Ascentium Capital LLC v. Littell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

CENTRAL DIVISON

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:20-cv-4215-NKL

TED LITTELL, TIMOTHY LITTELL, and

WHITE KNIGHT LIMOUSINE, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Ascentium Capital LLC seeks an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Doc. 107 (Motion for Attorney’s Fees). The Court previously determined that Defendants are

jointly and severally liable for Ascentium’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and ordered

Ascentium to provide proof to substantiate its request. See Doc. 89 (Sanction Order); Doc. 102

(Summary Judgment Order); Doc. 104 (Default Judgment Order). Ascentium requests a total of

$138,957.08 in attorney’s fees and $3,914.86 in costs. See Doc. 108. The Court grants

Ascentium’s request in part and orders that all Defendants, including Timothy Littell, are jointly

and severally liable for $113,742.05 in attorney’s fees and $3,914.86 in costs. Defendant Timothy

Littell is also liable for an additional $14,711.58 in attorney’s fees.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant White Knight entered into five loan agreements with Ascentium. Defendants

Tim and Ted Littell served as guarantors for the agreements and are jointly and severally liable for

any amounts due under the agreements. In the event of default, Ascentium was entitled to recover

all past due amounts, 1.5% monthly interest on past due amounts, and any reasonable attorney’s

fees and costs Ascentium incurred enforcing its rights under the agreements.

To secure the loans, White Knight provided Ascentium a security interest in two of White

Knight’s busses. Defendants defaulted on the loans in the middle of 2020, and White Knight

repossessed the busses. Ascentium resold the busses and subtracted the value of the resale from

the amount owed under the agreements.

A. Procedural History

On November 3, 2020, Ascentium filed its Complaint, claiming Defendants breached the

loan agreements. Doc. 1. On September 29, 2021, Ascentium moved for sanctions against all

Defendants because their conduct during discovery was dishonest. Doc. 56. The Court only

granted the Motion as to Tim Littell, finding clear and convincing evidence that he repeatedly and

intentionally misrepresented evidence to strengthen Defendants’ case. Id. Doc. 89. As a remedy,

the Court struck Tim Littell’s pleadings and entered a default judgment against him. In the default

judgment order, the Court ordered Tim Littell to pay Ascentium $328,891.90, any interest that had

accrued, and Ascentium’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Doc. 104.

On November 19, 2021, Ascentium moved for summary judgment on all its claims. The

Court granted Ascentium’s motion for summary judgment because (1) a reasonable juror could

only conclude that Defendants had breached the five agreements and Ascentium’s resale of the

collateral was reasonable, and (2) Defendants’ affirmative defenses failed as a matter of law. Doc.

102. As a result, Ascentium was entitled to recover from Ted Littell and White Knight,

$328,891.90, interest that had accrued, and Ascentium’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Id.

B. Attorney’s Fees

On January 6, 2022, Ascentium filed its legal invoices under seal to prove its reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs. Doc. 97. On January 26, 2022, the Court permitted Defendants to

respond to with any argument that the requested fees were not reasonable. Doc. 101. Defendants

did not respond. Ascentium then filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Doc. 107.

Defendants responded to the motion by arguing that the fee award should be reduced because

Ascentium has failed to support a multitude of its billing entries. Doc. 108.

II. DISCUSSION

The underlying loan agreements state California law applies to the dispute. See Doc. 79-

4; 79-31; 79-47; 79-63; 79-76. However, the Court can look to federal law for guidance. Ridgeway

v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 975, 982 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“California law governs

plaintiffs’ motion . . . Nevertheless, the Court may still look to federal authority for guidance in

awarding attorney’s fees.” (quoting MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-cv-2988-JST, 2016

WL 3055643, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2016))).

Under Cal. Civ. Code. § 1717(a), if a party prevails in a breach of contract action and the

contract provides the party is entitled to the attorney’s fees and costs spent enforcing their rights,

then the prevailing party is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Under the

statute, “reasonable attorney fees are to be fixed by the court.” PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 997 P.2d

511, 515 (Cal. 2000), as modified (June 2, 2000). “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily

begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the

reasonable hourly rate.” Id. at 518. The lodestar “is fundamental to a determination of an

appropriate attorney’s fee award.” Id. (quoting Margolin v. Reg. Plan. Com., 185 Cal.Rptr. 145

(Cal. Ct. App. 1982)). Ascentium bears the burden of proving that the hourly rates for its attorneys

and the number of hours spent were reasonable. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973,

980 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding it is the fee applicant’s burden to show the rates charged are

reasonable); Roth Grading, Inc. v. Martin Bros. Constr., No. 220CV00336KJMCKD, 2022 WL

411425, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (“A party who requests attorneys’ fees bears an initial

burden to show ‘the fees it seeks are reasonable.’” (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cty. of

San Bernardino, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010))).

A. Whether the Rates Charged Were Reasonable

Under California law, the reasonable hourly rate is the rate prevailing in the community

for similar work. PLCM Grp., 997 P.2d. at 518. Ascentium’s counsel charged between $412 and

$450 per hour for the work of its partners J.J. Trad and J.E. Martineau; between $129.60 and

$177.311 per hour for the work of its associates T.H. Brown, T.R. Selig, and D.A. Hayes; and

between $160 and $190 per hour for the work of its paralegals J.S. Lanciault, J.L. Moentmann,

and K.D. Winschel. Doc. 97. Defendants do not contest that the rates were reasonable.

The rates Ascentium’s counsel charged for partners and associates were reasonable because

they are below the average rates charged in Missouri in 2021 according to the Missouri Lawyers

Weekly Billing Rates Report. See Billing Rates 2021: Fee awards few and far between during

pandemic, 2021 WLNR 37503966. The rates charged for paralegals are higher than the $150 per

hour average rate charged by “support staff” in Missouri in 2021. Id. However, that support rate

“may include not only paralegals but other types of support staff that may be less skilled.” S.C. by

& through M.C. v. Riverview Gardens Sch. Dist., No. 18-4162-CV-C-NKL, 2020 WL 5262267,

1 Brown’s original billing rate was $350 per hour. However, that rate was reduced to $165.00 per

hour and then $158.40 per hour. The average amount charged for Brown’s services over the course

of the litigation was $177.31 per hour.

at *9 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 3, 2020). Additionally, the Court has previously found that higher paralegal

rates were reasonable. Brown v. Precythe, No. 17-CV-4082-NKL, 2020 WL 1527160, at **3-4

(W.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2020) (holding paralegal rates of $216 per hour were reasonable before

applying the discount required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act); Washington v. Denney, No.

2:14-CV-06118-NKL, 2017 WL 4399566, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2017) (holding paralegal rates

up to $220 per hour were reasonable before applying the discount required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act). Consequently, the Court finds the rate Ascentium’s counsel charged for paralegals

was reasonable.

B. Whether Ascentium Sufficiently Supported the Number of Hours Worked

Defendants argue that some of J.J. Trad’s billing entries are too vague for the Court to

determine if they are reasonable, and approximately 10% of Ascentium’s fee request should

consequently be denied. The Court can reduce the fee award if vague billing entries prevent the

Court from verifying that the amount of time spent on a task was reasonable. Good Morning to

You Prods. Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. CV134460GHKMRWX, 2016 WL

6156076, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016) (“Courts routinely reduce lodestar figures if time sheets

are littered with vague billing entries that make it difficult to assess the reasonableness of the hours

expended in a case.” (citing Banas v. Volcano Corp., 47 F. Supp. 3d 957, 969 (N.D. Cal. 2014));

Hess v. Ramona Unified Sch. Dist., No. 07-CV-0049 W (CAB), 2008 WL 5381243, at *6 (S.D.

Cal. Dec. 19, 2008) (“When counsel lump together multiple tasks or fail to sufficiently describe

the time expended, it is appropriate for the court to reduce the total hours.” (citing Welch v. Metro.

Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.2007))); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

(1983) (holding that under Federal law “[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the

district court may reduce the award accordingly.”).2

1. Entries for Time Spent “Working on” Issues

Except for the categories of entries detailed below, the billing entries Defendants challenge

are for time Trad spent “work[ing] on open issues,” “work[ing] on open issues re case status and

strategy,” “working on discovery,” or “working on [another issue].” See generally Doc. 97.

Ascentium has not shown that most of these entries were reasonable because the Court cannot

determine from the Trad’s vague description what Trad was working on. Signature Networks, Inc.

v. Estefan, No. C 03-4796 SBA, 2005 WL 1249522, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2005) (“[T]he failure

to provide even a general description of the subject matter renders it impossible to assess the

reasonableness of many of OMM’s entries.”); see also In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.C.

Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (reducing an award because “[t]he time records maintained by the

attorneys, paralegals and law clerks are replete with instances where no mention is made of the

subject matter of a meeting, telephone conference or the work performed during hours billed.”).

Ascentium argues that the surrounding context makes “reasonably certain” what Trad was working

on. Having independently reviewed the record, the Court respectfully disagrees as the surrounding

entries do little to elucidate what Trad, as opposed to other members of Ascentium’s legal team,

was working on.

2 Ascentium argues since it submitted billing records it has provided adequate documentation and

the burden is now on Defendants to provide specific evidence to show their fees are reasonable.

However, for the reasons stated below, there are entries that did not meet Ascentium’s burden

because they are impermissibly vague.

Furthermore, even when Trad’s entries indicate what he was working on,3 they do not show

that his time was reasonably spent because they say nothing about the role Trad played or the tasks

he completed. Good Morning to You Prods. Corp., 2016 WL 6156076, at *11 (reducing the

lodestar amount when billing entries told the Court nothing about the role an attorney played or

what work the attorney conducted); In re Meese, 907 F.2d at 1204 (holding the Court could not

verify the reasonableness of the billing entries when the time entries did not detail the work

performed). Ascentium argues that these entries are sufficient because it was only required to

document the “general subject of the services provided” and cites to Hall v. Cent. Intel. Agency,

115 F. Supp. 3d 24, 32 (D.D.C. 2015). To the extent Hall, or any other federal authority, stands

for the proposition that an attorney sufficiently documents its time by stating he “worked on” an

issue, the Court respectfully disagrees. Additionally, the Court is unmoved by the fact that Hall

cited to the Supreme Court’s footnote in Hensley. The Supreme Court in Hensley, stated “great

detail” was not required in billing entries but “at least counsel should identify the general subject

matter.” However, Hensley does not state that an attorney is only required to state the subject

matter of what they were working on, and the Court is not requiring “great detail” by asking

Ascentium’s attorney’s to provide more information then saying they “worked on” an issue.

3 The following entries indicate what Trad was working on: a January 27, 2021, entry for “work

on open issues re mediation; discovery and case status”; a March 9, 2021, entry for “work on open

issues re protective order”; a September 29, 2021, entry for “work on open issues re motion”; a

November 11, 2021, entry for “work on sanction issues”; a November 12, 2021, entry for “work

on open issues re contempt”; a December 3, 2021, entry for .3 hours for “work on open issues re

summary judgment”; a December 27, 2021, entry for “work on open issues re contempt order”;

and December 28, 2021, entry for “work on trial strategy.” Doc. 97, at 9, 14, 37, 46, 50.

With two exceptions,4 the Court will strike these entries when determining the amount of

time spent and will therefore reduce the requested fee by $7,705.80.

2. Time Spent Reviewing Emails or Materials

Defendants challenge entries on December 31, 2020, for .2 hours, January 7, 2021, for .1

hours, and January 30, 2021, for .1 hours because the description stated Trad “review[ed] email

correspondence exchange[s].” Doc. 97, at 6, 8-9. The entries will be deducted because the Court

cannot determine the subject matter of the emails or why Trad reviewed them. Signature

Networks, Inc., 2005 WL 1249522, at *8; In re Meese, 907 F.2d at 1204. The Court has also

independently identified entries on March 18, 2021, and March 26, 2021, for “review[ing] e-mail

correspondence exchanges.” Doc. 97, at 14. These entries will be stricken from the fee request

for the same reasons.

Defendants challenge 9 billing entries that state Trad reviewed materials, pleadings,

motions, or a court order. The Court will not deduct the 6 entries, billed between October 13,

2021, and November 10, 2021.5 For all but one of the entries, the context makes clear that Trad

was reviewing Ascentium’s Daubert or summary judgment motion during the drafting process and

the amount of time Trad spent reviewing each of the documents was reasonable. Doc. 97, at 42,

4 The November 3, 2020, entry for .3 hours for “work on filing lawsuit” will not be deducted

because it was reasonable for Trad to spend 18 minutes helping file the complaint. Doc. 97, at 4.

The Court will also not deduct the August 3, 2021, entry for .2 hours for “work on disclosures”

because the surrounding entries show Trad met with another lawyer to discuss expert witness

disclosures during this time. Doc. 97, at 33; see also White v. Coblentz, Patch & Bass LLP Long

Term Disability Ins. Plan, No. C 10-1855 BZ, 2011 WL 5183854, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011)

(“While the entry is minimal, in the context of the billing records, it is clear that Mr. Padway was

revising the reply brief to the motion for summary judgment.”).

5 Defendants challenged entries by Trad on October 13, 2021; October 20, 2021; November 3,

2021; November 4, 2021; and November 8, 2021. Doc. 97, at 42, 46.

46 (showing the surrounding time entries); White, 2011 WL 5183854, at *4 (holding the Court is

allowed to consider context when determining if a billing entry is reasonable). Additionally, the

.1 hour November 8, 2021, entry for “review[ing a] court order” will not be deducted because Trad

was likely reviewing the amended scheduling order the Court docketed that day.

However, Trad billed .2 hours on September 17, 2021, and .4 hours on October 11, 2021,

for “review[ing] pleading” and “review[ing] materials” respectively. Doc. 97, at 37, 42. The Court

cannot determine what pleading or materials were reviewed or why the documents were reviewed

and consequently will deduct the entries from the fee award. Signature Networks, Inc., 2005 WL

1249522, at *8. In total the Court will deduct $982.80 from the fee award for Ascentium’s failure

to explain why certain documents or emails were reviewed.

3. Deposition Preparation

Defendants also challenge several entries related to Trad’s preparation for different

depositions. Trad stated in billing entries on April 1, 2021, and April 2, 2021, that he spent 1.1

and 1.9 hours respectively reviewing documents to prepare for depositions. Doc. 97, at 18. These

entries provide enough information for the Court to determine that Trad reasonably spent his time.

In the remaining entries,6 Trad states he was working on deposition preparation issues. As stated

above, a billing entry stating an attorney “works on an issue” is generally insufficient. However,

these entries are distinguishable from those previously stricken by the Court. Unlike the previous

entries which stated Trad was working on a vague category like “discovery issues” or “open

issues,” these entries tie Trad’s work to a specific case-related event—the upcoming depositions.

Additionally, the billing entries by Trad, and the surrounding entries from Brown, identify the

6 These remaining entries occurred on, April 7, 2021; April 9, 2021; July 14, 2021; and July 20,

2021. Doc. 97, at 18, 29.

task(s) Trad completed during this time—helping Brown prepare for upcoming depositions. As a

result, the entries provide the Court with enough information to determine the challenged billing

entries are reasonable.

4. Block Billing

Defendants challenge four entries that list multiple tasks and do not specify how much time

was spent on each task. This practice is known as “block billing,” and under California law, the

Court has discretion about whether to penalize a party for using the practice. Ridgeway, 269 F.

Supp. 3d at 988 (citing Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v. Monroy, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 26, 55 n.6 (Cal. Ct.

App. 2013)). On December 30, 2020, Trad billed .5 hours for “review pleading; work on open

issues; email correspondence to the client.” Doc. 97, at 6. The entry will be stricken because the

Court cannot discern what pleading was reviewed, what the subject of the email correspondence

was, or what “open issues” Trad was working on. The Court will similarly strike Trad’s June 3,

2021, entry for—“work on open issues including telephone conference with [redacted]”—because

the Court cannot determine what open issue Trad was working on or why he was having a

telephone conference. Doc. 97, at 26. The Court will also deduct the .8 hour November 24, 2021,

entry for “Work on open issues including review pleading” because it is unclear what pleading

Trad reviewed or what “open issue” he worked on. Doc. 97, at 46. However, the Court will not

strike the 3.2 hour April 7, 2021, entry for “work on deposition preparation including mediation

statement” because it was reasonable for Trad to spend 3.2 hours preparing for the upcoming

deposition and improving the mediation statement. See Ridgeway, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 988-89

(refusing to reduce a fee award for a block billed entry because the Court found the overall amount

of time spent on the tasks was reasonably spent); Washington v. Denney, No. 14-CV-6118-NKL,

2017 WL 4399566, at *6 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2017) (“[B]lock-billing is problematic only where the

hours billed for multiple tasks appears excessive, or where billed time needs to be eliminated for

certain tasks . . . .”).

The Court has also independently identified the March 16, 2021, entry for “Review

document and pleading including work on strategy.” Doc. 97, at 14. The Court cannot determine

what document was reviewed or what work Trad performed related to “strategy” and will

consequently strike the entry. The Court will deduct $965.60 from the fee award for the stricken

entries.

5. Redacted Entries7

The Court has independently identified multiple entries that will be deducted from the fee

request because redactions prevent the Court from determining if the entries are reasonable. First,

the Court cannot determine if December 30, 2020, entry for .1 hours from Lanciault is reasonable

because the entry is completely redacted. Doc. 97, at 6. Second the July 26, 2021, entry for .7

hours by Brown and the August 20, 2021, entry for .1 hours by Brown which state Brown had a

“conference call with client [redacted].” Doc. 97, at 31, 34. The redactions prevent the Court from

determining if the entries are reasonable because the Court cannot determine the subject matter of

the conversation. See Signature Networks, Inc, 2005 WL 1249522, at *8 (upholding a 20%

reduction in an overall fee award because redactions prevented the Court from determining if the

time was reasonably spent). The Court will similarly deduct the September 12, 2021, entry for 2.5

hours by Brown for “Research case law pertaining to evidence required to [redacted]” because the

Court cannot determine the subject matter of the research. Id.; Doc. 97, at 38. Lastly, the Court

will deduct 50% of Brown’s May 3, 2021, entry for “Prepare additional discovery requests directed

7 Even though the billing entries were filed under seal, Plaintiff redacted some entries.

to defendants by close review of case files for prior, equivocated answers, [redacted]” because the

Court cannot determine whether the second half of the time entry was reasonable. Doc. 97, at 23.

In total, the Court deducts $849.25 from the fee request for the redacted entries.

C. Whether Ascentium Is Entitled to the Listed Costs

Ascentium has requested $3,914.86 in costs. Defendants do not challenge the

reasonableness of these costs. After an independent review, the Court determines that these costs

are reasonable.

D. Deduction for Sanctionable Conduct

Ascentium has requested that only Tim Littell be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred to

litigate the motion for sanctions. Doc. 95, at 2. Defendants have not disputed the request, nor

does the Court find it unreasonable that Tim Littell should pay for the attorney’s fees incurred

because of his sanctionable conduct. As a result, the Court will deduct $14,711.588 from the award

for Defendants White Knight and Ted Littell, making Tim Littell solely liable for those fees.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable for

$3,914.86 in costs and $113,742.05 in attorney’s fees. Defendant Tim Littell is additionally liable

for $14,711.58 in attorney’s fees. Appendix I and Appendix II below reflect the Court’s deductions

as well as the individual time entries stricken from the final fee request.

8 Ascentium has indicated that $15,100.38 in attorney’s fees were attributable to Ted Littell’s

sanctioned conduct. However, the entries on November 11, 2021, and December 27, 2021, that

Ascentium included in this calculation were impermissibly vague. See supra Section III.A.2. The

Court accordingly deducted $388.80, leaving $14,711.58 worth of recoverable fees for Tim

Littell’s sanctionable conduct.

Appendix I- Fee Award Calculation

Requested Fees: $138,957.08

Reduction for Time Spent “Working on”

-$7,705.80.

Issues

Vague Entries related to Reviewing -$982.80

Documents or Emails

Block Billed Entries -$965.60

Redacted Entries -$849.25

Reduction for Tim Littell’s conduct -$14,711.58

Fee Award: $113,742.05

Appendix II- Time Entries Stricken from Ascentium’s Fee Request

Date Billing Description Lawyer Hours Rate

Initials

10/21/2020 Work on lawsuit issues JJT .8 450

11/05/2020 Work on lawsuit issues JJT .3 450

11/08/2020 Work on pleadings issues JJT .2 450

11/18/2020 Work on open issues JJT .1 450

11/19/2020 Work on open issues re collection JJT .4 450

12/30/2020 Redacted JTL .1 160

12/30/2020 Review pleading; work on open issues; e-mail JJT .5 450

correspondence to client

12/31/2020 Review e-mail correspondence exchange JJT .2 450

1/6/2021 Work on open issues JJT .1 450

1/7/2021 Review e-mail correspondence exchange JJT .1 450

1/11/2021 Work on open issues JJT .2 450

1/12/2021 Work on open issues JJT .2 450

1/25/2021 Work on open issues JJT .1 450

1/27/2021 Work on open issues re mediation; discovery and JJT .4 450

case status

1/30/2021 Review e-mail correspondence JJT .1 450

2//25/2021 Work on open issues JJT .3 450

2/26/2021 Work on open issues JJT .2 450

2/28/2021 Work on open issues JJT .2 450

3/2/2021 Work on open issues JJT .1 450

3/3/2021 Work on open issues re discovery JJT .4 450

3/9/2021 Work on open issues re protective order JJT .2 450

3/16/2021 Review document and pleading including work on JJT .4 450

strategy

3/18/2021 Review e-mail correspondence exchanges JJT .2 450

3/24/2021 Work on open issues JJT .2 450

3/26/2021 Review email correspondence exchanges JJT .1 450

5/3/2021 Work on strategy JJT .2 450

6/1/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .1 450

6/2/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .3 450

6/3/2021 Work on open issues including telephone JJT .5 450

conference with [redacted]

7/22/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 450

7/26/2021 Work on discovery and disclosure issues JJT .1 450

7/26/2021 Conference with client [redacted] THB .7 165

7/27/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 450

7/28/2021 Work on case status issues JJT .2 450

7/29/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .5 450

8/6/2021 Work on open issues re status and strategy JJT .2 450

8/10/2021 Work on discovery JJT .5 450

8/11/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .3 450

8/19/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .1 450

8/20/2021 Telephone conference with client [redacted] THB .1 165

8/24/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 450

8/26/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 450

9/1/2021 Work on open issues re discovery JJT .1 450

9/2/2021 Work on open issues re discovery JJT .1 450

9/3/2021 Work on discovery JJT .1 450

9/8/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .4 450

9/09/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .3 450

9/10/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .5 450

9/15/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .3 450

9/17/2021 Review pleading JJT .2 450

9/26/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .4 450

9/29/2021 Wok on open issues re motion JJT 1.5 450

10/1/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .5 432

10/4/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .3 432

10/5/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 432

10/6/2021 Work on discovery issues JJT .2 432

10/11/2021 Review materials JJT .4 432

10/12/2021 Work on open issues re status and strategy JJT .9 432

10/14/2021 Work on discovery JJT .2 432

10/21/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .5 432

10/25/2021 Work on Discovery issues JJT .3 432

11/11/2021 Work on sanction issues JJT .4 432

11/12/2021 Work on open issues re contempt JJT .7 432

11/23/2021 Work on open issues JJT .8 432

11/24/2021 Work on open issues including reviewing pleading JJT .8 432

11/30/2021 Work on open issues JJT .4 432

12/1/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .4 432

12/2/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .5 432

12/3/2021 Work on open issues re summary judgment JJT .3 432

12/7/2021 Work on case status and strategy JJT .3 432

12/9/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .2 432

12/20/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .1 432

12/23/2021 Work on open issues re case status and strategy JJT .2 432

12/27/2021 Work on open issues re contempt order JJT .5 432

12/28/2021 Work on trial strategy JJT .6 432

/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey

NANETTE K. LAUGHREY

United States District Judge

Dated: April 11, 2022

Jefferson City, Missouri