PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH R. GRISSOM, II,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 07-1777
THE MILLS CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-00961-GBL)
Argued: September 25, 2008
Decided: December 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and
James C. DEVER III, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Senior Judge
Hamilton wrote the opinion, in which Judge Traxler and
Judge Dever joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Stephen Barret Stern, ROSS, DIXON & BELL,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Elaine C. Bredehoft,
2 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
CHARLSON, BREDEHOFT & COHEN, P.C., Reston, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Prashant K. Khetan, Jona-
than Cohen, ROSS, DIXON & BELL, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Carla D. Brown, Brittany J. Sakata,
CHARLSON, BREDEHOFT & COHEN, P.C., Reston, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, the Mills Corporation (Defendant or Mills)
challenges, on several grounds, the district court’s entry of a
judgment awarding its former employee Kenneth Grissom
(Plaintiff) $325,484.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs (the Fee
Award). The Fee Award followed Plaintiff’s acceptance of
Defendant’s $130,000.00 offer of judgment made pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Rule 68). For reasons that
follow, we vacate the Fee Award and remand for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
Defendant, a publicly traded corporation in the business of
developing large commercial real estate projects such as shop-
ping malls, employed Plaintiff as a vice president and project
manager from January 2000 until it discharged him on August
16, 2005, on the asserted ground of poor job performance. At
the time of his discharge, Plaintiff was the project manager
for a redevelopment/expansion project of a retail mall called
the Shops at Riverside Square, in Hackensack, New Jersey
(the Riverside Project). Plaintiff not only disputed Defen-
dant’s assertion of poor job performance, but he also claimed
that Defendant illegally discharged him in retaliation for
engaging in whistleblower activity protected by the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 3
In relevant part, § 1514A provides "whistleblower protec-
tion" for employees of publicly traded companies who are
"discharge[d], . . . harass[ed], or in any other manner discrimi-
nate[d] against . . . in the terms and conditions of employment
because of any lawful act done by the employee":
(1) to provide information . . . which the employee
reasonably believes constitutes a violation of . . . any
rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or any provision of Federal law relat-
ing to fraud against shareholders, when the informa-
tion or assistance is provided to . . .
***
(C) a person with supervisory authority
over the employee (or such other person
working for the employer who has the
authority to investigate, discover, or termi-
nate misconduct); . . . .
Id. § 1514A(a)(1)(C).
On August 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed the present civil action
against Defendant, alleging four claims. After voluntarily dis-
missing one such claim, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the following three claims: (1) common law breach
of contract; (2) common law defamation per se; and (3) viola-
tion of SOX’s whistleblower provision.1 In his breach of con-
tract claim, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay him
certain promised bonuses. In his defamation per se claim,
1
Plaintiff had previously filed an administrative complaint against
Defendant with the United States Department of Labor (DOL), alleging
his same SOX whistleblower claim. However, once Plaintiff notified DOL
of his intention to file the present civil action in federal court, DOL dis-
continued its investigation of the allegations in Plaintiff’s administrative
complaint.
4 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, "through its representative,
Nicholas Sharr, made false and defamatory statements con-
cerning [Plaintiff] and portrayed him in a light to suggest he
was unfit, inept, lacked integrity, and/or was unable [to] per-
form his duties of employment, which constituted defamation
per se." (J.A. 34). In his SOX whistleblower claim, Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant discharged and defamed him (by
falsely accusing him of misappropriating confidential com-
pany documents) in retaliation for his expressing concern to
his direct supervisor, Nicholas Sharr, and other specifically
named high-level company executives that, in two consecu-
tive Form 8-K Reports that Defendant had filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, see 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.13a-11, Defendant had knowingly underreported the
actual projected cost of the Riverside Project by approxi-
mately eighteen percent and twelve percent respectively.
Approximately one month prior to the close of discovery,
on May 11, 2007, Defendant made a Rule 68 offer of judg-
ment in the amount of $130,000.00 (Defendant’s Rule 68
Offer of Judgment). At all times relevant to the present case,
Rule 68 provided, in relevant part:
At any time more than 10 days before the trial
begins, a party defending against a claim may serve
upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to
be taken against the defending party for the money
or property or to the effect specified in the offer,
with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the
service of the offer the adverse party serves written
notice that the offer is accepted, either party may
then file the offer and notice of acceptance together
with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk
shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be
deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not
admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 5
more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay
the costs incurred after the making of the offer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 (emphasis added).2 In Marek v. Chesny,
473 U.S. 1 (1985), "the Supreme Court held that costs which
are shifted under Rule 68 include all costs properly awardable
under relevant substantive statutes, including statutes which
define costs to include attorney’s fees." Marryshow v. Flynn,
986 F.2d 689, 691 (4th Cir. 1993).
Significantly, Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment spec-
ified:
This Offer of Judgment does not cover any attor-
neys’ fees and costs [Plaintiff] has incurred. Rather,
the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be
resolved in a separate proceeding through a petition
to the Court, where the Court shall determine the
extent to which [Plaintiff] and/or his attorney are
entitled to fees and costs, if any.
(J.A. 72).
On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s Rule 68
Offer of Judgment, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment
in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $130,000.00. On the
same day, Plaintiff also filed a petition for an award of attor-
neys’ fees and costs (the Petition or Plaintiff’s Petition) with
respect to his SOX whistleblower claim. The Petition, along
with a supplemental petition for an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs filed by Plaintiff (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Petition),
sought "attorneys’ fees related to Plaintiff’s counsel work
2
We note that, effective December 1, 2007, "the language of Rule 68
[was] amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make
them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent
throughout the rules." Advisory Committee’s Notes on Rule 68. Such
changes were "intended to be stylistic only." Id.
6 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
done since the initial complaint filed with [DOL]." (J.A.
1007). As summarized by the district court:
In Plaintiff’s Petition, he seeks $370,305.00 in attor-
neys’ fees, $38,790.15 in non-taxable costs, and
$6,934.01 in taxable costs. In Plaintiff’s Supplemen-
tal Petition, he seeks an additional $27,280.00 in
attorneys’ fees and $3,922.95 in non-taxable costs.
The grand total of attorneys’ fees and non-taxable
costs Plaintiff seeks is $447,232.11.
(J.A. 1007-08). Notably, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Petition,
filed June 8, 2007, sought an award for attorneys’ fees and
costs for "time and expenses expended from May 22, 2007
through June 7, 2007." (J.A. 925).
In ruling on both petitions, the district court concluded that
Plaintiff was a prevailing party under SOX’s fee-shifting pro-
vision. Next, having found that Plaintiff had demonstrated
"that the time and labor, and costs sought [were] seventy-five
percent (75%) reasonable," the district court reduced the total
amount of attorneys’ fees and costs (taxable and non-taxable)
sought by Plaintiff by twenty-five percent to compensate for
what the district court "perceive[d] as duplicated or misutil-
ized time expended." (J.A. 1015). In addition, the district
court subtracted $9,940.00 for non-related work done on Con-
nolly.3 With these subtractions, on July 23, 2007, the district
court awarded Plaintiff a total of $325,484.08 in attorneys’
fees and costs.4
3
The reference to Connolly concerns a civil action between one of
Plaintiff’s former coworkers and Defendant based upon allegations of age
discrimination. Adversarial counsel in the present case were also adver-
sarial counsel in Connolly. Following a jury trial in Connolly in September
2006, the jury found in favor of Defendant.
4
Defendant points out that on July 9, 2007, the district court awarded
Plaintiff $4,082.74 in taxable costs, which appears to be for the same
items of taxable costs included in the Fee Award. Because we vacate the
Fee Award and remand for further proceedings, we instruct the district
court to clarify and/or rectify this double-counting discrepancy on remand.
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 7
This timely appeal by Defendant followed. On appeal,
Defendant first argues that Plaintiff is entitled to absolutely no
attorneys’ fees and costs, because he is not a prevailing party
under SOX’s fee-shifting provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(1).
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that we conclude that
Plaintiff is entitled to some amount of attorneys’ fees and
costs as a prevailing party, Defendant seeks vacature of the
Fee Award and a remand with instructions to implement vari-
ous reductions.
II.
Defendant first challenges as erroneous the district court’s
threshold conclusion that Plaintiff is eligible for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs under SOX. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1514A(c). In this regard, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did
not prevail on the merits of his SOX whistleblower claim in
any manner, and therefore, cannot recover an award of attor-
neys’ fees and costs as a prevailing party under SOX.
Defendant’s argument raises a legal question, which we
review de novo. Smyth ex rel. Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268,
274 (4th Cir. 2002) ("The designation of a party as a prevail-
ing party . . . is a legal determination which we review de
novo."). SOX provides that "[a]n employee prevailing" on his
SOX whistleblower claim, "shall be entitled to all relief nec-
essary to make the employee whole," 18 U.S.C.
§ 1514A(c)(1), including "compensation for any special dam-
ages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including liti-
gation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney
fees." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(C). As an initial matter, we
note that although § 1514A(c) does not use the term of art
"prevailing party," as commonly used in other federal fee-
shifting statutes, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), the parties
agree, and we think reasonably so, that the jurisprudence
developed with respect to such term of art applies with equal
force in an action in determining whether Plaintiff is "[a]n
employee prevailing" on his SOX whistleblower claim, id.
8 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
§ 1514A(c)(1). Cf. Smyth ex rel. Smyth, 282 F.3d at 274 ("The
term ‘prevailing party,’ as used in § 1988(b) and other fee-
shifting provisions, is a ‘legal term of art,’ and is interpreted
consistently—that is, without distinctions based on the partic-
ular statutory context in which it appears.") (some internal
quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).
To evaluate whether Plaintiff is a prevailing party with
respect to his SOX whistleblower claim, we are guided by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home,
Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources,
532 U.S. 598 (2001). See also Doe v. Boston Pub. Sch., 358
F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2004) (Supreme Court’s reasoning in
Buckhannon is presumed to apply generally to all fee-shifting
statutes using the prevailing party terminology); (T.D. v.
LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469, 474-75 (7th Cir.
2003) (Buckhannon definition of "prevailing party" extends
consistently to federal fee-shifting provisions). In Buckhan-
non, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether
the term of art "prevailing party," as employed by Congress
in numerous fee-shifting statutes, "includes a party that has
failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered
consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired
result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change
in the defendant’s conduct." 532 U.S. at 600. In answering
this question in the negative, the Court held that for a party
to be considered a "prevailing party," there must be a "mate-
rial alteration of the legal relationship of the parties," 532 U.S.
at 604 (internal quotation marks omitted), and there must be
"judicial imprimatur on the change," id. at 605 (emphasis in
original). Notably, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court
also made clear that "‘[a] party in whose favor a judgment is
rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded . . .,"
is a "prevailing party" for purposes of the various federal fee-
shifting statutes. Id. at 603 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary
1145 (7th ed. 1999)) (alteration in original).
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 9
Here, Plaintiff is a prevailing party under the Buckhannon
test. First, on May 22, 2007, judgment in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendant was entered for $130,000.00. Such
judgment created a material alteration of the legal relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendant by imposing upon Defendant
a legally enforceable obligation to pay Plaintiff $130,000.00.
Utility Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Electric
Cooperative, Inc., 298 F.3d 1238, 1248 (11th Cir. 2002)
("Rule 68 judgment represents a judicially sanctioned change
in the relationship between the parties.") (internal quotation
marks omitted). Second, there is judicial imprimatur on the
change in that the district court has the inherent power to
compel Defendant to satisfy such judgment. Id. (accepted
offer of judgment made pursuant to Rule 68 has necessary
judicial imprimatur per Buckhannon "in the crucial sense that
it is an enforceable judgment against the defendant"). Cf.
Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (in selecting
means to enforce consent judgment, district court is entitled
to rely on axiom that courts have inherent power to enforce
compliance with lawful orders through civil contempt). In
sum, we hold that Plaintiff is a "prevailing party" with respect
to his SOX whistleblower claim, and thus is statutorily eligi-
ble for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under SOX.5
5
Perhaps anticipating this holding, Defendant alternatively argues that
the $130,000.00 judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor was de minimis in
light of Plaintiff’s far higher pretrial settlement demands, resulting in
Plaintiff "at best, achiev[ing] a ‘technical victory’ that does not merit an
award of attorneys’ fees" and costs. (Defendant’s Opening Br. at 24).
Defendant also alternatively argues that the district court abused its discre-
tion in awarding Plaintiff any amount of attorneys’ fees and costs,
because, according to Defendant, Plaintiff misappropriated company doc-
uments in anticipation of litigation. After considering the entire record on
appeal, we reject both arguments, finding no abuse of discretion in the dis-
trict court’s threshold decision to award Plaintiff some amount of attor-
neys’ fees and costs as a prevailing party on his SOX whistleblower claim.
10 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
III.
Defendant next argues that the district court erred in award-
ing Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs accrued after May 11,
2007, the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. In support,
Defendant directs our attention to the express language of
Rule 68: "More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party
defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an
offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then
accrued." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 (emphasis added).6
Plaintiff responds that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees and
costs beyond May 11, 2007, despite the just underlined lan-
guage of Rule 68, because the language in Defendant’s Rule
68 Offer of Judgment "contemplates the payment of fees and
costs after the date of the Offer." (Plaintiff’s Br. at 45). In
support, Plaintiff points to the following language in Defen-
dant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment:
This Offer of Judgment does not cover any attor-
neys’ fees and costs Grissom has incurred. Rather,
the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be
resolved in a separate proceeding through a petition
to the Court, where the Court shall determine the
extent to which Grissom and/or his attorney are enti-
tled to fees and costs, if any.
(J.A. 72).
We agree with Defendant that the district court erred in
awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs accrued after May
6
Notably, Defendant did not dispute below and does not dispute in its
opening appellate brief that Rule 68’s use of the term "costs," in the con-
text of the present case, includes attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, we assume
arguendo, for purposes of addressing Defendant’s argument on this issue,
that Rule 68’s use of the term "costs," in the context of this case, includes
attorneys’ fees.
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 11
11, 2007, the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. First,
Rule 68, by its plain and unambiguous terms, provides for
entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff on terms specified
in an offer of judgment, plus pre-offer costs (here, including
attorneys’ fees). The contract language to which Plaintiff
points in no way makes attorneys’ fees and costs accrued after
Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment part of the offer of
such offer of judgment. The language upon which Plaintiff
relies says nothing about altering the normal operation of
Rule 68 to allow Plaintiff to recover costs beyond May 11,
2007. Indeed, when the language upon which Plaintiff relies
is read, as it should be, in conjunction with Rule 68, it is clear
that the reference to "the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs"
pertains only to attorneys’ fees and costs accrued as of the
date of the Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. Cf.
Marek, 473 U.S. at 7 (if amount of costs is not specified in
Rule 68 offer of judgment, district court is obliged to calcu-
late costs then accrued under the statute or contract at issue
and add that to the final judgment). In sum, we hold the dis-
trict court erred in awarding Plaintiff post-offer attorneys’
fees and costs. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
final judgment and remand for further proceedings to correct
this error.
IV.
Defendant next contends that, assuming arguendo Plaintiff
is entitled to recover some amount of attorneys’ fees and costs
as a prevailing party on his SOX whistleblower claim, the dis-
trict court abused its discretion in arriving at the amounts
awarded. In this regard, Defendant attacks the district court’s
analysis on numerous grounds. The following three are wor-
thy of us specifically addressing: (1) Plaintiff failed to carry
his burden of proof that the hourly rate sought for each of his
attorneys was reasonable; (2) the district court abused its dis-
cretion when determining the number of hours reasonably
expended by Plaintiff’s attorneys; and (3) the district court’s
finding that the deadlines it imposed required Plaintiff to
12 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
work at a faster pace is clearly erroneous, and thus, the district
court erred by factoring such finding into its Fee Award.7
We review a district court’s award of attorney’s fees for
abuse of discretion. Johnson v. City of Aiken, 278 F.3d 333,
336 (4th Cir. 2002). Indeed, "[o]ur review of the district
court’s award is sharply circumscribed; we have recognized
that because a district court has close and intimate knowledge
of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered,
the fee award must not be overturned unless it is clearly
wrong." Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277-78 (4th Cir. 1990)
(internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration marks
omitted).
Here, the parties agree that in calculating an appropriate
attorneys’ fee award, a district court must first determine the
lodestar amount (reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours
reasonably expended), applying the Johnson/Barber factors
when making its lodestar determination. Barber v. Kimbrell’s
Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978) (adopting twelve fac-
tor test set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), overruled on other
grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989)). See
also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 n.9 (1983)
(approving twelve factors set forth in Johnson); Trimper v.
City of Norfolk, 58 F.3d 68, 73-74 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying
Johnson/Barber factors in reviewing fee award under § 1988).
This court has summarized the Johnson factors to
include: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the
novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the
skill required to properly perform the legal services
rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in
pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee
for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the
7
We reject the remainder of Defendant’s other grounds of attack as
being without merit.
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 13
outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations
imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the
amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9)
the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney;
(10) the undesirability of the case within the legal
community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature
and length of the professional relationship between
attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards
in similar cases.
Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402 n.18 (4th Cir. 1987).
The parties also agree that after calculating the lodestar fig-
ure, the "court then should subtract fees for hours spent on
unsuccessful claims unrelated to successful ones." Johnson v.
City of Aiken, 278 F.3d 333, 337 (4th Cir. 2002). "Once the
court has subtracted the fees incurred for unsuccessful, unre-
lated claims, it then awards some percentage of the remaining
amount, depending on the degree of success enjoyed by the
plaintiff." Id.
Of the three arguments by Defendant in challenge to the
amount of the Fee Award that we specifically address, the
first takes aim at the district court’s determinations as to the
reasonable hourly rates of Plaintiff’s various counsel to be
used in making the lodestar calculation. Essentially, Defen-
dant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of
the district court’s hourly rate determinations.
[D]etermination of the hourly rate will generally be
the critical inquiry in setting the reasonable fee, and
the burden rests with the fee applicant to establish
the reasonableness of a requested rate. In addition to
the attorney’s own affidavits, the fee applicant must
produce satisfactory specific evidence of the prevail-
ing market rates in the relevant community for the
type of work for which he seeks an award. Although
the determination of a market rate in the legal pro-
14 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
fession is inherently problematic, as wide variations
in skill and reputation render the usual laws of sup-
ply and demand largely inapplicable, the Court has
nonetheless emphasized that market rate should
guide the fee inquiry.
Plyler, 902 F.2d at 277 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). See also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11
(1984) (fee applicant must "produce satisfactory evidence—in
addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the requested
rates" align with prevailing rates). "[T]he community in
which the court sits is the first place to look to in evaluating
the prevailing market rate." Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v.
Caperton, 31 F.3d 169, 179 (4th Cir. 1994).
In support of his burden to establish the prevailing market
rate of attorneys’ fees in the relevant community where the
district court sits (i.e., the Eastern District of Virginia), Plain-
tiff: (1) filed attorney billing records and affidavits of his lead
counsel and junior members of the firm representing him; (2)
pointed to several fee awards by courts in other discrimination
cases; and (3) filed a copy of a schedule of prevailing hourly
rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area,
known as the Laffey Matrix, maintained by the United States
Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, pertaining to
the time period June 1, 2003 through May 1, 2004.
Plaintiff’s lead counsel (a partner with Charlson, Bredehoft,
and Cohen, P.C., in Reston, Virginia), Elaine Bredehoft (Lead
Counsel Elaine Bredehoft), was the only attorney who
attested to her own normal billing rate. She was also the only
attorney who attested to the respective normal billing rates of
the other attorneys in her firm. Lead Counsel Elaine Brede-
hoft attested that her normal billing rate from August 15, 2005
until April 30, 2006 was $400.00 per hour, while her normal
billing rate from May 1, 2006 forward was $450.00 per hour.
She also attested as follows to the normal billing rates and the
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 15
years of experience of the following other attorneys in her
firm, during the relevant time period:
TABLE 1
Years’
Name Experience Hourly Rate
Partner Peter Cohen 18-19 $400.00
Associate S. Christian Wickwire 6-7 $350.00
Associate Carla Brown 5-6 $350.00
Associate Anjuma Goswami 2-3 $325.00
Associate Brittany Sakata 1 $300.00
Associate Jennifer Harper 1 $250.00-275.00
Notably, Plaintiff did not file any affidavits of attorneys
outside the firm of Charlson, Bredehoft, and Cohen, P.C.,
regarding the prevailing market rates of attorneys in the East-
ern District of Virginia for similar work.
The two fee awards in the other cases cited by Plaintiff
most helpful to Plaintiff’s position are: Scott v. Hoynanian
Enterprises, Inc., No. 03-1435-A (E.D.Va. Aug. 2004) (preg-
nancy discrimination, retaliation, FMLA and constructive
fraud—$350.00 per hour approved for Lead Counsel Elaine
Bredehoft) and Stiles v. Town of Leesburg, No. 00-628
(E.D.Va. Jan. 2001) (§ 1983 whistleblower retalia-
tion—$290.00 per hour approved for Lead Counsel Elaine
Bredehoft).
The Laffey Matrix submitted by Plaintiff, which the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit has accepted in general as "a useful
starting point" for determining the prevailing hourly rate for
litigation counsel in Washington, D.C., Covington v. District
of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995), lists the
following hourly rates for the time period June 1, 2003
through May 31, 2004:
16 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
TABLE 2
Years’ Experience Hourly Rate
20+ $380.00
11-19 $335.00
8-10 $270.00
4-7 $220.00
1-3 $180.00
In making its loadstar calculations, the district court
applied, without reduction, the hourly rates requested by
Plaintiff. According to Defendant in its Opening Appellate
Brief, Lead Counsel Elaine Bredehoft and Partner Cohen
should charge no more than $300.00 per hour; Associates
Brown and Wickwire no more than $250.00 per hour; Asso-
ciates Goswami and Harper no more than $200.00 per hour;
and Associate Sakata no more than $180.00 per hour.
Keeping in mind our extremely deferential standard of
review in this area, we hold the district court abused its dis-
cretion in basing the Fee Award on the hourly rates requested
by Plaintiff, without reduction. Plaintiff’s prevailing-hourly-
rate evidence is inadequate to support the award. Critically,
beyond the affidavit of Lead Counsel Elaine Bredehoft, Plain-
tiff offered no specific evidence that the hourly rates sought
for his attorneys coincided with the then prevailing market
rates of attorneys in the Eastern District of Virginia of similar
skill and for similar work, which our case law required him
to do. Plyler, 902 F.2d at 277 ("In addition to the attorney’s
own affidavits, the fee applicant must produce satisfactory
specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant
community for the type of work for which he seeks an
award.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
The cases to which Plaintiff points as examples of similar
fee awards in like cases are insufficient to carry Plaintiff’s
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 17
burden of proof. For example, Plaintiff’s best case shows that
Lead Counsel Elaine Bredehoft was awarded $350.00 per
hour in August 2004. In her affidavit, Lead Counsel Elaine
Bredehoft attested that she started billing time on Plaintiff’s
case in August 2005 at $400.00 per hour (a fourteen percent
increase over the $350.00 per hour she charged Plaintiff just
a year earlier) and by May 2006, she billed time on Plaintiff’s
case at $450.00 per hour (a twenty-nine percent increase over
the $350.00 per hour she charged Plaintiff less than two years
earlier). Notably, these percentage increases cannot simply be
attributed to economic inflation for the same time periods.
The annual rate of inflation in the United States for 2005 was
3.39 percent and 3.24 percent for 2006. See Inflation-
Data.com.
Moreover, the Laffey Matrix is also insufficient to carry
Plaintiff’s burden of proof. First, Plaintiff has provided no
evidence that the Laffey Matrix, which pertains to hourly
rates of litigation attorneys in Washington, D.C., is a reliable
indicator of the hourly rates of litigation attorneys in Reston,
Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. Second, even when
adjusted for inflation, every hourly rate requested by Plaintiff
exceeds, in some cases by a significant amount, the hourly
rates listed in the Laffey Matrix.
After considering the parties’ arguments and the entire
record in this case, we hold the district court abused its discre-
tion in applying hourly rates above the following hourly rates:
18 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
TABLE 3
Name Hourly Rate
Partner Elaine Bredehoft $380.00
Partner Peter Cohen $335.00
Associate S. Christian Wickwire $250.00
Associate Carla Brown $250.00
Associate Anjuma Goswami $200.00
Associate Jennifer Harper $200.00
Associate Brittany Sakata $180.00
See Depaoli v. Vacation Sales Assocs., 489 F.3d 615 (4th Cir.
2007) (reducing attorney’s hourly rate from $305.00 and
$325.00 per hour sought by plaintiff to $225.00 per hour
because plaintiff produced no evidence of prevailing market
rate of $305.00 and $325.00 per hour; the only relevant evi-
dence in the case showed that plaintiff’s attorney regularly
charged plaintiff $225.00 per hour). Accordingly, we instruct
the district court on remand to recalculate the Fee Award
using the hourly rates we just set forth in Table 3, supra.
We now turn to Defendant’s argument pertaining to the
number of hours expended by Plaintiff’s attorneys. Defendant
contends that this was a relatively simple case that was over-
staffed and overworked by Plaintiff’s attorneys, who sought
compensation for more than 1,000 hours of attorney time and
more than 250 hours of paralegal time. By way of example of
the unreasonableness of the hours billed, Defendant points to
the more than 100 hours billed for drafting various discovery
motions. As Defendant notes, however, the billing records
indicate that counsel for Plaintiff began billing for the prepa-
ration of a motion to compel three months before discovery
had even begun, and the records further show that counsel
began billing for another motion the day after the relevant dis-
covery request was served. Defendant argues, inter alia, that
GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP. 19
the timing of Plaintiff’s counsel’s preparation of these two
discovery motions shows that Plaintiff billed time in attempts
to contrive discovery disputes. Because the appellate record is
inadequate for us to intelligently address this argument, we
instruct the district court on remand to reconsider the reason-
ableness of the hours claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel, and the
district court should specifically and expressly address Defen-
dant’s arguments regarding Plaintiff’s discovery motions. Per-
haps the district court will explain that it had taken
Defendant’s argument into account in reducing the total
amount of time, labor, and costs by twenty-five percent.
Nonetheless, Defendant has raised enough questions in this
regard to warrant further explanation by the district court.
Finally, we hold the district court clearly erred in finding
that "[t]he deadlines imposed by the court required Plaintiff’s
counsel to work at a faster pace . . . ." (J.A. 1018). Plaintiff
does not dispute Defendant’s assertion in its opening appellate
brief that the deadlines imposed by the district court in this
case were "the standard deadlines for litigating any case in the
Eastern District" of Virginia. (Defendant’s Opening Br. at
55). Accordingly, in recalculating the Fee Award on remand,
the district court should not take into account any notion that
the deadlines imposed by the district court required Plaintiff’s
counsel to work at a faster pace.
V.
In conclusion, we vacate the Fee Award and remand to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with this opin-
ion. On remand, we instruct the district court to recalculate
the Fee Award. In so doing, we instruct the district court to:
(1) clear up the double-counting discrepancy surrounding its
July 9, 2007 award of $4,082.74 in taxable costs in favor of
Plaintiff while seemingly awarding the same amount in the
Fee Award; (2) not award Plaintiff any attorneys’ fees or costs
accrued after May 11, 2007; (3) recalculate the Fee Award
using the hourly rates we set forth in Table 3, supra; (4)
20 GRISSOM v. THE MILLS CORP.
reconsider the reasonableness of the hours sought and specifi-
cally and expressly address Defendant’s argument regarding
Plaintiff’s discovery motions; and (5) not take into account
any notion that the deadlines posed by the district court
required Plaintiff’s counsel to work at a faster pace than oth-
erwise required in the Eastern District of Virginia.
VACATED AND REMANDED