Sheffer v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Majority - Schiller, District Judge

Yes, a district court does have discretion to significantly reduce a prevailing plaintiff's requested attorney's fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act when the jury award is nominal compared to the substantial damages sought and a prior settlement offer, reflecting a de minimis level of success. The court's duty is to determine a 'reasonable fee,' and the 'most critical factor' in this analysis is the 'degree of success obtained,' as established in Hensley v. Eckerhart. While the lodestar formula (hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate) is the starting point, a court has considerable discretion to adjust it. First, the court adjusted the hourly rates of Sheffer's attorneys to align with prevailing market rates based on experience and comparable cases, reducing the initial fee request from $126,543.33 to $106,569.38. Second, the court made specific reductions to the hours expended, disallowing fees for: common expenses not adequately apportioned among multiple defendants; excessive or duplicative overstaffing (e.g., a junior associate merely attending a deposition already covered by a senior attorney); excessive or insufficiently described trial preparation by attorneys who did not attend trial; billing Sears for summary judgment opposition briefs drafted before Sears joined the motion; and clerical tasks billed at paralegal rates. The court also reduced hours for over-billing a deposition. These adjustments further reduced the lodestar to $78,749.97. Finally, and most significantly, the court applied a substantial downward adjustment for Sheffer's 'lack of success,' noting that he sought $300,000.00 but received only $1,000.00. The court observed that this award likely only covered Sheffer's retainer and was significantly less than Sears' $30,000.00 settlement offer. Citing Farrar v. Hobby, the court emphasized that in private damages litigation, primary consideration must be given to the damages awarded versus damages sought, to prevent 'windfalls' for attorneys. Based on this de minimis success, the court reduced the fee award from $78,749.97 to $25,000.00. Regarding costs, the court disallowed expenses for courier/mail/telephone/fax, parking/travel, Westlaw research, pro hac vice fees, and office supplies, finding them either not statutorily authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or considered office overhead. It allowed half the cost for a projector rental and adjusted deposition cost apportionment. The final award was $25,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $7,588.66 in costs.