Jneid Cases Finally Come Home to Roost–Expensive Fee/Costs Lesson From Not Producing Electronic Documents Until Trial.
In our December 20, 2009 and September 24, 2011 posts, we did explore the Jneid appeals, where substantial fees/costs orders were appealed for a litigant’s failure to produce electronic documents until trial of a matter. Various appeals from remands have been winding through the courts, but can we now report a resolution in an appellate trifecta–Jneid v. Novell, Case Nos. G044465, G044469, and G044468 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 31, 2012) (unpublished)–all authored by Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam on behalf of 3-0 panels.
Case No. G044465 involved an order requiring defendant to pay a law firm $472,975 for representing plaintiffs. The basic facts were that the law firm agreed to exchange their 20% contingency fee arrangement for fees awarded through a fees motion, then seeking an award of those fees on a normal basis in the trial court. Unfair, said defendant, because this means that no fees were really “incurred” by plaintiffs. However, because this situation was analogous to a discharged contingency attorney, it still meant that attorneys were entitled to a quantum meruit award such that something was indeed “incurred.” As far as the claim that there was trial “overstaffing,” the sheer volume of the record showed it was complex, plaintiffs had difficulties in obtaining representation (with ten attorneys turning them down before the counsel seeking fees agreed to the representation), and trial was looming. Under the circumstances, the staffing was appropriate.
Case No. G044469 centered on another law firm’s work for plaintiffs resulting in a $775,126.50 award against defendant. Defendant griped about being hit for fees inclusive of 12-hour “trial” days, but this did not go far when the realities of modern day litigation were considered for a complex case–described as “an all consuming undertaking, requiring morning, evening, and often lunchtime preparation before and after the period the court was literally in session.” Plaintiffs’ counsel’s “travel time” from San Jose to Orange County was challenged; however, nonforum travel time can be compensated under the “reasonable necessity” rule, where plaintiffs had to go out of venue to get co-counsel, as was the situation here.
Case No. G044468 was the final challenge in the trio of appeals to $213,879.50 in expert witness fees awarded to a law firm in its representation of a party in a prior appeal. The real issue was whether the fees should be awarded for the prior trial work from a temporal perspective, with the appellate court giving this construct a liberal interpretation in affirming the award. Here is what was said in beautiful simplicity: “All legal work stems from a universe of facts. Expert testimony even more so.”