The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RAYMOND RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 8:22-cv-02101-KKM-AAS
CITY OF GULFPORT,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant City of Gulfport (Gulfport) moves for a determination on the
amount of the award of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees against
Defendant Raymond Rodriguez. (Doc. 87). Mr. Rodriguez did not respond and
the time for doing so has expired. See Local Rule 3.01(c), M.D. Fla. (“If a party
fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.”).
The court ruled Gulfport is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and
expenses caused by Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to respond to Gulfport’s request for
production and request for interrogatories. (See Doc. 86, p. 8) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)). As to amount, the Eleventh Circuit applies the lodestar
approach. “The starting point in fashioning an award of attorney’s fees is to
multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly
rate.” Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir. 1994). The moving
1
party bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of its hourly rate
and the number of hours expended. Norman v. Hous. Auth. of the City
Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). In making fee
determinations, the court can rely on its own expertise as to the prevailing
hourly rates in the marketplace and the number of hours expended. Id.
The court has reviewed the time records. (Doc. 87-2). Counsel requests
$3,280.00, comprising 20.5 hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $160.00
(Doc. 87-1). The hourly rate requested is reasonable. The time records,
however, support that the 20.5 hours of time billed was for work beyond the
reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses awarded for Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to
respond to Gulfport’s request for production and request for interrogatories.
(See Doc. 86, p. 8). Gulfport’s billing records contain multiple time entries
related to other conduct for which Mr. Rodriguez was sanctioned and unrelated
to Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to respond to Gulfport’s discovery requests. (See Doc.
87-2).
Because a reduction of Gulfport’s fees requested is warranted to exclude
time spent by Gulfport’s attorney on Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to comply with
other court orders and other sanctionable conduct, the question remains how
to determine an appropriate reduction. Importantly, courts are not authorized
“to be generous with the money of others, and it is as much the duty of courts
2
to see that excessive fees and expenses are not awarded as it is to see that an
adequate amount is awarded.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168
F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999). The court may “conduct either an hour-by-hour
analysis of the requested hours or an across-the-board reduction.” Four Green
Fields Holdings, LLC v. Four Green Fields, No. 8:10-CV-2800-T-27EAJ, 2011
WL 5360143 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2011) (citing Bivins v. Wrap it Up, Inc.,
548 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th. Cir. 2008)). Finally, courts need not become
“green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 837 (2011). Instead,
the essential goal for the court is to “do rough justice, not to achieve auditing
perfection.” Id.
Upon thorough review of the time records, it appears approximately 40%
of the provided entries include time billed due to Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to
respond to discovery and approximately 60% of the provided entries include
time billed due to Mr. Rodriguez’s failure to comply with other court orders and
other sanctionable conduct. Thus, an across-the-board reduction of the
requested hours by 60% is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Gulfport’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 87) is GRANTED-IN-
PART AND DENIED-IN-PART. Gulfport is awarded reasonable attorney’s
fees in the amount of $1,312.00 against Mr. Rodriguez. This amount
3
represents the attorney’s fees Gulfport incurred as a result of Mr. Rodriguez’s
failure to respond to Gulfport’s request for production and request for
interrogatories.
(2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send this order by mail to
Mr. Rodriquez at 53822 26th Avenue South, Gulfport, Florida 33707, and by
email to Mr. Rodriquez at captray44@gmail.com.
ENTERED in Tampa, Florida on March 28, 2024.
Aranda. Agneh Sarioug
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge