recognition of her pro bono legal work and involvement in public service
endeavors.
Ms. Harrison is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court and a former chair of the
Amicus Committee of the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia. She serves as
a member of the firm's Finance, Associate Development &Evaluation and Alternative Billing
Committees.
Ms. Harrison is admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia.
R. Trent McCotter
R. Trent McCotter is an Associate in the Litigation Department. He joined the Firm in 2012.
Mr. McCotter received his B.A. in Economics, summa cum laude, from the University of North
Ca~;~lina at Chapel Hill in 2008. He received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of
North Carolina School of Law in 2011. During law school, he served as an Articles Editor on
the North Carolina Law Review, won the Joyner Award for Best Student-Written Law Review
Note, and received eight Book Awards. He also interned with the Hon. Paul Newby on the
Supreme Court of North Carolina and with the Hon. Rick Elmore on the North Carolina Court of
Appeals. Prior to joining Jenner &Block, Mr. McCotter served as law clerk to the Hon. R.
Lanier Anderson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mr. McCotter has drafted numerous briefs at the United States Courts of Appeals and has
assisted with several amicus and merits briefs for Supreme Court cases and petitions for
certiorari. He is admitted to practice in North Carolina and the District of Columbia.
Nicholas W.Tarasen
Nick Tarasen is an associate in the firm's Litigation Department. Prior to joining Jenner &
Block in 2013, Mr. Tarasen was a law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2012, Mr. Tarasen graduated with high honors from
theUniversity of Chicago Law School,- where he was comments editor of the University of
Chicago Law Review and co-chair of the Hinton Moot Court Board. During law school, Mr.
Tarasen participated in the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, where he helped obtain class
certification and conduct discovery in a federal employment discrimination class action lawsuit,
resulting in an $11 million settlement. He also interned for the Office of the Illinois Attorney
General's Civil Appeals Division, where he assisted in the representation of state agencies before
federal and state appellate courts.
Mr. Tarasen maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes litigating cases regarding the
rights of LGBT individuals and representing immigrants before federal appellate courts. Before
attending law school, he worked as a paralegal in the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal, a
national legal organization that advocates for the rights of LGBT individuals and those with
HIV. Mr. Tarasen is admitted to practice in California.
Name
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
Date
09/16/2013
09/17/2013
09/18/2013
09/23/2013
09/30/2013
10/02/2013
11/01/2013
11/25/2013
11/26/2013
11/27/2013
12/04/2013
12/05/2013
12/06/2013
12/09/2013
12/10/2013
12/17/2013
12/18/2013
12/19/2013
12/20/2013
12/21/2013
12/22/2013
McGee v. Cole (S.D. W. Va.)
Time Report: Jenner & Block LLP

Sept 2013 through May 31, 2014
1.00
1.25
2.50
1.50
1.50
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
4.50
1.50
1.00
2.25
2.50
2.00
1.25
0.25
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
2.50
1.50
1.50
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
4.50
1.50
1.00
2.25
2.50
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.25
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
630.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
630.00
787.50
1,575.00
945.00
945.00
1,890.00
315.00
630.00
1,260.00
2,835.00
945.00
630.00
1,417.50
1,575.00
1,260.00
787.50
157.50
787.50
630.00
787.50
Orig Hrs Req Hrs Orig Rate Req Rate Orig Amt
1.00
1.00
630.00
567.00
630.00
567.00
708.75
1,417.50
850.50
850.50
1,701.00
283.50
567.00
1,134.00
2,551.50
850.50
567.00
1,275.75
1,417.50
1,134.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
567.00
708.75
Req Amt
567.00
Reviewed State's motion to dismiss and new motion to dismiss

by clerk and corresponded with Lambda re responses;
corresponded with N. Tarasen and T. McCotter re same.
Corresponded with N. Tarasen re standing; reviewed research
re standing and futility.
Worked on opposition to motion to dismiss.
Reviewed declarations and Lambda edits to oppositions;
corresponded with Lambda folks re edits and oppositions.
Reviewed draft opposition to State's motion sent by N.
Tarasen.
Revised opposition to State's motion to dismiss.
Narrative
Reviewed legal memoranda in preparation for strategy call.
Participated in call with co-counsel re filing of lawsuit, timing,
press coverage, inclusion of child plaintiff; summarized call for
P. Smith.
Completed pro hac application and corresponded with local
counsel, T. McCotter re same.
Reviewed revisions to complaint.
Spoke to K. Loewy re pro hac vice; corresponded with P.
Smith and K. Loewy re same.
Reviewed press coverage of litigation; corresponded with P.
Smith re jurist article.
Reviewed SJ brief; call with T. McCotter & K. Loewy re SJ
brief.
Reviewed motion to intervene and emailed K. Loewy re same;
revised draft SJ motion.
Revised summary judgment draft and sent to P. Smith.
Call with legal team to discuss motion to dismiss and
intervention.
Reviewed N. Tarasen research re Burford abstention and
corresponded with him re same.
Researched and drafted opposition to Burford abstention
motion to dismiss.
Revised opposition to motion to dismiss on abstention grounds
and emailed with team re same.
Reviewed Lambda edits to opposition; revised opposition;
corresponded with N. Tarasen re same.
Reviewed final opposition to motion to dismiss for filing;
emailed local counsel re exhibit.
Name
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
Date
12/27/2013
12/30/2013
01/02/2014
01/03/2014
01/06/2014
01/21/2014
01/22/2014
01/24/2014
01/27/2014
01/29/2014
01/31/2014
02/04/2014
02/05/2014
02/06/2014
02/07/2014
02/10/2014
02/11/2014
02/12/2014
02/13/2014
02/14/2014
0.50
0.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.50
2.50
3.50
1.25
2.00
1.25
0.50
1.25
0.25
1.50
12.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.50
2.50
3.50
1.25
2.00
1.25
0.50
1.25
0.25
1.50
6.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
630.00
630.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
327.50
327.50
1,310.00
1,310.00
655.00
2,292.50
1,637.50
2,292.50
818.75
1,310.00
818.75
327.50
818.75
163.75
982.50
7,860.00
655.00
655.00
945.00
945.00
283.50
283.50
1,134.00
1,134.00
567.00
1,984.50
1,417.50
1,984.50
708.75
1,134.00
708.75
283.50
708.75
141.75
850.50
3,402.00
567.00
567.00
850.50
850.50
Req Amt
Call with team re McGee updates; emailed P. Smith re call.

Emailed team re summary judgment pleadings; read State's
summary judgment motion.
Narrative
Reviewed edits to opposition to State's motion to dismiss;
emailed C. Taylor re status of opposition and summary
judgment motion.
Edited pleadings.
Reviewed filing materials and prepared for hearing in West
Virginia.
Corresponded with co-counsel about hearing.
Traveled to Charleston and Huntington for status hearing;
participated in status hearing; conference call with co-counsel
following hearing; emailed co-counsel re hearing; traveled
home from W. Va.
Call with Elbert Lin re briefing schedule; corresponded with cocounsel and Elbert Lin re same; read 9th Circuit decision re
heightened scrutiny.
Corresponded with co-counsel and opposing counsel re
schedule.
Reviewed motion to extend briefing schedule; corresponded
with co-counsel re proposed response; corresponded with T.
McCotter re opposition.
Revised draft opposition on deadlines and corresponded with
co-counsel re same.
Reviewed judge's order on motions to dismiss; drafted
summary and circulated to co-counsel; corresponded with N.
Tarasen, C. Taylor re: issue regarding sufficiency of
defendants.
Corresponded with N. Tarasen and C. Taylor re: research on
remedies.
Reviewed correspondence; emailed J. Carpenter re
disbursements; corresponded with N. Tarasen re remedy
issues.
Revised Burford II brief; corresponded with N. Tarasen re
same.
Revised Burford II brief; corresponded with N. Tarasen, P.
Smith re same.
Worked on Burford memo; corresponded with N. Tarasen and
P. Smith re Burford issues; emailed E. Lin re call.
Call with E. Lin and email to team re same; revised Burford
brief.
Reviewed brief before filing; corresponded with N Tarasen re
same.
Revised brief for filing; sent brief to the team.
Name
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
LINDSAY C. HARRISON
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
Date
02/17/2014
02/19/2014
02/20/2014
02/22/2014
02/24/2014
03/26/2014
12/03/2013
12/04/2013
12/05/2013
12/06/2013
12/09/2013
12/10/2013
12/17/2013
12/18/2013
12/19/2013
12/20/2013
12/21/2013
12/23/2013
12/30/2013
1.25
6.50
6.50
4.75
2.50
8.25
2.00
0.50
0.50
1.75
1.50
0.50
3.50
0.50
87.75
3.50
3.00
5.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
6.50
6.50
4.75
2.50
8.25
2.00
0.50
0.50
1.75
1.50
0.50
3.50
0.50
79.00
3.50
3.00
5.50
0.25
0.50
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
355.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
567.00
443.75
2,307.50
2,307.50
1,686.25
887.50
2,928.75
710.00
177.50
177.50
621.25
532.50
177.50
1,242.50
327.50
56,551.25
2,292.50
1,965.00
3,602.50
163.75
327.50
400.00
2,080.00
2,080.00
1,520.00
800.00
2,640.00
640.00
160.00
160.00
560.00
480.00
160.00
1,120.00
283.50
44,793.00
1,984.50
1,701.00
3,118.50
141.75
283.50
Req Amt
Research and draft Opposition to State's Motion to Dismiss.

Research, review, and edit Opposition to State's Motion to
Dismiss; integrate Summary Judgment affidavits.
Review draft summary judgment motion; review Perry and
Kitchen decisions to support assertions in draft summary
judgment motion.
Research and draft Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to

Dismiss; research Opposition to State's Motion to Dismiss.
Research, review and edit Opposition to Defendant Cole's
Motion to Dismiss; review New Mexico same-sex marriage
decision.
Review and edit Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to
Dismiss; research and draft Opposition to State's Motion to
Dismiss; review Utah same-sex marriage decision for
applicability to Opposition.
Research re: Burford abstention in support of opposition to

Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss.
Review/edit Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to
Dismiss.
Research, review and edit Opposition to Defendant
McCormick's Motion to Dismiss.
Review and edit Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion
to Dismiss.
Review and edit Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion
to Dismiss.
Review Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to
Dismiss; find exhibit in support.
Research and draft Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to
Dismiss.
Narrative
Reviewed K. Loewy outline; emailed team re outline and SJ
brief.
Corresponded with T. McCotter and team re summary
judgment deadlines and pages.
Revised Burford brief; revised summary judgment brief;
corresponded with team re same.
Worked on summary judgment brief.
Revised summary judgment draft and incorporated edits from
team.
Read precedent re Burford abstention and emailed team re
same.
Name
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
Date
01/06/2014
01/29/2014
01/30/2014
01/31/2014
02/03/2014
02/04/2014
02/05/2014
02/06/2014
02/10/2014
02/11/2014
02/12/2014
02/13/2014
02/14/2014
02/17/2014
02/19/2014
1.00
0.75
2.25
1.00
0.75
1.50
1.00
8.25
9.75
5.75
4.00
0.50
6.25
4.50
0.75
1.00
0.75
2.25
0.00
0.75
1.50
0.00
8.25
9.75
5.75
4.00
0.50
6.25
4.50
0.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
435.00
326.25
978.75
435.00
326.25
652.50
435.00
3,588.75
4,241.25
2,501.25
1,740.00
217.50
2,718.75
1,957.50
326.25
320.00
240.00
720.00
0.00
240.00
480.00
0.00
2,640.00
3,120.00
1,840.00
1,280.00
160.00
2,000.00
1,440.00
0.00
Req Amt
Additional research, drafting, and editing for brief re: Burford

abstention in response to Judge's January 29 order.
Arrange for and attend conference call re possible
amendment/response to Court's January 29 order; review and
update brief re Burford abstention.
Incorporate edits to brief re Burford abstention in response to
Court's January 29 order.
Review edits to brief re Burford abstention in response to
Court's January 29 order; incorporate further edits to brief and
send to local counsel for filing.
Review Defendants' summary judgment briefs; attend
conference call re: same.
Review Defendants' summary judgment briefs; review and
organize exhibits to Defendants' summary judgment briefs;
arrange for distribution of binder re summary judgment briefing
to West Virginia team.
Research and draft e-mail to L. Harrison re: summary
judgment response and reply due dates.
Research and correspond with co-counsel (C. Taylor) re
deadlines for filing summary judgment response/reply.
Draft memorandum re: potential amendment in response to

Court's January 29 order; research and draft brief re response
to Judge's January 29 order re: Burford abstention.
Research and draft memo re: potential for amendment in
response to Judge's January 29 order; research and draft brief
re: Burford abstention in response to Judge's January 29
order.
Research and draft brief re: Burford abstention in response to
Judge's January 29 order.
Review correspondence re: results of scheduling conference;

attend conference call re: scheduling conference.
Review district judge's opinion re Burford abstention; research
issues pertaining to Plaintiffs' ability to obtain statewide relief
in response.
Research issues pertaining to Plaintiffs' ability to obtain
statewide relief, in response to district judge's opinion re
Burford abstention.
Research response to district judge's order re state-wide effect
of relief and potential amendments.
Narrative
Name
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
Date
02/20/2014
02/21/2014
02/22/2014
02/23/2014
02/24/2014
02/25/2014
02/26/2014
10/09/2013
10/22/2013
10/23/2013
11/22/2013
11/26/2013
11/26/2013
11/26/2013
11/27/2013
12/06/2013
12/09/2013
12/16/2013
12/16/2013
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.75
1.75
140.50
11.25
7.25
1.75
12.50
13.50
4.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.75
1.75
136.00
11.25
7.25
0.00
12.50
13.50
4.50
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
492.50
492.50
492.50
492.50
1,970.00
492.50
492.50
246.25
985.00
492.50
246.25
738.75
761.25
57,917.50
4,893.75
3,153.75
761.25
5,437.50
5,872.50
1,957.50
385.50
385.50
385.50
385.50
1,542.00
385.50
385.50
192.75
771.00
385.50
192.75
578.25
560.00
43,520.00
3,600.00
2,320.00
0.00
4,000.00
4,320.00
1,440.00
Req Amt
Telephone call with co-counsel re MSJ substance and timing.

Emailed with team re opposition to extension of time and
reviewed draft.
Reviewed ruling on extension motion.
Reviewed State's intervention motion and considered any
potential responses.
Reviewed draft MSJ.
Reviewed MTD filed by Kanawha County Clerk.
Emailed with team re McCormick MTD.
Telephone call with team re MTD filed by Kanawha clerk.
Edited response to clerk's MTD.
Reviewed LL comments on our draft of response to clerk's
abstention motion.
Telephone call re plan for scheduling conference with
defendants.
Edited MSJ.
Attend conference call re: SJ opposition/reply; draft additional

paragraphs for Summary Judgment response/reply brief re:
facial constitutional challenges and standing.
Edit, revise, and file Reply Brief re Burford Abstention / Brief in
Response to State's Motion to Dismiss; edit and revise
Summary Judgment Reply Brief / Response to Defendants'
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
Revise, edit, and assist in filing of Summary Judgment Reply
Brief / Response to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment.
Review recent marriage equality decision from the Western
District of Texas; draft and circulate notice of supplemental
authority to submit new decision.
Narrative
Review Defendants' responses re: Burford abstention and
other procedural issues; draft outline of reply brief re: Burford
abstention and other procedural issues; research and draft
Summary Judgment response/reply brief.
Research and draft parts SJ Reply/Opposition brief re failure
to join necessary parties and Baker v. Nelson; research and
draft reply brief re: Burford abstention and other procedural
issues.
Research and draft reply brief re Burford abstention and other
procedural issues.
Name
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
PAUL M. SMITH
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
Date
12/16/2013
12/23/2013
12/28/2013
12/29/2013
12/30/2013
01/06/2014
01/06/2014
01/30/2014
02/07/2014
02/12/2014
02/12/2014
02/19/2014
02/22/2014
02/23/2014
02/24/2014
10/09/2013
10/10/2013
10/11/2013
10/12/2013
10/13/2013
10/16/2013
10/17/2013
10/18/2013
5.50
0.50
3.25
3.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
1.25
0.75
1.50
18.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
5.50
0.50
3.25
3.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.75
1.50
18.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
985.00
1,100.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
771.00
2,255.00
205.00
1,332.50
1,435.00
307.50
205.00
102.50
512.50
825.00
1,650.00
18,506.25
550.00
550.00
1,100.00
550.00
550.00
1,100.00
275.00
492.50
985.00
492.50
492.50
275.00
1.00
1.00
985.00
771.00
985.00
1,760.00
160.00
1,040.00
1,120.00
240.00
160.00
80.00
0.00
578.25
1,156.50
13,878.00
385.50
385.50
771.00
385.50
385.50
771.00
192.75
385.50
771.00
385.50
385.50
192.75
Req Amt
771.00
Research on history and interpretation of West Virginia's and

other states' marriage statutes; emails with team re same.
Emails with Lambda re MSJ.
Emails with P. Smith re drafting MSJ; briefly reviewed samesex Virginia briefing.
Finished reading same-sex Virginia briefing.
Call with K. Loewy and L. Harrison re research into West
Virginia law and outline of MSJ; email to K. Loewy re West
Virginia legislative history and research on minor plaintiff's
legal claims.
Began reviewing materials sent by K. Loewy.
Finished reviewing material sent by K. Loewy; began drafting
MSJ; email to L. Harrison and L. Platzer re same.
Email to Lambda Legal re West Virginia legislative history;
read several memos on the history of marriage in West
Virginia; research on history of West Virginia prohibitions on
marriage; email to S. Mellin re obtaining prior West Virginia
laws; continued writing MSJ.
Reviewed LL edits to our sections of MSJ reply; participated in

meeting with LL and Jenner team via telephone.
Edited Burford reply brief and MSJ reply brief.
Narrative
Reviewed defendants' filings.
Edited and commented on response to States' standing
motion.
Edited MSJ draft.
Emailed with team re page limit issue regarding MSJ.
Reviewed new version of summary judgment brief.
Reviewed email report re scheduling conference.
Reviewed and commented on response to motion to strike
supplemental authority filing.
Emailed with co-counsel re response to court's concerns about
statewide effects of a ruling.
Emailed with team about next steps.
Edited brief responding to the court on Burford issue.
Reviewed clerks' MSJ.
Reviewed opponents' filings.
Edited our sections of MSJ reply.
Name
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
Date
10/19/2013
10/20/2013
10/22/2013
10/25/2013
10/29/2013
10/30/2013
10/31/2013
11/01/2013
11/06/2013
11/07/2013
11/08/2013
11/14/2013
11/24/2013
11/26/2013
11/27/2013
12/05/2013
12/10/2013
12/13/2013
12/15/2013
12/16/2013
1.75
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
1.75
3.25
4.50
1.50
1.00
6.50
5.00
7.00
0.25
2.00
2.25
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.00
1.75
3.25
4.50
1.50
1.00
6.50
5.00
7.00
0.00
2.00
2.25
1.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
717.50
102.50
205.00
102.50
205.00
102.50
205.00
102.50
717.50
1,332.50
1,845.00
615.00
410.00
2,665.00
2,050.00
2,870.00
102.50
820.00
922.50
410.00
0.00
80.00
160.00
80.00
160.00
80.00
160.00
0.00
560.00
1,040.00
1,440.00
480.00
320.00
2,080.00
1,600.00
2,240.00
0.00
640.00
720.00
320.00
Req Amt
Revised MSJ in accordance with comments from K. Loewy;

emailed S. Mellin re history of West Virginia's marriage laws.
Continued revising MSJ; emails with T. Peavler re same.
Continued revising MSJ; emailed revised draft of same to
team.
Email to L. Harrison re status of MSJ and timeline for
Defendants to file their response.
Read MTD filed by Defendant McCormick; read emails from
team discussing same.
Conference call with team re scheduling order and to discuss
response to state's MTD; emails to P. Smith and L. Harrison re
abstention.
Read emails from opposing counsel and P. Smith re
scheduling Rule 26(f) meeting; read draft of opposition to
motion to abstain; emailed comments and edits on same to
team.
Reviewed filing of opposition to MTD; emailed copy of Baker
to local counsel for filing.
Emails with team to schedule conference re MSJ.
Read West Virginia cases summarized by K. Loewy re equal
protection and marriage.
Conference call with team re status of summary judgment brief
and deadlines for upcoming Rule 26(f) call; listened to Rule
26(f) meeting via phone; reviewed MTDs filed by Defendant
Cole and the West Virginia Attorney General.
Narrative
Emails with P. Smith re status of MSJ; finished reading Cott
Affidavit; continued editing MSJ.
Continued revising MSJ.
Read emails re extension of time for defendants to file
response; reviewed opposition to extension of time; emailed
edits; continued revising MSJ.
Completed attorney notification form for the Southern District
of West Virginia filing system.
Continued work on MSJ; research on prior West Virginia
marriage, divorce, and property laws; emails with K. Loewy re
same.
Continued work on MSJ; created outline of Statement of
Undisputed Facts.
Completed first draft of MSJ; emailed same to K. Loewy and L.
Harrison.
Call with K. Loewy and L. Harrison re MSJ; emails to L.
Harrison re same; email to T. Peavler re additional research
on marriage ban.
Searched for legislative history of marriage ban.
Name
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
Date
12/18/2013
12/19/2013
12/20/2013
12/22/2013
12/23/2013
12/26/2013
12/27/2013
12/28/2013
12/29/2013
12/30/2013
01/01/2014
01/02/2014
01/06/2014
01/08/2014
01/18/2014
01/26/2014
01/27/2014
01/29/2014
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
3.00
0.50
3.25
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.25
2.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
3.00
0.50
3.25
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.25
2.75
0.50
0.50
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
410.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
120.00
120.00
360.00
360.00
240.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
1,230.00
205.00
1,332.50
205.00
102.50
410.00
102.50
1,127.50
205.00
205.00
80.00
80.00
240.00
0.00
160.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
960.00
160.00
1,040.00
160.00
80.00
320.00
80.00
880.00
160.00
160.00
Req Amt
Reviewed Lambda's edits to opposition to State's partial MTD.

Read email from C. Taylor re edits to MSJ; emails with N.
Tarasen and L. Harrison re same.
Reviewed P. Smith's edits to revised MSJ; edited MSJ in
accord with same; email to team summarizing same and tasks
left to complete.
Read emails from team re shortening summary judgment
motion.
Emails to N. Tarasen re research on Perry and Kitchen
opinions and shortening motion for summary judgment;
created separate statement of undisputed facts; emailed same
to team; emails with N. Tarasen re same; revised MSJ;
emailed same to team; revised opposition to State's MTD;
emailed draft to team for review.
Read Defendants' joint motion to stay briefing on summary
judgment; email to team re same.
Read proposed Rule 28(j) letter of supplemental authority;
email to K. Loewy re same.
Reviewed draft of opposition to motion to strike supplemental
authority; added additional record cites and fixed nits in same;
email re same to team; conference call with team after
scheduling hearing.
Read filed version of our MSJ.
Email to team re Rule 26 letter.
Drafted opposition to motion to amend scheduling order;
emailed same to L. Harrison.
Final edits on opposition to motion to amend schedule; emails
with team re same.
Emails with team re court's order partially granting motions to
dismiss.
Narrative
Reviewed draft of opposition to Cole's MTD; made edits to
same and emailed to team.
Reviewed P. Smith's edits to opposition to Cole's MTD; read
emails from Lambda team with their edits to same; email to N.
Tarasen re same.
Reviewed additional edits to opposition to Cole's MTD; emails
with N. Tarasen re same; revised statement of undisputed
facts in MSJ; emailed updated draft to L. Harrison; researched
whether MSJ can be filed before discovery; email summarizing
findings to L. Harrison.
Emails with L. Harrison and C. Taylor re completing plaintiffs'
affidavits.
Read draft of opposition to State's MTD; email to team with
edits to same.
Name
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
R. TRENT MCCOTTER
CHERYL L. OLSON
CHERYL L. OLSON
CHERYL L. OLSON
CHERYL L. OLSON
Date
02/06/2014
02/13/2014
02/15/2014
02/17/2014
02/18/2014
02/19/2014
02/20/2014
02/22/2014
02/23/2014
02/24/2014
02/25/2014
02/10/2014
02/11/2014
02/24/2014
02/25/2014
4.50
13.50
7.50
0.75
0.75
1.00
92.25
2.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
8.25
3.25
0.75
2.00
0.50
0.50
4.50
13.50
7.50
0.75
0.75
1.00
85.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
1.25
8.25
3.25
0.75
2.00
0.50
0.00
325.00
325.00
325.00
325.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
320.00
1,462.50
4,387.50
2,437.50
243.75
243.75
480.00
39,502.50
1,200.00
120.00
240.00
600.00
3,960.00
1,560.00
360.00
960.00
240.00
240.00
787.50
2,362.50
1,312.50
131.25
131.25
320.00
27,200.00
0.00
80.00
160.00
400.00
2,640.00
1,040.00
240.00
640.00
160.00
0.00
Req Amt
Cite checked brief in response to January 29 memorandum

opinion.
Cite checked brief in response to January 29 memorandum
opinion.
Cite checked memorandum in further response to court's order
of January 29 and opposition to state's second motion to
dismiss; plaintiffs' combined reply in support of plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendants'
cross-motions for summary judgment.
Cite checked plaintiffs' combined reply in support of plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendants'
cross-motions for summary judgment.
Reviewed full draft of reply in support of MSJ; added additional

cites and edits to same; emails and call with team re same.
Reviewed final draft of reply brief for MSJ; assisted in
preparing same for filing; emails with N. Tarasen re same;
read filed version of same.
Completed writing and review of reply sections on marriage as

a fundamental right and sexual orientation/gender
discrimination; email to L. Harrison with draft of same.
Reviewed draft of all sections for reply brief prepared by
Jenner; emails with team re additional citations for same.
Read emails from team re combining sections of reply brief;
email to team re same.
Research on filing extension under Rule 6(d); emails with team

re same; completed draft of reply brief section on marriage as
a fundamental right; researched and completed draft of reply
section on gender and sexual orientation discrimination.
Narrative
Reviewed memorandum and draft brief on issue of Burford
abstention raised by district court in its Order.
Call with team re writing MSJ.
Read MSJs filed by all defendants; reviewed outline of
relevant research topics prepared by Lambda.
Research on deadlines and requirements for filing reply and
opposition to MSJs; emails with N. Tarasen re same.
Began researching and drafting reply/opposition section on
marriage as a fundamental right.
Date
TOTAL FOR SEPTEMBER 2013 THROUGH MAY 31, 2014
Name
$ 131,753.50
Req Amt
Narrative
2.00
4.75
2.50
0.50
1.00
12.25
4.50
6.50
0.75
11.75
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
4.50
0.25
10/06/2014 LINDSAY C. HARRISON

07/29/2014 NICHOLAS W. TARASEN
06/11/2014 PAUL M. SMITH


11/11/2014 R. TRENT MCCOTTER
0.25
0.50
4.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
11.75
6.50
4.50
1.00
12.25
4.75
2.50
0.50
2.00
1.50
480.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
435.00
435.00
435.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
328.00
789.00
789.00
789.00
789.00
789.00
789.00
789.00
328.00
328.00
328.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
655.00
120.00
550.00
4,950.00
1,100.00
550.00
550.00
550.00
550.00
1,100.00
326.25
5,111.25
2,827.50
1,957.50
655.00
8,023.75
3,111.25
1,637.50
327.50
1,310.00
982.50
1.50
Name
Date
McGee v. Cole (S.D. W. Va.)
Time Report: Jenner & Block LLP

June 1, 2014, to present
82.00
394.50
3,550.50
789.00
394.50
394.50
394.50
394.50
789.00
246.00
3,854.00
2,132.00
1,476.00
655.00
8,023.75
3,111.25
1,637.50
327.50
1,310.00
982.50
Req Amt
Research on deadline to seek attorneys fees; emails with team

re same.
Emailed with team about how to get judgment and form thereof.
Reviewed filings and emailed with team re same.
Edited draft reply supporting motion for judgment.
Reviewed Lambda Legal edits to reply brief in support of
judgment.
Telephone call with co-counsel re planning next steps after a

CA4 ruling.
Reviewed stay motion filed by the defendants.
Edited opp to stay motion.
Draft motion to lift stay / opposition to state motion to continue

stay in response to Fourth Circuit decision in Bostic.
Researched, drafted and edited Reply re Motion to Vacate Stay
and Enter Judgment.
Made final edits to Reply re Motion to Vacate Stay and Enter
Judgment.
Narrative
Reviewed State's filing re Bostic; revised draft of opposition to
stay; corresponded with co-counsel re same.
Analyzed results of Supreme Court cert denial; corresponded
with co-counsel re: strategy.
Drafted proposed judgment; discussed settlement with E. Lin;
corresponded with co-counsel re settlement options.
Worked on settlement issues.
Reviewed reply brief re standing issues.
Reviewed summary judgment decision; corresponded with team
re decision.
4.00
5.25
10.75

5.25
10.75
4.00
0.25
TOTAL FOR JUNE 1, 2014, THROUGH PRESENT
0.25
1.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
328.00
328.00
328.00
328.00
2,520.00
5,160.00
1,920.00
120.00
480.00
1.00
Name
Date
$ 18,954.25
1,722.00
3,526.00
1,312.00
82.00
328.00
Req Amt
Narrative
Research on extension of time for filing motion for attorneys'
fees; emails with team re same; began drafting motion for
attorneys' fees.
Emails with team re status of motion for extension of time to
seek attorneys fees.
Continued drafting motion for attorneys fees; emails with team re
collecting documentation in support of same.
Continued drafting motion for attorneys fees; emails with team re
collecting documentation in support of same.
EXHIBIT B

Huntington Division

ADKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No . 3: 13-cv-24068
Bon. Robert Chambers
V.

CABELL COUNTY CLERK, et al.
Defendants.
And
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendant-Intervenor.
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN H. TINNEY, JR.
John H. Tinney, Jr., personally appearing before the undersigned officer duly authorized
to administer oaths, does hereby depose and say as follows:
1.
My name is John H. Tinney, Jr. Tam a resident of Charleston, Kanawha County,
West Virginia and member in good standing of the West Virginia State Bar. I am legall y
competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. I am
a founding Member of The Tinney Law Firm, PLLC.
2.
Education, Experience and Qualific31tions

A.
Education: I received my undergraduate degree in 1992, cum laude, from
Washington & Lee University. I attended Wake Forest University School of Law, where I received
my Juris Doctorate in 1995. I have consistently met my continuing legal education requirements
since my admission to the West Virginia State Bar in 1995.
B.
Previous Employment: I was initially employed as an associate attorney
with the Charleston based law firm of Spilman, Thomas and Battle. After working in private
practice for approximately three years, I was employed as the law clerk for the Hon. Robert B.
King on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Following my clerkship,
I worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of West Virginia.
C.
Current Employment: I am a founding and current member of The Tinney
Law Firm, PLLC. During my tenure as a Member, I have represented a diverse aiTay of clients in
matters in federal and state comt, including several constitutional challenges to state law
proVISIOnS.
3.
Hourly Rate: I am requesting an hourly rate of $300 per hour for the time I have
spent on this matter. I believe this rate to be reasonable and in line or below the current market
rate for an attorney with my experience and qualifications. The lower rates requested for additional
attorneys and paralegals in this firm who performed work on this matter are also reasonable and
in line or below the market rates given their individual experience and education.
4.
Hours and Expenses: The document attached to this fee petition is a true and coiTect
compilation of the contemporaneously made time records I and other attorneys and paralegals in
this firm have maintained for services performed in this case. The firm' s time records have been
edited and reduced where such entries appeared excessive, redundant or inefficient and reflect a
reduction in the actual time spent and the tasks performed. It is my opinion that the amounts of
billable time and expenses described represent a reasonable use of attorney and paralegal time, in
light of the issues presented in this case, the factual posture ofthe matter and the results achieved
by the plaintiffs.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, TO WIT:
I,
Nodgie P. Kennedy
, a Notary Public of said county, do hereby certify
, whose name is signed to the writing herein, has this day
that
John H. Tinney, Jr.
acknowledged the same before me in my said county.
Given under my hand and notarial seal this ';>.._'C\.~ day of 'S:)\!c:.~~re...- , 2014.
My commission expires:
~\~ \ ~
~~~&~~
NOTAR PUBLIC
[SEAL]
EXHIBIT 1
TheCase 3:13-cv-24068
Document 146-2 Filed 12/02/14 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 4681
TINNEY
LAW FIRM
PLLC
222 Capitol Street
Suite 500
304/720-3310 (phone)
304/720-3315 (fax)
FEIN# 55-0785857
October 31, 2013
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:

Jon Davidson, Esq.
Lambda Legal
3325 Wilshore Blvd., Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729
RE:
Constitutional challenge to West Virginia same sex

marriage ban
INVOICE #: 22711
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Hrs/Rate
9/26/2013 JHTJR Confer with B. Littrell; Review various documents
forwarded by Lambda.
Amount
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
3.00
240.00/hr
720.00
JHTJR Work on review of complaint and retention agreements

and co-counsel agreements; Work on review of NJ
decision issued today; Telephone conference with legal
team.
3.00
300.00/hr
900.00
HDFK Telephone conference with Glasser, Brown re:

background; Review and analysis of draft complaint;
Email messages with client re: pro hac vice, logistics;
Obtain pro hac vice checks from Bailey & Glasser; Revise
complaint; Analysis of pro hac vice paperwork; Research
3.50
225.00/hr
787 .50
HDFK Research re: due diligence.
9/27/20 13 JKT
Examine complaint; Research history of legal challenges in

West Virginia related to same sex marriage issues;
Examine engagement letter, etc.
RE: Constitutional challenge to West
PAGE
Virginia same sex marriage han

Hrs/Rate
Amount
service issue re: clerk/commission; Telephone conference

with team.
9/27/2013 NPK
Analyze email string with co-counsel re: filing of

complaint and pro hac vice admission information;
Analyze, convert, and revise draft complaint to Firm's
system; Draft civil case information statement and
summonses; Draft Statement(s) ofVisiting Attorney(s) for
co-counsel Taylor and Litrell; Analyze response and
instruction re: admission of 7 attorneys pro hac vice; Draft
statements as to each attorney; Receive attorney signature
pages via email; Confer with attorneys re: filing and
litigation strategy; Analyze email messages with
co-counsel re: same.
2.60
100.00/hr
260.00
9/30/2013 JKT
Examine constitutional challenge complaint; Research re:

similar issues and cases.
2.20
240.00/hr
528.00
JHTJR Confer with press officer and other members of legal team
re: filing of complaint.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Telephone conference with Jon Adams; Prepare for filings.
3.70
225.00/hr
832.50
JKC
Discuss complaint with Heather Foster Kittredge; Review

Complaint.
0.40
205.00/hr
82.00
NPK
Confer with attorneys re: plan of action; Produce and

document final retainer agreements for execution by
plaintiffs; Revise Statement(s) of Visiting Attorneys and
Designation of Local Counsel forms; Attend to check
requests for West Virginia State Bar and USDC Court
Clerk in connection with pro hac vice; Draft letter to West
Virginia State Bar transmitting attorney Statement(s) and
pro hac vice fee; Revise Civil Case Information Sheet and
Summonses to final; Attend to new case file, forms and
information; Telephone call with USDC Clerk re: details
of filing and issuance of summons.
2.60
100.00/hr
260.00

Virginia same sex marriage ban
PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
4.00
300.00/hr
1,200.00
2.50
240.00/hr
600.00
HDFK Roundtrip travel to and from Huntington, West Virginia

for press conference; Hand-deliver pro hac vice paperwork.
4.00
225.00/hr
900.00
File Civil Case Information Sheet, Complaint, Summons

and filing fee payment information via CM/ECF;
Telephone calls to and from Court Clerk re: filings and
CMIECF issues; Forward filings to various Court IT
personnel; Telephone call confirming filing and issuing
case docket number; Receive and review Court executed
Summons; Prepare service copies; File Statement of
Visiting Attorney form and filing fee payment information
for each attorney Smith, Platzer, McCotter, Loewy, Littrell,
Harrison, and Taylor via Court's CM/ECF; Receive and
review Standing Order referring Discovery Matters to
Magistrate Judge; Draft letter to West Virginia State Bar
transmitting fee and as-filed Visiting Attorney Statement
forms.
4.20
100.00/hr
420.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
Research re: other state's same sex marriage challenges;

Examine press coverage; Discuss with counsel re : path
forward; Discussion of rules on notice to Attorney General
and research re: same.
2.70
240.00/hr
648.00
HDFK Telephone conference with Karen L; Analysis of 5.1 notice

of constitutional question; Telephone conference with
process server; Email messages with defense team.
0.70
225.00/hr
157.50
10/112013 JHTJR Travel to and from Huntington, West Virginia for press
conference; Finalize filing of complaint; Participate in
press conference; Finalize representation agreements;
Review various news articles.
JKT
NPK
Examine complaint; Examine news coverage and internet

coverage; Discuss case with counsel.
10/2/2013 JHTJR Confer with various members of trial team re: service of
process and other administrative matters.
JKT
PAGE

Hrs/Rate
10/2/20 13 NPK
Amount
Analyze information relative to Cabell County process

server; Place call and leave message; Draft letter for John
H. Tinney, Jr. to Paul Smith, Jenner & Block, transmitting
executed Co-Counsel Agreement; Draft letter for John H.
Tinney, Jr. to Lindsay Harrison, Jenner & Block,
transmitting plaintiffs Retainer Agreement executed by
each plaintiff and The Tinney Law Firm, PLLC; Travel to
Kanawha County Clerk's office as process servicer of
Summons and Complaint on Defendant McCormick;
Prepare proof of service and Certificate of Service; File
service documents via Court's CMIECF; Prepare follow-up
tasks as to Answer.
2.30
100.00/hr
230.00
10/3/20 13 JHTJR Work on various administrative issues, including service of

Cabell County Clerk.
1.50
300.00/hr
450.00
HDFK Research notice provision; Revise notice.
1.50
225.00/hr
337.50
NPK
Attend to issue with process service in Cabell County;

Receive and review Court's notice of visiting attorneys re:
CM/ECF filing and email notification; Confer with
attorney re: notice of suit to Attorney General's office.
0.80
100.00/hr
80.00
10/4/2013 JHTJR Work on notice of constitutional challenge and service on

West Virginia Attorney General; Confer with counsel re:
service and path forward; Review various news articles re:
filing.
1.50
300.00/hr
450.00
HDFK Revise notice; Gather media coverage; Work out

administrative issues such as billing and service.
1.20
225.00/hr
270.00
NPK
3.00
100.00/hr
300.00
Analyze West Virginia Attorney General's website in

connection with service of notice; Telephone calls to
Attorney General's office; Revise Notice of Constitutional
Question to final; Prepare Certificate of Service and
exhibit; Transmit to co-counsel for review and approval;
Telephone call with Court Clerk re: service by US Marsha;
Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge; Analyze email
transmittal to proposed process server; File Notice of

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
Constitutional Question via CM/ECF; Copy all counsel via

email and prepare service copies via certified mail.
10/5/2013 JHTJR Review news articles re: same sex marriage in West
Virginia.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
10/7/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: service issues to Huntington

Clerk's office.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
10/8/2013 JHTJR Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and national counsel
re: path forward and briefing schedules; Work on
finalizing service.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Work on service; Research verified complaint.
1.80
225.00/hr
405.00
Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and transmit

complaint package for process service with information
and instruction via email; Receive and review executed
Proof of Service; Prepare Certificate of Service and file via
Court's CM/ECF system; Prepare follow-up task as to
Answer.
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
10/9/2013 JHTJR Confer with national counsel and Heather Foster Kittredge.
1.10
300.00/hr
330.00
HDFK Analysis of VA Motion for Summary Judgment; Strategy;

Telephone conference.
0.90
225.00/hr
202.50
Receive and review Court's notice re: Certification of

Constitutional Question; Transmit to co-counsel via email;
Attend to case management and organization; Analyze
1.10
100.00/hr
110.00
HDFK Email message to Proctor re: service information.
NPK
NPK
NPK
Analyze status of service on Cabell County Clerk and

co-counsel's questions on verified amended complaint.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
email message from attorney Taylor transmitting Motion

for Summary Judgment used in similar Virginia litigation.
I 0110/2013 JKT
Examine certification; Examine coverage; Research re:

Attorney General intervention and procedure.
1.80
240.00/hr
432.00
NPK
Analyze email string with sample Motion for Summary

Judgment and Memo in Support as filed in VA USDC.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
HDFK Analysis and strategy re: defense counsel request for

extension to respond.
0.50
225.00/hr
112.50
NPK
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
1.40
300.00/hr
420.00
10/ 11/2013 JHTJR Work on draft of memo for oversized brief.
NPK
Analyze email string with co-counsel re: motions practice

and timing; Review proposed motion to exceed page
limitations.
10/1 6/2013 JHTJR Review various news articles re: West Virginia lawsuit and
progress in other states.
NPK
Review executed Co-Counseling Agreement.
10118/2013 JHTJR Review voicemail message from counsel and confer with
counsel re: response.
Analyze email string re: counsel for defendant, defendant's

request for extension oftime to answer, implications and
strategy.
10/21/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel multiple times re: requests for
extension; Review motion by McCormick to extend
deadlines.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
1.30
300.00/hr
390.00
HDFK Email messages with defense team; Analysis of Motion for

Extension; Telephone conference with Chambers' clerk
advising there will be a response; Analysis of rules in
preparation for filing response; Analysis of case law;
Revisions to circulation of draft of opposition to Motion to
Extend.
3.30
225.00/hr
742.50
NPK
Review Defendant McCormick's Motion to Extend Time

Frame to File a Responsive Pleading; Review
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant
McCormick's motion; Review Order Suspending
Defendant McCormick's Responsive Pleading Deadline;
Review Motion for Expedited Ruling on Defendant
McCormick's Motion; Analyze email string with
co-counsel re: strategy and response; Conduct computer
search relating to opposition to motion for extension per
Heather Foster Kittredge; Analyze press re: case and
document same to file; Assist with preparation of
opposition to McCormick's motion to extend time frame;
Revise Certificate of Service to reflect opposing counsel's
service by CM/ECF and by U.S. Mail; File Opposition;
Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and Lambda Legal
paralegal re: plaintiff updates.
2.10
100.00/hr
210.00
10/23/2013 JHTJR Review reply brief by McCormick; Review Memorandum

Opinion and Order.
0.70
300.00/hr
210.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
10/21 /2013 NPK
Analyze email strings with co-counsel re: requested

extension, counsel for Cabell County Clerk and litigation
strategy; Analyze email string with opposing counsel re:
extension and plan of action.
10/22/2013 JHTJR Work on drafting response to motion; Review Order.
HDFK Analysis of Reply to Response to Motion to Extend.

PAGE
Hrs!Rate
10/23/2013 NPK
Review Defendant McCormick's Memorandum in Reply to

Opposition ofPlaintiffs to Defendant McCormick's Motion
to Extend Time Frame to File Responsive Pleading;
Analyze local press in connection with case; Analyze email
string with co-counsel re: response to local reporter and
response by public relations; Review Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting Defendant McCormick's
motion for extension and providing same extension to
Defendant Cole without the request.
Amount
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
0.10
300.00/hr
30.00
Review Notice of Appearance of attorney Lee Murray Hall.
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
Analyze email message from Jenner & Block inquiring

into status of execution of plaintiffs' retainer agreements;
Analyze electronic file as to document transmittal history;
Address status of plaintiffs retainer agreements with
Heather Foster Kittredge.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
10/31/2013 HDFK Telephone call with State Bar, District Clerk, Chambers'
Clerk re: pro hac vice admission supplement of K. Loewy;
Email message to K. Loewy.
0.60
225.00/hr
135.00
10/24/2013 JHTJR Review notice of appearance for Cole.
NPK
10/25/2013 NPK
FEE TOTAL
81.50
$17,427.50
CLIENT COSTS
Oty/Price
10/ 1/2013 FilingFee
Clerk, USDC, SDWV- Pro hac vice admissions for Elizabeth L.
Littrell, Karen L. Loewy, and Camilla B. Taylor.
3
$50.00
150.00

PAGE
10/31/20 13 Copying cost

Photocopies for October 2013.
Postage
Postage for October 2013.
Oty/Price
Amount
684
$0.25
171.00
31.64
$31.64
TOTAL CLIENT COSTS
$352.64
TOTAL THIS INVOICE
$17,780.14
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
$17,780.14
Timekeeper Summary
Name
James K. Tinney
John H. Tinney, Jr.
Heather D. Foster Kittredge
John K. Cecil
Nodgie P. Kennedy
Payment due within 30 days
Hours
12.20
23.70
22.30
0.40
22.90
Rate ------':.-==:==
Amount
240.00
$2,928.00
300.00
$7,110.00
225.00
$5,017.50
205.00
$82.00
100.00
$2,290.00
The Case 3:13-cv-24068
Document 146-2 Filed 12/02/14 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 4690
TINNEY
II
LAW FIRM
PLLC
5 Greenbrier Street
3 04/72 0-3 31 0 (phone)
304/720-3315 (fax)
FEIN # 55-0785857
November 30, 2014
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:

Jon Davidson, Esq.
Lambda Legal
3325 Wilshore Blvd., Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 9001 0-1729
RE:
Constitutional challenge to West Virginia same sex

marriage ban
INVOICE #: 22928
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Hrs/Rate
1118/2013 JHTJR Review multiple news articles re: status of West Virginia
lawsuit.
Amount
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
11111 /2013 JHTJR Confer with Lambda attorneys re: recent filings.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
11/18/2013 NPK
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
Review fully executed Retainer Agreement as to each

plaintiff; Document same to file.
11/22/2013 HDFK Review motion by Attorney General to intervene.
NPK
Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Intervene and

Integrated Memorandum of Law in Support.
ll/25/2013 HDFK Review email message from clerk to Chambers re: motion
to intervene of Attorney General; Email messages with
plaintiff team re: clerk email message and response to
same.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
11/26/2013 JHTJR Brief review of new filings.
Amount
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
1.40
240.00/hr
336.00
0.90
225.00/hr
202.50
Review Defendant Vera McCormick's Motion to Dismiss

with exhibits and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof;
Analyze email string re: proposed plan of action and
conference to discuss further.
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
Examine Motion to Dismiss and email questions from

counsel.
1.20
240.00/hr
288.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
JHTJR Confer with counsel re: multiple issues.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
HDFK Email messages re: timing of response to opposition and

scheduling order; Analysis of Order and Notice issued by
court re: 26(f) scheduling conference, disdomes; Analysis
of Order granting West Virginia Attorney General motion
to intervene.
0.50
225.00/hr
112.50
NPK
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
JKT
Examine Motion to Dismiss.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: teleconference and

response to Motion to Dismiss; Analysis ofMemo and
Motion to Dismiss (abstention).
NPK
11/27/2013 JKT
HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiffteam re: response to

Motion to Dismiss.
12/2/2013 JHTJR Review Order allowing State of West Virginia to intervene
as defendant; Review scheduling Order.
Analyze email message re: Court Clerk contact; Review

Order granting the State of West Virginia's Motion to
Intervene; Review Order and Notice setting dates; Prepare
follow-up tasks re: same; Analyze email string re: response
to Motion to Dismiss.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
12/3/2013 JKT
Amount
Examine Motion to Dismiss and discuss with counsel.
1.50
240.00/hr
360.00
Analyze email string re: strategy and legal research;

Investigate prior case research in connection with Younger
and Rooker Feldman absention doctrine; Respond to
attorney with relevant information.
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.60
225.00/hr
135.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
1.80
240.00/hr
432.00
HDFK Email messages with all counsel re: location of26(f)

meeting; Email messages with plaintiff team re: analysis of
opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
0.80
225.00/hr
180.00
NPK
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
NPK
12/5/20 13 JHTJR Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and others re:
scheduling a meeting with counsel re: scheduling.
HDFK Analysis of local rules re: disclosure; Strategy re: Rule
26(f) meeting, timing, cross-motions; Email messages with
plaintiff team.
12/6/20 13 JHTJR Work on review of draft opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: availability for

26(f) meeting and response in opposition to Motion to
Dismiss; Email messages with all counsel re: Rule 26(f)
meeting.
12/9/20 13 JHTJR Work on review and comment on final version of response
to Motion to Dismiss.
JKT
Examine and discuss Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

with counsel.
Analyze email strings re: work on Opposition to

McCormick's Motion to Dismiss; Analyze and revise
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant
McCormick's Motion to Dismiss to final ; Prepare
Certificate of Service.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
12/10/20 13 JHTJR Review final draft of response to Motion to Dismiss.
Amount
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.50
225.00/hr
112.50
1.90
100.00/hr
190.00
12/13/2013 HDFK Strategy for setting deadlines at Rule 26(f) conference.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
12/16/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel for plaintiffs; Participate in Rule 26(f)
planning meeting.
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
0.60
225.00/hr
135.00
HDFK Prepare and file Memorandum in Opposition to

McCormick's Motion to Dismiss.
NPK
Analyze draft and conduct Westlaw research and confer

with James K. Tinney as to case for attachment as exhibit
to memorandum of law; Revise memorandum of law in
opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss;
Transmit final to all counsel for approval of filing; File
memorandum of law via Court's CM/ECF system; Analyze
email messages re: exhibit; Review substitute exhibit;
Telephone call with Court Clerk re: amended documents;
Transmit new exhibit to Court Clerk; Review notice of
revision and documents as filed; Email messages with
co-counsel.
HDFK Email messages with national counsel re: 26(f) meeting;

Analysis of change of attorney information by state of
West Virginia; Analysis of Cole's Motion to Dismiss and
memo; Analysis of state of West Virginia's Motion to
Dismiss.
NPK
Review Defendant Karen S. Cole's Motion to Dismiss and

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss; Notice of
change of attorney information for the office of West
Virginia Attorney General; Prepare notes to file.
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
12/17/2013 NPK
Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Dismiss and

Integrated Memorandum of Law in Support; Review
Defendant McCormick's Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss.
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
12/18/2013 HDFK Review email messages from judge's clerk re: scheduling
conference.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
12/19/2013 JHTJR Work on drafting proposed planning report and confer with
client and counsel re: same.
2.50
300.00/hr
750.00
0.50
225.00/hr
112.50
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
1. 10
240.00/hr
264.00
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
1.40
100.00/hr
140.00
0.80
300.00/hr
240.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
HDFK Analysis, strategy, and preparation re: Rule 26(f) report.
NPK
Analyze suggested edits received and revise Joint Report

of Parties Planning Meeting for final review.
12/20/2013 JHTJR Work on finalizing and filing of Rule 26(f) report.
JKT
Examine draft opposition and discuss with counsel.
HDFK Analysis and approval of Opposition to Cole's Motion to

Dismiss in preparation for filing.
NPK
Revise Joint Report of Meeting to include defendant

signature blocks; Attend to case management and
organization; Analyze draft Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to Dismiss;
Analyze revision to Joint Report of Parties Planning
Meeting; File Joint Report of Parties Planning Meeting via
Court's CM/ECF system.
12/23/2013 JHTJR Review and file response in opposition to Cole Motion to

Dismiss.
HDFK Final preparation of Opposition to Cole's Motion to
Dismiss for filing (email messages with counsel).
NPK
Revise Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant

Cole's Motion to Dismiss to final; Prepare Certificate of
Service and file memo via CM/ECF system.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
2.50
300.00/hr
750.00
1.20
225.00/hr
270.00
Review Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in

Opposition of Defendant Cole's Motion to Dismiss;
Analyze and revise draft Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Law
in Opposition to State of West Virginia's Motion to
Dismiss to final ; File memorandum via Court's CM/ECF
system; Analyze and revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment; Prepare exhibits to motion; File
motion, exhibits and memorandum via Court's CM/ECF
system.
3.30
100.00/hr
330.00
12/31/2013 JHTJR Work on review of additional exhibits to file with memo in

opposition.
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
Analyze Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State's

Motion to Dismiss and to missing exhibits; Telephone call
with court clerks in Charleston and Huntington to discuss
amending to add declarations; Review notice of change to
1.90
100.00/hr
190.00
12/27/2013 JHTJR Review email messages from C. Taylor; Review signature

pages; Confer wtih clients.
HDFK Email messages re: client verification signature pages.
NPK
Review signature pages via FedEx from Jane Louise

Fenton and Nancy Elizabeth Michael; Review signature
pages via FedEx from William Glavaris and Justin
Murdock; Review signature pages via hand delivery from
Sarah Adkins and Casie McGee.
12/30/2013 JHTJR Work on finalizing draft briefs and filing of same.
HDFK Analysis of rules and strategy re: filing Motion for

Summary Judgment and statement of undisputed facts;
Analysis of Cole Reply to Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss; Email messages with Camilla to file Motion for
Summary Judgment today; Telephone conference with
Camilla re: filing of Motion for Summary Judgment.
NPK
NPK

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
Amount
filing; Confer with co-counsel re: additional exhibits to

Motion for Summary Judgment; Analyze legislative
history, opinions and draft Declaration for John H. Tinney,
Jr.; Revise Declaration and prepare exhibits; File same via
Court's CM/ECF system.
1/2/2014 JHTJR Review notice of supplemental authority.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.20
300.00/hr
60.00
HDFK Analysis of McCormick motion to strike and memo in

support.
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
NPK
1.20
100.00/hr
120.00
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
6.50
300.00/hr
1,950.00
HDFK Strategy and preparation re: filing notice of supplemental

authority.
1/3/2014 JHTJR Review defendant's petition to strike.
Analyze and produce supplemental authority for filing in

connection with oppositions to Motion to Dismiss; Review
Notice of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss and Certificate of Service to final ; Prepare
exhibits; File Notice and exhibits via court's CM/ECF
system; Review Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Notice
of Supplemental Authority and Memorandum of Law in
Support.
1/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: hearing before Judge Chambers.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team in preparation for

scheduling conference on 1/6/14.
1/6/2014 JHTJR Work on review and filing of response to motion to strike;
Review pending motions and memoranda; Confer with
counsel re: hearing; Travel to Huntington, West Virginia;
Participate in scheduling hearing before Judge Chambers;
Additional conference with counsel; Return travel to
Charleston, West Virginia.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
I /6/2014 HDFK Travel to scheduling conference; Meeting with L.
Harrison, co-counsel, in preparation; Attend scheduling
conference; Return travel; Telephone conference re:
conference with co-counsel; Strategy re: filing reply to
motion to strike additional authority.
NPK
Analyze email strings and proposed draft response to

defendants' joint motion to strike supplemental authority,
hearing and conference call; Review as-filed copy of
Plaintiffs' reply in opposition to motion to strike
defendants McCormick and Cole.
119/2014 HDFK Review District Court report of scheduling conference.
HDFK Review and analyze reply by state of West Virginia to

memorandum in opposition.
Amount
6.50
225.00/hr
1,462.50
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0. 10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
NPK
Review District Judge Daybook Entry from 1/6/ 14's

scheduling conference.
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
1110/2014 NPK
Review Reply in Support of State of West Virginia's

Motion to Dismiss; Review Order holding Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment in abeyance pending
issuance of Scheduling Order.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
1/ 13/2014 HDFK Analysis of Cole and McCormick reply to opposition to

motion to strike.
NPK
Review Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Opposition to Motion

to Strike.
1114/2014 JHTJR Brief review of email messages and opinion from federal
district court overturning Oklahoma same sex marriage ban.
HDFK Email messages re: strategy on pleading filed as re:
Defendant's Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike.
PAGE

Hrs/Rate
Amount
1116/2014 JHTJR Review recent news articles re: maniage cases.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
1117/2014 JHTJR Review Order from Judge Chambers; Review recent news
articles.
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
1/22/2014 JHTJR Review multiple email messages re: scheduling and

deadlines.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
HDFK Email messages re: extension requested by Attorney

General.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Review Order re: defendants joint motion to stay briefing

on plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment.
NPK
Review Order staying the deadline for responses to

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
112112014 JHTJR Review multiple email messages from counsel for all
parties re: various scheduling issues and deadlines.
HDFK Email messages with trial team re: Elbert Lin request for
extension on Rule 26 disclosures.
1124/2014 JHTJR Review email messages from counsel and review State's
motion to extend deadlines.
HDFK Email messages with trial team re: motions briefings
schedule and analysis of Attorney General motion to
amend deadline to respond to plaintiffs Motion for
Summaty Judgment.
NPK
Review Defendant Intervenor's Motion to Amend the

Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment.
1127/2014 JHTJR Work on review of multiple email messages and draft

documents.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
1127/2014 HDFK Strategy and analysis of response in partial opposition to
Motion to Amend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment; Analysis of West Virginia
Reply supporting motion to amend deadline to respond to
Motion for Summary Judgment.
10
Amount
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
Review and file Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to Defendant

Intervenor's Motion to Amend the Deadline to Respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment via Court's
CM/ECF system; Review state of West Virginia's reply
support its motion to amend the deadline to respond to
plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.
0.70
100.00/hr
70.00
1/29/2014 JHTJR Review memorandum opinion and confer with counsel re:
same.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Analysis of Memorandum Opinion and Order; Strategy re:

same.
0.80
225.00/hr
180.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
NPK
NPK
Review Memorandum Opinion and Order.
1130/2014 HDFK Email messages re: strategy, Burford.
NPK
Prepare follow-up tasks pursuant to deadlines set for in

Memorandum Opinion and Order; Analyze and document
to file newspaper article re: Judge's decision.
2/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with West Virginia Attorney General's office re:
exceeding page limitations.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiffs team re: page limitations.
NPK
Analyze WSAZ article on Anti-Gay Discrimination Bill

introduced and note to file.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
2/5/2014 HDFK Analysis of Motion to Exceed Page Limits.
11
Amount
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.10
I 00.00/hr
10.00
2/6/2014 JHTJR Review unopposed motion and Order re: same; Review
memo re: possible amendment and draft brief.
1.40
300.00/hr
420.00
HDFK Review Order granting motion to exceed page limits;

Analysis of Memo and Brief re: Burford and amending
complaint; Email messages with plaintiffs team re:
memo/brief.
0.60
225.00/hr
135.00
Review Order granting State's motion to exceed page

limits.
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
2/7/2014 JHTJR Review draft memoranda and confer with counsel on

multiple issues.
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
1.10
300.00/hr
330.00
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
NPK
NPK
Review State of West Virginia's Unopposed Motion to

Extend the Page Limit for Its Initial Summary Judgment
filing.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: teleconference to

discuss memo and brief on abstention, amending complaint.
2/10/2014 HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiff team re: memo/brief
re: abstention, amending complaint; Email messages with
plaintiff team re: teleconference; Review Cole/McCormick
joint motion to exceed page limits.
NPK
Review Joint Motion of Defendants Cole and McCormick

to Extend the Page Limits on Their Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment.
211 1/20 14 JHTJR Work on review of memo and brief; Review Order re:
Joint Motion to Extend.
NPK
Analyze Charleston Gazette article on legislature and copy

to file; Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge re: clients'
and co-counsel's strategy and filing; Review Order granting

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
12
Amount
Defendants' Cole and McCormick Joint Motion to Exceed

Page Limit.
2/12/20 14 JHTJR Work on review of Burford II draft briefing; Work on
review of defendant's motion for Summary Judgment.
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
2.50
300.00/hr
750.00
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
Review Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of Cole and

McCormick; Review Joint Memorandum in Support and in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment;
Review Notice of Change of Attorney information; Prepare
notes to file and contact information; Review West
Virginia's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief; Review West Virginia's Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment, Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment and Indexed Exhibits;
Review West Virginia's Memorandum Supporting its
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
1.30
100.00/hr
130.00
2/ 14/20 14 JHTJR Review opinion and confer with counsel; Review proposed
amicus filing by Fami ly Policy Council.
1.60
300.00/hr
480.00
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
HDFK Email messages and strategy with plaintiff team.
NPK
Analyze and revise to final the Memorandum of Law in

Response to Court's Order of 1/29/14; Prepare Certificate
of Service and file same via Court' CM/ECF system.
2113/201 4 JHTJR Work on dispositive motion briefing.
HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiff team re: conversation

with Lee Hall.
NPK
NPK
Review Motion for Leave to File Brief, and The Family

Policy Council of West Virginia's Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Defendant-Intervenor's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
150.00
1.40
225.00/hr
315.00
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
Revise Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Reply

Memoranda and to Extend the Page Limitation and Filing
Deadline to final; Prepare Certificate of Service, file
motion via Court's CM/ECF system; Review West
Virginia's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction Due to Failure to Join the Proper Defendants;
Review West Virginia's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 2/12
Memorandum of Law and Memorandum in Support of its
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction;
Review Joint Response of Defendants Cole and
McCormick to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Response to Court's Order of 1129/ 14; Confer with Heather
Foster Kittredge re: opposing counsel Lee Hall; Draft
email message to attorney Hall on behalf of Heather Foster
Kittredge re: extension of time to file responsive pleading;
Note to file.
1.70
100.00/hr
170.00
Examine recent filings .
1.10
240.00/hr
264.00
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: motion to court to

combine reply/opposition to cross-motions; Telephone
conference with E. Lin re: combining reply/opposition;
Telephone conference with Lee Hall re: combining
reply/opposition; Prepare Motion re: reply/opposition to
cross-motions.
Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge re: local federal
rules; Analyze West Virginia Code and respond to inquiry.
2/ 19/2014 JHTJR Review draft motion to exceed page limits and extend
deadlines; Revise draft motion.
HDFK Telephone conference with C. Bailey re: combine
reply/opposition to cross-motions.
NPK
2/20/2014 JKT
Amount
0.50
300.00/hr
2/ 18/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: multiple briefing issues.
NPK
13

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
2/20/2014 NPK
Review Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate

reply memoranda.
14
Amount
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
0.70
100.00/hr
70.00
1.50
300.00/hr
450.00
Analyze and document to file the as-filed Plaintiffs' Reply

in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment.
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
2/26/2014 NPK
Work on case management and organization; Telephone

call with J. Warren, Attorney General's office, requesting
extension of time; Transmit message to attorney for
response and follow-up.
1.20
100.00/hr
120.00
2/28/2014 NPK
Review Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor's Unopposed

Joint Motion to Amend the Deadline to Reply to Plaintiffs'
Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
3/3/2014 JHTJR Review Order granting motion for extension of time to file
reply; Review petition for leave to file supplemental
authority.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
3/4/2014 NPK
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
2/24/2014 JHTJR Work on review of final draft and filing of same.
NPK
Analyze and revise Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum

Responding to the Court's Order of 1/29114 and Opposition
to the State's Motion to Dismiss to final; Prepare
Certificate of Service; File via Court's CM/ECF system.
2/25/2014 JHTJR Work on review and comment to combined Summary

Judgment brief.
NPK
Review Order granting Defendants' Joint Motion to

Amend the Deadline to Reply; Review State of West
Virginia's Reply Supporting its Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Review Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion to Submit Notice of Supplemental
Authority, Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority
with Exhibit A, DeLeon v. Perry; Review Order granting

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
15
Amount
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion; Review Plaintiffs' Notice of

Supplemental Authority with Exhibit A entered by Clerk.
3/9/2014 JHTJR Review recent press articles re: marriage.
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
Attend to case management and organization.
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
Review Order granting Family Policy Council of West

Virginia leave to file and amicus curiae brief; Prepare
follow-up task as to response.
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
0.70
225.00/hr
157.50
0.80
100.00/hr
80.00
3/21/2014 HDFK Email messages with C. Taylor re: future notices of supp.
authority.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
Review as filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Submit

Third Notice of Supplemental Authority, Plaintiffs' Third
Notice of Supplemental Authority with accompanying
Deboer v. Snyder.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
3/25/2014 JHTJR Review third notice of supplemental authority and Order

granting motion to file same.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
3/12/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel for state and co-counsel re: request to
exceed all briefing limitations.
NPK
3/13/2014 NPK
3117/2014 HDFK TN cases - Email messages with defense counsel re: notice
of supp. authority; Strategy re: supp. authority.
NPK
3/24/2014 NPK
Review Defendants and Defendant-Intervemor's Joint

Reply Supporting their Motions for Summary Judgment;
Review Reply (Cole and McCormick) to Plaintiffs'
Combined Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment; Review Plaintiffs' Second Notice of
Supplemental Authority with attachment.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
16
Amount
3/25/2014 HDFK Review order from court re: third notice of supplemental
authority and entry of notice of supplemental authority.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
3/26/2014 JHTJR Review Wolf opinion and confer with counsel re: fmih
notice of supplemental authority.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.60
240.00/hr
144.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
4/1/2014 HDFK Review Order granting fourth notice of supplemental

authority and notice as filed.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
4/5/2014 HDFK Email messages re: West Virginia Attorney General

amicus brief in Bostic; Analysis of amicus brief.
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
4/6/2014 JHTJR Review email messages from counsel re: amicus briefs in
Bostic appeal.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.20
300.00/hr
60.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.20
300.00/hr
60.00
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
JKT
Examine issues related to abstention doctrines.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: abstention authority.
3/27/2014 JHTJR Review fourth notice of supplemental authority and order

granting same.
HDFK Email messages re: Chambers/Bostic.
4/ 14/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: filing of supplemental notice of

authority.
HDFK Email messages re: notice of supplemental authority.
4/ 15/2014 JHTJR Review filing.
HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: consent to West

Virginia Attorney General filing notice of supplemental
authority.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
17
Amount
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
0.20
300.00/hr
60.00
HDFK Review orders granting West Virginia Attorney General to

file notice of supplemental authority, Plaintiff to file notice
of supplemental authority and notices.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
Work on case management and organization; Review

Order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to submit fifth
notice of supplemental authority; Review Order granting
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to submit fifth notice of
supplemental authority; Review Order granting State's
unopposed motion to submit notice of supplemental
authority; Review as entered Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of
Supplemental Authority with exhibit; Review as entered
State's Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit.
0.70
100.00/hr
70.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
4/15/2014 NPK
Review Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Submit Fifth

Notice of Supplemental Authority with the attached
Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority and
Exhibit A (Henry v. Himes); Review State of West
Virginia's Unopposed Motion to Submit Notice of
Supplemental Authority with the attached State of West
Virginia's Notice of Supplemental Authority and Exhibit A
(Common Cause, et al. v. Eiden, Jr.)
4/16/2014 JHTJR Review Court's Order and supplemental filing.
NPK
4/25/2014 HDFK Review motion to file supplemental authority of Plaintiff.
NPK
Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Sixth Notice of

Supplemental Authority with Plaintiffs' Sixth Notice of
Supplemental Authority attaching Baskin v. Bogan.
4/28/2014 JHTJR Review filings and orders.
HDFK Review order granting plaintiff to file notice of

supplemental authority and notice.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
4/2 8/2014 NPK
Review Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Notice

of Sixth Supplemental Authority; Review Plaintiffs' Notice
of Sixth Supplemental Authority.
18
Amount
0.20
I 00.00/hr
20.00
5/9/2014 JHTJR Review news articles re: Fourth Circuit argument re: VA
marnage case.
0.30
300.00/hr
90.00
5/16/2014 JHTJR Review recent court decisions and review petition to file
supplemental authority.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Review plaintiffs motion re: notice of supplemental

authority.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
HDFK Review Order and Eighth Notice of Supplemental

Authority.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
HDFK Review and analyze response to defendant Cole in support

of plaintiffs motion to file notice of supplemental authority.
NPK
Review as-filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Seventh

Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit (77 pages);
Review Defendant Cole's Consent to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Authority.
5/20/2014 JHTJR Work on review of P A strike of marriage laws.
HDFK Review Order and Notice re: seventh supplemental notice

of authority.
NPK
Review Order granting plaintiffs' motion to submit seventh

notice of supplemental authority; Review entry of
Plaintiffs' seventh notice of supplemental authority.
5/23/2014 JHTJR Work on review of additional supplemental authority.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
19
Amount
5/23/20 14 NPK
Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Notice of Eighth

Supplemental Authority with proposed Plaintiffs' Notice of
Eighth Supplemental Authority and Exhibits A and B.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
5/27/2014 NPK
Review Order granting Plaintiffs Motion to Submit Eighth

Notice of Supplemental Authority; Review entry of
Plaintiffs Eighth Notice of Supplemental Authority with
exhibit.
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
6/3/2014 JHTJR Confer with Assistant West Virginia Attorney General re:
proposal.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
6/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with West Virginia Attorney General; Confer with
national counsel.
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
0.20
300.00/hr
60.00
HDFK Analysis of Order staying case.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
HDFK Consideration of supplementation of two (2) new recent

cases.
0.10
225.00/hr
22.50
Review Order staying civil case pending Fourth Circuit

decision in related case.
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
7/25/2014 NPK
Telephone call with Chair of Fairness West Virginia;

Status attorneys; Telephone call with Heather Foster
Kittredge; Forward information to Lambda Legal
representatives and analyze response.
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
7/29/2014 JKT
Correspondence and examine pleadings related to

continuing stay pending appeal.
0.40
240.00/hr
96.00
HDFK Analyze request by Attorney General to put jurisdiction

issues before court immediately.
6/ 10/2014 JHTJR Review Order staying case until Fourth Circuit issues
opmwn.
NPK

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
20
Amount
7/29/2014 NPK
Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Continue

Merits Stay and to Calendar Oral Argument on Threshold
Issues.
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
7/3 0/2014 JKT
Examine correspondence related to Fourth Circuit ruling.
0.70
240.00/hr
168.00
NPK
Analyze Plaintiffs' Opposition to Intervenor-Defendant

State of West Virginia's Motion to Continue Merits Stay
and Cross-Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; File
same via Court's CMIECF system; Transmit as filed
document to co-counsel.
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
7/31/20 14 NPK
Review State of West Virginia's Opposition to Plaintiffs'

Cross-Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; Analyze
various articles on case and document same to fil e.
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
9115120 14 NPK
Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Ninth Notice of

Supplemental Authority attaching Plaintiffs' Ninth Notice
of Supplemental Authority and Exhibits A-D.
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
9116/2014 NPK
Review Order granting motion to submit N inth Notice of

Supplemental Authority and staying case pending Supreme
Court decision.
0.10
I 00.00/hr
10.00
9/ 18/20 14 NPK
Document Charleston Gazette article to file.
0.10
100.00/hr
10.00
10/6/2014 JHTJR Work on review and comment on motion for ruling on

Summary Judgment motion; Confer with national counsel
re: vanous Issues.
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
HDFK Consideration and analysis re: requesting court to lift stay,

enter judgment.
0.20
225.00/hr
45 .00
Analyze email string re: State Attorney General's plan;

Review and revise to final the proposed Motion to Lift
Stay and Enter Judgment, prepare Cetiificate of Service
and file via Court's CM/ECF system; Analyze email
message with co-counsel regarding and make revisions to
1.00
100.00/hr
100.00
NPK

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
21
Amount
motion and certificate; File Amended Motion to Lift Stay

and Enter Judgment via Court's CM/ECF system.
0.80
240.00/hr
192.00
JHTJR Confer with national counsel re: multiple issues related to

West Virginia's decision to discontinue defending the
unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage.
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
HDFK Analysis of certified denials, impact on West Virginia

equality case.
0.90
225.00/hr
202.50
0.60
100.00/hr
60.00
10/8/2014 JHTJR Confer with national counsel re: negotiations re: Summary
Judgment motions.
0.40
300.00/hr
120.00
HDFK Analysis of cert. denials and Attorney General's

representations re: such.
0.30
225.00/hr
67.50
0.30
100.00/hr
30.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
Analyze email string re: Attorney General's offer of

settlement; Analyze press re: lifting ban on same-sex
marriage.
0.90
100.00/hr
90.00
Examine news coverage and correspondence re: Attorney

General's change in position as it relates to the case.
2.80
240.00/hr
672.00
10/7/20 14 JKT
NPK
NPK
Discuss Supreme Court developments and Attorney

General developments.
Analyze email string re: contact with Attorney General's

office, proposed judgment and various issues re: same;
Review Order lifting stay and setting briefing deadlines;
Prepare follow-up tasks.
Analyze email string re: continued negotiations toward a

stipulated judgment, theories re: same and binding issues.
I 0/9/2014 JHTJR Work on resolution and confer with counsel re: West
Virginia Attorney General's decision to stop defending
unconstitutional marriage ban.
NPK
10/ 10/2014 JKT

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
22
Amount
0.50
100.00/hr
50.00
10/16/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: dismissal discussions with the
State.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
10/20/2014 JHTJR Review response in opposition to Motion for Summary

Judgment.
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Analysis of response of West Virginia Attorney General

and joinder by McCormick to Plaintiff motion to lift stay
and enter judgment.
0.40
225.00/hr
90.00
NPK
0.40
100.00/hr
40.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
HDFK Analysis re: Attorney General stance re : cert. denials on

West Virginia equality case.
0.70
225.00/hr
157.50
HDFK Analysis of Cole response to Plaintiff motion to lift stay

and enter judgment.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.20
225 .00/hr
45.00
10/10/2014 NPK
Confer with attorneys re: press coverage and citizen

feedback.
Review State of West Virginia's response to Plaintiffs

Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; Review
Defendant McCormick's Joinder in State of West
Virginia's response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Lift
Stay and Enter Judgment.
10/2112014 JHTJR Review recent filings and confer with national counsel re:
potential resolution strategies.
NPK
Review Defendant Karen Cole's response to Plaintiffs

Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment.
10/22/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: resolution and potential for
petition for fees and costs.
HDFK Analysis of West Virginia Attorney General stance on cert.
denials and impact on West Virginia case.

PAGE
Hrs/Rate
10/22/2014 NPK
Review Defendant McCormick's Joinder in Defendant

Karen Cole's Response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to
Lift Stay and Enter Judgment.
23
Amount
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
1.00
300.00/hr
300.00
0.20
100.00/hr
20.00
2.00
300.00/hr
600.00
HDFK Analysis of Order granting Plaintiffs Summary Judgment;

Review Judgment Order.
0.70
225.00/hr
157.50
11/14/2014 JHTJR Confer with attorneys re: motion to extend deadline for fee
petition.
0.60
300.00/hr
180.00
HDFK Analysis of filing motion to extend time to file fee petition.
0.20
225.00/hr
45.00
11/18/2014 JHTJR Review Amended Motion to Extend Deadline; Review

Order.
0.50
300.00/hr
150.00
11/26/2014 HDFK Prepare for fee petition filing.
0.50
225.00/hr
112.50
10/23/2014 JHTJR Review response to Motion to Stay and confer with

counsel re: same.
NPK
Review Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of

Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment.
11/7/2014 JHTJR Review memorandum opinion and order and judgment

order granting plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
and finding the marriage ban unconstitutional and confer
with counsel re: same.
FEE TOTAL
150.00
$34,428.50
PAGE

24
CLIENT COSTS
Oty/Price
Amount
11/30/2013 Copying cost

Photocopies for November 2013.
35
$0.25
8.75

Photocopies for December 2013.
456
$0.25
114.00
1/31 /2014 Copying cost

Photocopies for January 2014.
233
$0.25
58.25
0.46

Photocopies for February 2014.
606
$0.25
151.50
3/31 /20 14 Copying cost

Photocopies for March 2014.
250
$0.25
62.50

Photocopies for April2014.
120
$0.25
30.00

Photocopies for June 2014.
180
$0.25
45.00

Photocopies for July 2014.
79
$0.25
19.75

Photocopies for September 2014.
137
$0.25
34.25

Photocopies for October 2014.
40
$0.25
10.00

Photocopies for November 2014.
37
$0.25
9.25
Postage
Postage for January 2014.
$0.46
PAGE
25

Amount
TOTAL CLIENT COSTS
$543.7 1
TOTAL THIS INVOICE
$34,972.21
PREVIOUS BALANCE
$17,780.14
Timekeeper Summary
Hours
13.40
69.20
29.70
37.70
Name
James K. Tinney
John H. Tinney, Jr.
Heather D. Foster Kittredge
Nodgie P. Kennedy
Rate
240.00
300.00
225.00
100.00
Amount
$3,216.00
$20,760.00
$6,682.50
$3,770.00
Payment due within 30 days
Current
34,972.21
30 Da~s
0.00
60 Da~s
0.00
90
Da~s
0.00
120 Da~s
352.64
EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

GLAV ARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH
individually and as next friends of A. S.M., a minor
child;
No. 3:13-cv-24068
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants,
and
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
DECLARATION OF CAMILLA B. TAYLOR

I, CAMILLA B. TAYLOR, after being duly sworn, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am one of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am
Counsel and the National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth herein. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on
first-hand knowledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called
upon to do so. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
2.
Lambda Legal is the nation's oldest and largest legal organization committed to
achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans gender people and
those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work. Lambda
Legal has been party counsel in numerous challenges to state laws banning same-sex couples
from marriage. 1 Lambda Legal also was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996),
and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.
2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing sexual orientation discrimination.
See, e.g., Sevcikv. Sandoval, _F.3d_, No. 12-17668,2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Nov. 6,
2014) (holding Nevada's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th
Cir. 2014) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), cert denied 135 S.Ct. 316, Bostic v.
Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (counsel for intervening appellee class ofVirginia samesex couples) (holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v.
Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub
nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D.
Ohio 2014) (invalidating Ohio's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages),
rev'd sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, _F.3d_, No. 14-3464,2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014), cert
petition pending; Condon v. Haley, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 2:14-4010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175
(D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolina's marriage ban unconstitutional), appeal
pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG, 2014 WL
5361987 (D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Rico's marriage ban), appeal pending;
Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. AZ. 2014) (holding Arizona's marriage ban
unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014), appeal and cert
petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (holding
Illinois' marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL 6355918 (N.D.
Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex couple to marry);
Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013) (holding New
Jersey's marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009)
(holding Iowa's marriage ban unconstitutional); In reMarriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)
(holding California's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)
(finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-19718 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois' marriage ban); Inniss v. Aderhold, No.
1:14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgia's marriage ban);
Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK. (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9, 2014)
(challenging North Dakota's marriage ban).
2
Lambda Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge its clients, but relies in
part upon fees awarded by the courts.
3.
Lambda Legal worked closely with West Virginia co-counsel, The Tinney Law
Firm PLLC, and Jenner & Block LLP to bring this litigation seeking a declaration that West
Virginia laws excluding lesbian and gay couples from marriage are unconstitutional, and
injunctive relief permitting same-sex couples to marry. Lambda Legal's role in this litigation was
essential given its unique and highly specialized expertise in constitutional advocacy on behalf of
lesbian and gay persons, and in particular, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of
exclusions from marriage.
4.
I have been a lawyer with Lambda Legal since July, 2002. I was promoted to
National Marriage Project Director in the spring of2010. I have been party counsel in numerous
cases successfully challenging the constitutionality of marital exclusions around the country,
including Baskin, 766 F.3d 648, Lee, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014), Garden State
Equal., 82 A.3d 336, and Gartner v. Iowa Dep 't ofPublic Health, 830 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2013),
to name a few, and I have extensive expertise in briefing and arguing such cases. For example, I
recently argued Baskin, supra, 766 F.3d 648, before the district court and Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, which resulted in a decision striking down Indiana's marriage ban. I was lead
counsel in Varnum, 763 N.W. 2d 862, in which the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck
down Iowa's marriage ban in April, 2009, making Iowa the third state in the nation to permit
same-sex couples to marry.
5.
I received my law degree from Columbia Law School (1996) and my bachelor's
degree from Yale College (1993). I have been admitted to practice law in New York since 1997
and in Illinois-since 2004. I am currently an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School
of Law, and serve on the American Constitution Society Chicago Chapter Board of Advisors.
Recognition for my work includes the Columbia Law School Distinguished Graduate in the
Public Interest award (2012), the American Constitution Society Ruth Goldman Award (2012),
and Crain's Chicago Business' "40 under 40" (2009). Prior to joining Lambda Legal, I was an
attorney with the Criminal Appeals Bureau of the Legal Aid Society of New York City and a
litigation associate with Shearman & Sterling LLP inNew York City.
6.
I am requesting an hourly rate of$350.00 per hour for the time spent on this case.
This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights lawyer with my experience, ability, and
reputation. 2 Additionally, this fee is reasonable given the time and labor expended, the novelty
and difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to perform properly the legal services
rendered, the customary fee for like work, the results obtained, the undesirability of the case
within the legal community in which the suit arose, and fee awards in similar cases. See
Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235,243 (4th Cir.2009).
7.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct compilation of my time records for
services performed in this case. These entries itemize the time actually spent and the tasks
performed. However, in certain instances where entries appeared inefficient or duplicative of the
work performed by other attorneys, I exercised my judgment to reduce or eliminate the fees
sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a Court-ordered fees award.
2
See, e.g., Gibson v. City of Chicago, 873 F.Supp.2d 973 (N.D.Ill. 2012) (Chicago attorney with
17 years of practice awarded reasonable hourly rate, in suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S. C.
1983, of$395); Stiltner v. Cabell County Comm 'n, No. 3:13-cv-07513, 2014 WL 1330206
(S.D. W.Va. Apr. 1, 2014) (attorney awarded hourly rate of$325 for preparing and prosecuting
a "routine discovery motion" because attorney had "practiced a number of years," operated a
small boutique law firm, personally performed the tasks for which reimbursement was sought,
and because of lack of objection by Defendants). Legal services and other non-profit
organizations are entitled to have 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of reasonable market
rates even if lower salaries are paid to the organization's attorneys. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.
886, 895 (1984). Accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457 n.37 (1982).
4
Lambda Legal also is not seeking fees for hours expended by legal assistants. It is my opinion
that the amount of billable time and expenses described represent a frugal use of attorney time
and expenses, in light of the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and the results
achieved. The cost of attorneys' fees for my participation in this litigation is $54,320.00.
8.
Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a compilation of the costs
incurred by Lambda Legal in litigating this case. The costs total $6783.59.
knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in Chicago, Illinois, on December 2, 2014.
EXHIBIT 1

United States District Court
Southern District of West Virginia (Huntington)
CASE #: 3:13-cv-24068, MCGEE ET AL V. COLE ET AL
CAMILLA B. TAYLOR
Date Filed
time task
6/26/13
0.2
7/12/13
1.5
7/19/13
0.8
pleading
researched statutory and

common law protections for
spouses in WV
researched WV criteria for
voidable marriages
conference with potential cocounsel
7/22/13
researched proper defendants

(3.5), evolution of marriage in
9
WV (5.1), call with potential cocounsel (.3)
7/23/13
researched marriage ban in WV

(1.5), child standing (2),
5 marriage laws that distinguish
between married and
unmarried persons (1.5)
7/24/13
researched 4th Cir law

4.2 concerning heightened scrutiny
(1.2), rational basis analysis (3)
7/29/13
1 conf with potential co-counsel
8/5/13
8/6/13
8/15/13
8/16/13
1.2
2
8/19/13
12.2
conf with potential co-counsel

(.5), drafted (4.5)
researched marriage laws and
venue in WV (1.1) and drafted
complaint (1.9)
conf with plaintiffs
conf with plaintiffs
traveled to Huntington, WV
(6.2), met with potential
plaintiffs (6), potential local
counsel
8/20/13
2.5 met with potential local counsel
8/21/13
8/22/13
8/23/13
8/29/13
9/2/13
6
2.5
3.4
0.2
0.3
traveled from WV (6)

drafted
drafted
revised
revised
complaint
complaint
complaint (2) and co-counsel agreement (0.5)

client declarations (1.2) complaint (2.2)
co-counsel agreement
Page 1 of 4

CAMILLA B. TAYLOR
Date Filed
time task
9/13/13
0.2 research on legislative history
9/15/13
9/18/13
9/20/13
9/24/13
9/25/13
2.5 edited
0.5 drafted
conference concerning case
0.7
strategy
0.3 reviewed/revised
0.5 drafted
1 conf about case strategy
10/3/13
2.4 researched ntc const question
9/19/13
10/21/13
10/21/13
11/22/13
11/26/13
11/27/13
12/4/13
12/8/13
12/13/13
12/16/13
12/17/13
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
2.4
1
3
reviewed/revised plaintiff decs
participated in 26(f) conf (.5)

1.7 and reviewed mtn to dismiss
(Cole) (.2) and WV (1)
complaint
PHV motion
complaint
PHV motion
notice of const question

M to Extend Time to File a Resp
Resp to McCormick M
M to Intervene (WV)
M to Dismiss (McCormick)
initial disclosures
Resp to M to dismiss (McCormick)
Plaintiffs' MSJ
M to Dismiss (Cole)
0.5 researched plaintiff standing
12/19/13
12/20/13
12/21/13
4
0.5
0.5
12/23/13
12/26/13
1.5
12/27/13
12/28/13
12/29/13
6
5.4
7
12/30/13
12/31/13
1/2/14
Reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed
conf about case strategy
drafted
reviewed/revised draft
pleading
0.1
0.2
drafted Rule 26(f) report (1.5);

reviewed/revised Resp to M to
Dismiss (2.5)
reviewed/revised
reviewed/revised
revised opp to state's M to
Dismiss (1); drafted MSJ (3)
revised opp to State's M to
Dismiss
drafted Plaintiffs' MSJ
revised Plaintiffs' MSJ
revised Plaintiffs' MSJ
revised Plaintiffs' MSJ (7.8);
reviewed Reply in Support of
MTD (Cole) (.2)
reviewed
reviewed/revised
Rule 26(f) Report

Resp to M to Dismiss
Resp to M to Dismiss (WV); Plaintiffs' MSJ
Plaintiffs' MSJ
Plaintiffs' MSJ
Plaintiffs' MSJ
Plaintiffs' MSJ; Reply in Support of MTD (Cole)

M to Stay
draft ntc supplemental authority
Page 2 of 4

CAMILLA B. TAYLOR
Date Filed
time task
1/3/14
0.1 reviewed
1/5/14
1 drafted
1/6/14
1 co-counsel discussion
1/9/14
0.7 reviewed
1/13/14
0.2 reviewed
0.1 reviewed
1/17/14
1/24/14
0.1 reviewed
1/26/14
1/29/14
2/6/14
2/9/14
2/11/14
2/12/14
2/13/14
2/14/14
2/17/14
2/18/14
2/19/14
2/20/14
2/21/14
2/24/14
3/3/14
3/14/14
reviewed/notes on order (.8);

drafted and reviewed email
correspondence with co1.8
counsel concerning order with
respect to topics to research
and outline of response (1)
2.5
pleading
M to Strike Supp Auth
Resp to M to Strike
re: scheduling conf
Reply (M to Dismiss)
Reply to Resp in Opp M to Strike
Order
M to Amnd Deadline to Resp
Resp in Opp to M to Amnd
Order
research on proper defendant

(2); conf on case strategy (.5)
1.5 revised
reviewed both cross M for SJ
1
(.8) and WV Answer (.2)
0.1 reviewed
4.8 drafted
2 drafted
0.8 reviewed
Resp to Court Order/Opp M to Dismiss

Resp to Court Order/ Opp M to Dismiss
M for SJ
M of Family Policy as Amicus
Reply in Support of MSJ
Reply in Support of MSJ
Brief (McCormick) in further support of MTD; State's MTD
corresponded with co-counsel

concerning outline in reply to
state's MTD (1.2); research
2.2
concerning absence of link
between procreation and WV
marriage laws (1)
reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ
4 revised
reviewed/revised Burford reply
(2);revised reply in support of
Burford reply; reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ
6 MSJ (4)
drafted mtn to file ntc
supplemental authority (.5);
1.5
reviewed WV's reply in support
of MTD (1)
Replies to 89
0.1 reviewed
Page 3 of 4

CAMILLA B. TAYLOR
Date Filed
time task
4/15/14
0.5 drafted
6/10/14
0.1 reviewed
reviewed WV's motion to stay
(.2); corresponded with co7/29/14
0.9 counsel re: response (.2);
reviewed draft cross motion to
lift stay (.5)
7/30/14
0.1 reviewed
10/6/14
1 drafted/revised
10/7/14
0.1 reviewed
10/20/14
0.1 reviewed
10/23/14
3.2 drafted
11/7/14
0.5 reviewed
TOTAL
155.2 $
54,320.00
pleading
WV Notice of Supp Auth
Order Staying decision
WV's response in opp to cross-motion for stay

Am Motion to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment
Order lifting Stay
Resp to Pls 132
Reply in support of entry of judgment
Order
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 2
8/19/2013
8/19/2013
10/19/2013
10/19/2013
8/19/2013
Lodging:Legal:MRO
Meals:Legal:MRO
Lodging:Legal:SRO
Lodging:Legal:SRO
Meals&Food:Legal:HDQ
8/24/2013 GRACIELAGONZALEZ
Travel:Legal:MRO
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
8/20/2013 CAMILLATAYLOR
Travel:Legal:MRO
8/19/2013
8/19/2013
10/19/2013
10/19/2013
10/19/2013
8/19/2013 AMERICANEXPRESS
Travel:Legal:MRO
Travel:Legal:MRO
Travel:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:HDQ
Vendor name
FEDEX
FEDEX
FEDEX
FEDEX
FEDEX
AMERICANEXPRESS
9/23/2013
9/25/2013
10/2/2013
1/1/2014
9/23/2013
8/19/2013
Invoice date
Postage:Legal:HDQ
Postage:Legal:MRO
Postage:Legal:MRO
Postage:Legal:MRO
Postage:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:HDQ
Account description
Page 1 of 2
Details
$622.62
$122.08
$230.75
$313.59
$61.79
$423.94
$670.60
$200.00
$15.74
$667.99
AttyC.Taylor&ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel,plaintiff
interviews(carrentalsandC.Taylor'sparkingatairport)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,plaintiffinterview(mileage)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,filing(flightchangefee)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,filing(meals)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,filing(flight)
AttysB.Littrell,K.Loewy,ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel,
plaintiffinterviews(lodging)
AttyC.Taylor:travel,plaintiffinterviews(meals)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,filing(lodging)
AttyB.Littrell:travel,filing(lodging)
AttyK.Loewy:travel,plaintiffinterviews(meals)
$1.90 AttnyC.Taylor:travel,plaintiffinterviews(tolltoairport)
AttyC.Taylor&ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel,plaintiff
interviews(gasinWV,cabhomefromairport,parking
$73.72 fees)
$16.93 Checkforfilingfeetococounsel
$109.58 RetainerstoandfromClients
$17.43 RetainerreturnedfromClientsMurdock&Glavaris
$111.43 AffidavitstoandfromClients
$16.93 AttyB.Littrell:ProHacVicematerialstococounsel
$25.00 AttyK.Loewy:travel,plaintiffinterviews(baggagefee)
AttyK.Loewy:travel,plaintiffinterviews(cabfaretoand
$139.30 fromtheairport)
AttyC.Taylor&ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel, plaintiff
$767.60 interviews (flightsto andfromWV)
Amount
UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
SouthernDistrictofWestVirginia(Huntington)
CASE#:3:13cv24068
MCGEEETALV.COLEETAL
ExpensesofAttorneysC.Taylor,B.LittrellandK.LoewyandParalegalG.Gonzalez
Travel:Legal:HDQ
TOTAL
Meals&Food:Legal:MRO
Meals&Food:Legal:SRO
Meals&Food:SRO
Meals&Food:SRO
CourtFees:Legal:HDQ
CourtFees:Legal:MRO
CourtFees:Legal:MRO
CourtFees:Legal:SRO
Travel:Legal:HDQ
Meals&Food:Legal:MRO
Page 2 of 2
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
AMERICANEXPRESS
WVSTATEBAR
WVSTATEBAR
USDISTCOURTSDOFWV
WESTVIRGINIASTATEBAR
AMERICANEXPRESS
8/1920/2014
10/19/2013
10/19/2013
10/19/2013
9/18/2013
8/8/2013
8/8/2013
9/18/2013
8/19/2013
8/24/2013 GRACIELAGONZALEZ
AttyC.Taylor,ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel,plaintiff
$21.58 interviews(meals)
AttysC.Taylor,K.Loewy,ParalegalG.Gonzalez:travel,
$211.00 plaintiffinterviews(meals)
$17.18 AttyB.Littell:travel,filing(meals)
$149.71 AttyB.Littell:travel,filing(meals)
$2.50 AttyB.Littell:travel,filing(meals,water)
$350.00 Visitingattorneyfee,K.Loewy
$350.00 Visitingattorneyfee,C.Taylor
$50.00 Electronicfilingfee
$350.00 Visitingattorneyfee,B.Littrell
$472.70 AttyK.Loewy:travel,plaintiffinterviews(flight)
AttyK.Loewy:travel,plaintiffinterviews(flightchange
$200.00 fee)
$6,783.59
UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
SouthernDistrictofWestVirginia(Huntington)
CASE#:3:13cv24068
MCGEEETALV.COLEETAL
ExpensesofAttorneysC.Taylor,B.LittrellandK.LoewyandParalegalG.Gonzalez
EXHIBIT D
=--=-=-=---=---="-::-:-___ - _-_,-_,_-----c:--:-::-=c-c:-::c:::-c-,--:-_=-=--=---=--=---=--=-=-
---,.----::-==--~--~'-~'---=oo--7':"-c_-;-_-~~~---=----=~-=---=-
:-::----:--:-;---==:
___=-='""---=--~~-~-~-------_-__.CC'"-~-~----------~~
:::-c_

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

individually and as next friends of A. S.M., a minor
child;
No. 3:13-cv-24068
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants,
and
DECLARATION OF KAREN L. LOEWY

I, KAREN L. LOEWY, after being duly sworn, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am one of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am a
Senior Attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am
legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
herein. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand knowledge, about which
___--..__ ~---~-~--~----~---~--co-~
__-__ -c
____?:'"'_.-,-,--_- . - _
___
-~-c-._-:_~_:__:.::. ____________________ -_ __ ~~-:_-____- __- :_-_::-_~----_--___-~:...-___-___--__:____ -____~~~_-__ -_~
___~
___:_~,_-_'7"_-:__'"7._.
__.....,._:.,:._.--__ ~--~----~---~--=----------=------------------~---------
~--~---~---~
I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to do so. This Declaration is
submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
2.
Lambda Legal is the nation's oldest and largest legal organization committed to
achieving full recognition of the civil rights oflesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT")
people and those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work.
Lambda Legal has been party counsel in numerous challenges to state laws banning same-sex
couples from marriage. 1 Lambda Legal also was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
(1996), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing discrimination against
1 See,
e.g., Sevcikv. Sandoval, _F.3d_, No. 12-17668,2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Nov. 6,
2014) (holding Nevada's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th
Cir.) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), cert denied, 190 L. Ed. 2d 142 (2014);
Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.) (counsel for intervening appellee class ofVirginia
same-sex couples) (holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom.
Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140
(2014), and sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14
F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio) (invalidating Ohio's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' outof-state marriages), rev'd sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, _F.3d_, No. 14-3464, 2014 WL 5748990
(6th Cir. 2014), cert petition pending; Condon v. Haley, _F.Supp.3d _,No. 2:14-4010-RMG,
2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolina's marriage ban
unconstitutional), appeal pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 3:14-cv01253-PG, 2014 WL 5361987 (D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Rico's marriage ban),
appeal pending; Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (holding Arizona's
marriage ban unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014),
appeal and cert petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21,
2014) (holding Illinois' marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL
6355918 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex
couple to marry); Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013)
(holding New Jersey's marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa
2009) (holding Iowa's marriage ban unconstitutional); In reMarriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal.
2008) (holding California's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw.
1993) (finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois' marriage ban); Inniss v.
Aderhold, No. 1:14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgia's
marriage ban); Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9,
2014) (challenging North Dakota's marriage ban).
2
lesbian and gay people. Lambda Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge
its clients, but relies in part upon fees awarded by the courts in the civil rights litigation it brings.
3.
Lambda Legal worked closely with West Virginia co-counsel, The Tinney Law
Firm PLLC, and Jenner & Block LLP to bring this litigation seeking a declaration that West
Virginia laws excluding lesbian and gay couples from marriage are unconstitutional, and
injunctive relief permitting same-sex couples to marry. Lambda Legal's role in this litigation was
essential given its unique and highly specialized expertise in constitutional advocacy on behalf of
lesbian and gay people, and in particular, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of
exclusions from marriage.
4.
I have been a lawyer with Lambda Legal since February 2013. Prior to joining
Lambda Legal, I was a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a New
England-wide organization with a similar mission to Lambda Legal's, for eleven years. I have
spent my entire legal career working to secure the civil rights ofLGBT people. I have been
party counsel in numerous cases successfully challenging the constitutionality of marital
exclusions around the country, including Goodridge v. Dep 't ofPub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941
(Mass. 2003), and Kerrigan v. Comm'r ofPub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008), and I have
extensive expertise in briefing such cases. I have also served as party or amicus counsel in a host
of cases challenging unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children, including In re
Guardianship ofMadelyn B., 98 A.3d 494 (N.H. 2014) (non-birth mother who welcomed child
into home and held out as her own presumed to be a legal parent); Hunter v. Rose, 975 N.E.2d
857 (Mass. 2012) (child born to couple in registered domestic partnership is legal child of both
partners); Elia-Warnken v. Elia, 972 N.E.2d 17 (Mass. 2012) (marriage entered by man with
undissolved civil union is void ab initio); Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951 (Vt.
2006) (child born into civil union is legal child of both partners). I have developed numerous
publications and presented at countless symposia and CLEs on issues affecting same-sex couples
and their children, the constitutional issues raised by their exclusion from marriage, and the
remaining discrimination encountered by couples even after they have been able to secure their
legal relationships in marriage.
5.
I received my law degree from Fordham University School of Law (2000) and my
bachelor's degree from Brandeis University (1996). I have been admitted to practice law in
Massachusetts since 2001 and in New York since 2013. In recognition for my commitment to
public service, I received the Stein Scholars for Public Law and Interest Alumni Award (2006),
and I was recognized as a "Rising Star" in the Massachusetts legal community from 2005-2008.
6.
I am requesting an hourly rate of$325.00 per hour for the time spent on this case.
This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights lawyer with my experience, ability, and
reputation. 2 Additionally, this fee is reasonable given the time and labor expended, the novelty
and difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to perform properly the legal services
rendered, the customary fee for like work, the results obtained, the undesirability of the case
See, e.g., Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127890, 10 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 6, 2012) (noting consistent case law in the district that "rates awarded to experienced civil
rights attorneys over the past ten years have ranged from $250 to $600, and that rates for
associates have ranged from $200 to $350, with average awards increasing over time;" setting
rate of$450 for 2001law school graduates); Stiltner v. Cabell County Comm 'n, No. 3:13-cv07513, 2014 WL 1330206 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 1, 2014) (attorney awarded hourly rate of$325 for
preparing and prosecuting a "routine discovery motion" because attorney had "practiced a
number of years," operated a small boutique law firm, personally performed the tasks for which
reimbursement was sought, and because of lack of objection by Defendants). Legal services and
other non-profit organizations are entitled to have 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of
reasonable market rates even if lower salaries are paid to the organization's attorneys. Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). Accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457
n.37 (1982).
4
- - - - -- - -- - - -- -- --
---
within the legal community in which the suit arose, and fee awards in similar cases. See
Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir.2009).
7.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct compilation of my time records for
services performed in this case. These entries itemize the time actually spent and the tasks
performed. However, in certain instances where entries appeared inefficient or duplicative of the
work performed by other attorneys, I exercised my judgment to reduce or eliminate the fees
sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a Court-ordered fees award. It is my
opinion that the amount of billable time and expenses described represent a reasonably frugal use
of attorney time and expenses, in light of the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and
the results achieved.
knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in New York, NY, on December 2, 2014.
EXHIBIT 1

KAREN L. LOEWY
Date
time task
emails re: potential plaintiffs, cocounsel
emails re: potential plaintiffs, cocounsel
conference with potential cocounsel (1), research re
jurisdiction and venue (.4),
email with potential plaintiffs
(.2)
7/8/13
0.3
7/15/13
0.2
7/29/13
1.6
7/30/14
0.3
conf with potential plaintiffs
8/2/13
conf with potential plaintiffs
8/5/13
1.5 conf with potential plaintiffs
8/7/13
1 conf with potential plaintiffs
8/13/13
8/15/13
8/18/14
5 travel to WV
met with potential plaintiffs,
potential local counsel
8/19/13
6.5
8/20/13
met with potential local counsel

12 (2.5), potential plaintiffs (3.5),
travel from WV (6)
8/23/13
0.3 revised
9/16/13
1.5
9/17/13
9/18/13
9/19/13
9/24/13
9/25/13
pleading
reviewed, researched clerk's

duties, marriage statutes
0.5 drafted
conference concerning case
0.7
strategy
complaint
complaint
PHV motion
complaint
Page 1 of 4

KAREN L. LOEWY
Date
time task
9/27/13
10/2/13
10/9/13
10/22/13
10/30/13
11/1/13
emails and conf with co-counsel

to finalize co-counsel
1.4
agreement, pro hac vice
submissions, filing details
0.8 drafted
0.5 conf re: summary judgment
1.2 drafted
research re: cases on gay
0.8 parenting in WV, child's
constitutional rights
1.2 reviewed draft, conf to discuss
11/22/13
11/26/13
11/27/13
12/9/13
0.2
0.4
0.5
1
12/16/13
participated in 26(f) conf (.5)

1.2 and reviewed mtn to dismiss
(Cole) (.2) and WV (.5)
12/17/13
12/19/13
12/20/13
12/22/13
pleading
reviewed
reviewed
conf about case strategy
reviewed/revised draft
notice of const question

opp to mot. to extend time to file responsive pleading
motion for summary judgment

M to Intervene (WV)
Resp to M to dismiss (McCormick)
M to Dismiss (Cole)
reviewed/revised plaintiff
declarations
reviewed/revised Resp to M to
2.5 Dismiss (2.5)
Opp to M to Dismiss (Cole)
reviewed/revised plaintiff
declarations (.5),
reviewed/revised Opp to M to
Opp to M to Dismiss (Cole)
1 Dismiss (.5)
0.5
reviewed/revised/drafted MSJ
12/23/13
4 reviewed/revised/drafted MSJ
12/25/13
12/26/13
1.5
12/30/13
12/31/13
1/2/14
0.5

Dismiss
Dismiss
reviewed Plaintiffs' MSJ (.8);
reviewed Reply in Support of
MTD (Cole) (.2)
reviewed MSJ final, WV's M to
Stay
reviewed/revised
Plaintiffs' MSJ
Plaintiffs' MSJ
Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)
Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)
Plaintiffs' MSJ; Reply in Support of MTD (Cole)

M to Stay
draft ntc supplemental authority
Page 2 of 4

KAREN L. LOEWY
Date
1/3/14
1/6/14
1/6/14
1/9/14
1/13/14
time
0.2
1
1
0.4
0.2
1/15/14
0.5
1/17/14
1/24/14
1/27/14
0.2
0.1
0.3
1/29/14
reviewed order on MTDs (.8);

1 email with co-counsel re:
responsive submission (.2)
2/1/14
1.2
2/11/14
0.8
2/12/14
2/13/14
2/14/14
3.5
2/17/14
2/18/14
1.2
2
5
2/19/14
2/20/14
2/21/14
2/22/14
6
4.7
1.7
2/24/14
5
2/28/14
3/3/14
3/14/14
4/15/14
task
reviewed
reviewed/revised
co-counsel discussion
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed/revised draft initial
disclosures
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed/revised
research re: state registrar (1),

email re: responsive submission
(.2)
reviewed
reviewed Resp to Court
Order/Opp to MTD (.2), both
cross M for SJ (.6) and WV
Answer (.2)
conf about case strategy (1),
drafted (2.5)
reviewed amicus motion (.2),
drafted
drafted
drafted
reviewed D's MTD briefing
(1.2); drafted
drafted/revised
revised
revised
reviewed/revised Burford reply
(1); drafted and revised reply in
support of MSJ (4)
pleading
Resp to M to Strike
scheduling conf
Reply to Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)
Reply to Opp to M to Strike (Cole)
Order
Opp to M to Amnd Deadline for Responding to MSJ
Order
Resp to Court Order/ Opp M to Dismiss
M for SJ
reply to Opp to MSJ
reply to Opp to MSJ
Sect. V of reply to Opp to MSJ
reply to Opp to MSj
reply to Opp to MSj
reply to Opp to MSj
Burford reply; reply to Opp to MSJ
reviewed mtn to file ntc of

supp. auth.
reviewed WV's reply in support
0.6
of MTD
Ds' replies to Ps' Opp to Ds' MSJ
0.2 reviewed
5th Notice of Supp Auth
0.1 reviewed
0.2
Page 3 of 4

KAREN L. LOEWY
pleading
Date
time task
6/10/14
0.1 reviewed
reviewed WV's motion to stay
(.2); corresponded with co7/29/14
0.9 counsel re: response (.2);
reviewed draft cross motion to
lift stay (.5)
7/30/14
reviewed/revised opp/cross0.6 motion to lift stay (.4);

reviewed D's reply (.2)
10/6/14
10/7/14
0.2 reviewed
10/20/14
10/21/14
10/23/14
11/7/14
TOTAL

Order lifting Stay
WV's Opp to amended M to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment;
McCormick Opp
Cole Opp to amended M to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment
Reply in support of entry of judgment
Order
0.5 reviewed
0.2
2
0.8
118.1
reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed
$
opp to motion to stay/cross-motion to lift stay; WV's reply to

opp to motion to stay
38,382.50
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT E

HUNTfNGTON DIVISION

GLA VARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH
child;
No. 3:13-cv-24068
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants,
and
AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH LITTRELL

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized to administer oaths,
ELIZABETH LITTRELL, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Elizabeth Littrell. I am a member of the State Bar of Georgia, Senior
Attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am legally
competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
2. Attorney's Experience and Qualifications:

A.
Schooling. I received my undergraduate degree in 1998, cum laude, from Georgia
State University prior to attending Georgia State University College of Law, where I received
my Juris Doctorate in 2001.
B.
Previous Employment. From January 2001 through May 2007, I worked at the
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, first as a staff attorney and later as the Associate
Legal Director. During my tenure, I was involved in numerous significant constitutional cases. I
researched and drafted legal memoranda and briefs, as well as coordinated and presented
workshops to attorneys and school officials on emerging legal issues surrounding First
Amendment rights, constitutional litigation and constitutional claims in the public and private
school setting. From August of2001 through January 2007, I taught First Amendment law as an
adjunct professor at Georgia State University.
C.
Current Employment.
In May of2007, I became a staff attorney for Lambda
Legal, where I have continued to practice constitutional litigation with an expertise in issues
affecting LGBT individuals and families. Due to my extensive and ongoing research on various
constitutional issues, I also routinely give speeches and presentations to students, law students,
lawyers, teachers, non-profit organizations and at various conferences.
3.
Hourly Rate. I am requesting an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour for the time spent
on this case. This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights attorney in Atlanta with my
qualifications and is in line with the hourly rate I have been awarded in fee affidavits pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1988 litigation several years ago. See Kennedy v. Avondale Estates, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 18608 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2007) (awarding $250 hourly rate, "[g]iven the education and
experience of each of the above attorneys, as well as their positions of leadership within the legal
community, and the complex constitutional issues involved in this case, the Court finds the
above requested rates to be reasonable."). I believe this rate is reasonable in light of my
education, qualifications and experience.
4.
Hours and Expenses. The document attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and
correct compilation of the contemporaneously made time records I have maintained for services
performed in this case. My time records have been edited to reduce time entries which seem to
me excessive, redundant, or inefficient, and in accordance with the exercise of my prudent
billing judgment, itemize the time actually spent and the tasks performed. They represent a
specific division oflabor with co-counsel. It is my opinion that the amounts of billable time and
expenses described represent a reasonably frugal use of attorney time and expenses, in light of
the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and the results achieved. At the reasonable
hourly rate of $300, the cost of attorneys' fees for my participation in this litigation as of the date
of filing this fee petition is $4 7,31 0.
FURTHER
Sworn and subscribed
ji
before me this _/ _day

of DfCb~PZ-
, 2014.
' FlANT SAITH NOT.
Notary Public
My commission expires :
(NOTARY SEAL)
EXHIBIT 1

Southern District of West Virginia
CASE #: 3: 13-cv-24068
MCGEE et. al. v. COLE et. al.
Attorney B. Littrell Time

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068
MCGEE ET AL V. COLE ET AL
Attorney B. Littrell Time- Communication
Communication Log
Date
7/22/13
8/8/13
8/13/13
8/21/13
8/22/13
8/22/13
9/19/13
9/20/13
10/21/13
10/21/13
10/22/13
11/22/13
11/26/13
12/2/13
12/16/13
12/16/13
12/18/13
12/2/13
12/13/13
12/9/13
12/19/13
12/23/13
12/23/13
12/31/13
1/6/14
1/22/14
1/29/14
2/6/14
2/6/14
2/7/14
2/10/14
2/12/14
2/13/14
2/13/14
2/17/14
2/19/14
2/24/14
2/24/14
2/25/14
3/3/14
3/17/14
time
method
0.3 emails
0.6 emails
0.8 emails
0.4 emails
0.8 emails
0.6 emails
0.3 emails
0.4 emails
0.3 emails
0.2 emails
0.2 emails
0.3 emails
0.4 emails
0.3 emails
0.2 emails
0.3 emails
0.3 emails
0.5 emails
0.5 emails
0.4 emails
0.6 emails
0.4 emails
0.3 emails
0.4 emails
0.9 emails
1.2 emails
0.4 emails
0.6 emails
1.2 call
0.4 emails
1.2 call
0.8 em ails
0.8 call
0.6 emails
0.5 emails
0.4 emails
0.7 emails
1.1 emails
0.3 emails
0.7 emails
0.2 emails
topic
co-counsel, potential plaintiffs

co-counsel, potential plaintiffs, marriage statutes, venue
notes from potential plaintiff interviews
complaint
Resp to McCormick M
Order re M to extend time
M to Intervene (WV)
Order
M to Dismiss (Cole)
M to Dismiss (WV)
SJ M
scheduling order /burford abstention arguments
opp to M to Dismiss
opp to M to Dismiss
opp to M to Dismiss
opp to M to Dismiss
supp authority- Kitchens
responding to M to Stay
responding to M to Strike
briefing schedule (with co-counsel and opp counsel)
amending complaint
amending complaint
amending complaint/filing a memo (response to Order)
amend ing comp laint
response to court's Order
abstention memo
abstention memo
to clients updating on case
MSJ resp
deadlines and mailing rule
MSJ
adding plaintiffs
adding plaintiffs
reply to respon
supp authority- TN
Page 1 of 2

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068
Attorney B. Littrell Time - Communication
7/28/14
7/29/14
9/5/14
10/6/14
10/7/14
10/7/14
10/7/14
10/9/14
10/20/14
10/21/14
11/7/14
Total
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
29.6
emails
emails
emails
em ails
emails
emails
emails
emails
emails
emails
emails

resp to M to stay
suppl authority
M for judgment on pi
settlement
settlement
response in opp to our M for judg
reply to response
Page 2 of 2

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068
Date Filed
8/18/13
8/19/13
time task
pleading
traveled to WV {8), met with

8 potential plaintiffs, potential local
counsel
met with potential plaintiffs (6),
6.5
potential local counsel
8/20/13
2.5 met with potential local counsel
8/21/13
8/23/13
8 traveled from WV (8)

5.4 drafted
9/22/13
traveled to WV (5), met w ith

clients (2.4), filing intended but
7.4
post-poned based on unforeseen
last-minute problems
9/24/13
9/19/13
9/20/13
9/24/13
9/30/13
10/1/13
10/1/13
10/3/13
10/21/13
10/21/13
10/22/13
11/22/13
11/26/13
12/2/13
12/15/13
12/16/13
12/16/13
12/18/13
client declarations
5 traveled from WV (5)

met w/ co-counsel(2.8), case
10.3
strategy
0.8 drafted
complaint
PHV motion
traveled to WV (5), met with

7.9 clients {1.4), finalized complaint,
prepared for press conf {1.5)
1.2
5
0.7
0.3
2.3
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
2.4
0.4
1.2
4.3
press conference
traveled from WV
reviewed/revised
Reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed/notes
reviewed
reviewed
researched (abstention)
reviewed
reviewed/notes
reviewed/revised
notice of canst question

Resp to McCormick M
Order re M to extend time
M to Intervene (WV)
Order
M to Dismiss (Cole)
M to Dismiss (WV)
SJ M
Page 1 of 3

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068
Date Filed
12/19/13
12/19/13
12/21/13
12/30/13
12/31/13
1/3/14
1/5/14
1/6/14
1/9/14
1/10/14
1/13/14
1/17/14
1/24/14
1/26/14
1/29/14
time task
0.6
3.4
1.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
1
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
reviewed/revised
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed/notes
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed
2/9/14
2/12/14
2/12/14
0.4
0.8
0.8
2.8
0.8
0.6
2/12/14
2.2 reviewed/notes
2/14/14
2/17/14
2/18/14
2/19/14
2/19/14
2/23/14
2/25/14
3/14/14
4/15/14
6/10/14
7/29/14
7/28/14
7/30/14
7/30/14
0.6
4.8
6.3
0.8
0.6
2.2
reviewed
drafted
drafted
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed/revised
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
reviewed
1
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.6 reviewed
0.4 Reviewed
pleading
Rule 26(f) Report

Reply
M to Stay
Resp to M to Strike
scheduling conf
Reply (M to Dismiss)
Order on M to Stay
Reply to Resp in Opp M to Strike
Order
Resp in Opp to M to Amnd
Order
Resp to Court Order/Opp M to Dismiss
M for SJ
WV Answer
Cross M by WV for Summ and Opp to Pls
SJM and Exhibits
M of Family Policy as Amicus
Sect. IV of SJ
SJ M
Resp to Pls 61
M to Dismiss
Replies in Opp 63,66,67
Reply to 63,66,67
Replies to 89
WV Notice of Supp Auth
M to Continue Merits Stay
Resp in Opp to M to Stay
Resp to 127
Resp to Pis 127
Page 2 of 3

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068
Date Filed
9/11/14
time task
1.2 drafted
1.3
0.4
0.5
1.2
0.8
11/7/14
128
29.6
158
10/5/14
10/7/14
10/20/14
10/22/14
drafted/revised
reviewed
reviewed
revised
reviewed
pleading
Suppl Auth {9th)- Authority, with proposed
document attached- Baskin v. Bogan (7th
Circuit), Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Brenner v.
Scott, In re Estate of Bangor
Order lifting Stay
Resp to Pis 132
Reply to Pis 134-137
Order
litigation
communications
47,310.00 total (at $300/hour)
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT F
matrix
Page 1 of 2
Years Out of Law School *
Year
Adjustmt
Factor**
Paralegal/
Law
Clerk
1-3
4-7
8-10
11-19
20 +
6/01/14- 5/31/15
1.0235
$179
$328
$402
$581
$655
$789
6/01/13- 5/31/14
1.0244
$175
$320
$393
$567
$640
$771
6/01/12- 5/31/13
1.0258
$170
$312
$383
$554
$625
$753
6/01/11- 5/31/12
1.0352
$166
$305
$374
$540
$609
$734
6/01/10- 5/31/11
1.0337
$161
$294
$361
$522
$589
$709
6/01/09- 5/31/10
1.0220
$155
$285
$349
$505
$569
$686
6/01/08- 5/31/09
1.0399
$152
$279
$342
$494
$557
$671
6/01/07-5/31/08
1.0516
$146
$268
$329
$475
$536
$645
6/01/06-5/31/07
1.0256
$139
$255
$313
$452
$509
$614
6/1/05-5/31/06
1.0427
$136
$249
$305
$441
$497
$598
6/1/04-5/31/05
1.0455
$130
$239
$293
$423
$476
$574
6/1/03-6/1/04
1.0507
$124
$228
$280
$405
$456
$549
6/1/02-5/31/03
1.0727
$118
$217
$267
$385
$434
$522
6/1/01-5/31/02
1.0407
$110
$203
$249
$359
$404
$487
6/1/00-5/31/01
1.0529
$195
$239
$345
$388
$468
6/1/99-5/31/00
1.0491
$101
$185
$227
$328
$369
$444
6/1/98-5/31/99
1.0439
$96
$176
$216
$312
$352
$424
6/1/97-5/31/98
1.0419
$92
$169
$207
$299
$337
$406
6/1/96-5/31/97
1.0396
$88
$162
$198
$287
$323
$389
6/1/95-5/31/96
1.032
$85
$155
$191
$276
$311
$375
6/1/94-5/31/95
1.0237
$82
$151
$185
$267
$301
$363
$106
The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been
approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of
Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).
* Years Out of Law School is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students
graduate. 1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from
http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html
11/25/2014
matrix
Page 2 of 2
date of graduation (June 1). 4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of
practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier 1-3" from June 1, 1996 until
May 31, 1999, would move into tier 4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier 8-10" on June 1, 2003.
** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the
Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor.
http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html
11/25/2014
EXHIBIT G

Huntington Division

ADKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 3: 13-cv-24068


CABELL COUNTY CLERK, et al.
Defendants.
And
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL 0. CALLAGHAN
Michael 0. Callaghan, personally appearing before the undersigned officer duly

authorized to administer oaths, does hereby depose and say as follows:
I.
My name is Michael 0. Callaghan.
I am a resident of Charleston, Kanawha
County, West Virginia and a member in good standing of the West Virginia State Bar. I am
legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set foiih
herein.
2.
Previous Employment: I was previously employed as an Assistant United States
Attorney in the Office of the United States Attomey for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Subsequently, I served as the Cabinet Secretary for the West Virginia Depmiment of
Environmental Protection. Following my tenure at DEP, I have been employed in private

practice with offices in Charleston, West Virginia.
3.
Current Employment:
I am a current paiiner in the law firm of Neely &
Callaghan. I have represented a diverse array of clients in matters in federal and state court and I
believe that I am familiar with the market rates for attorneys in this locale.
3.
Hourly Rate: It is my understanding that John H. Tinney, Jr. is requesting an
hourly rate of $300 per hour for the time he has spent on this constitutional challenge to the
State' s ban on same sex marriage. I am also familiar with Mr. Tinney's education, experience
and qualifications. I believe this rate to be reasonable and in line or below the current market
rate for an attorney with his experience and qualifications.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, TO WIT:
I,~~ir_,fljDhn.5Cy"') , Notary Public of said county, do hereby certify that

Michael 0 . Callaghan, whose name is signed to the writing herein, has this day
acknowledged the same before me in my said county.
Given under my hand and notarial seal this
My commission expires:
~ "&
tfb. IYt 2.-o I lo
day of
l?ec.emher , 2014.
NoTARYUBL1c
[SEAL]
... ~ ....... . ... ...-v_
~..
_ , _.........
UFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF WEST VIRGI NIA
Stephanie Robin J ohnso n
llealy & C311aghan
159 Summers SI.
Charleston \'IV 25301
- ~ ) r fOpres Feb. 14. 2016
'1
~I
, - .,.. 4
. ..............................

3:13-cv-24068 #146

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

3:13-cv-24068 #146

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 4635

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 4636

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 4637

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4638

Plaintiffs Are Entitled to the Requested Attorneys Fees and Costs.

Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties.

Plaintiffs Fees are Reasonable.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 4639

Plaintiffs Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours.

Declaration of Paul M. Smith (Smith

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 4640

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 4641

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 4642

John H. Tinney, Jr.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 4643

These records show sound and reasonable billing

Plaintiffs counsel also do not seek any fee enhancement above

Plaintiffs Seek Reasonable Hourly Rates For Their Attorneys.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 4644

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 4645

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 4646

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 4647

John H. Tinney, Jr.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 4648

After working as a litigation associate with

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 4649

Plaintiffs Attorneys Hourly Rates

Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14)

John H. Tinney, Jr.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 4650

Plaintiffs Fee Award Should Equal $342,576.25

Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14)

John H. Tinney, Jr.

ATTORNEYS' FEES SUBTOTAL:

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 4651

Plaintiffs are Entitled to the Requested Expenses and Costs

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 4652

Dated: December 2, 2014

/s/ John H. Tinney, Jr.

THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 4653

Chicago, Illinois 60603-6208

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 4654

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 4655

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH

DECLARATION OF PAUL M.SMITH

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 4656

Jenner became involved in this litigation in September of 2013 to provide

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 4657

To reduce billing costs, Nicholas W. Tarasen and R. Trent McCotter, both of

which Jenner is seeking compensation in this case.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4658

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 4659

Harrison: $44,793.00; R. Trent McCotter: $27,200.00; Nicholas W. Tarasen: $43,520.00; June 1,

In addition to the participation of Jenner's attorneys, a Jenner paralegal, Cheryl L.

following in fees: 2014: Cheryl Olson: $2,362.50.

costs in this Court.

The total fees sought by Jenner are $150,707.75.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 4660