Laserfiche WebLink
~1 • <br />• <br />accordingly. thus requiring less time than defendants' attor- <br />neys in fact devoted to the case; and (2) that the hourly <br />rates charged (SiCC/hour for four attorneys with nine to <br />thirteen years of practice; S75/hour for two attorneys with <br />six years of practice; f30/hour for two legal assistants) <br />"appear to be in excess of a reasonable rate for similar ser- <br />vices ....~ Affidavit of John P. Tracy at 1 para. 4. These <br />two points are addressed in cyder below. <br />I. <br />THE AMOUNT OF TINE EXPENDED BY DEFEN- <br />DANTS` ATTORNEYS WAS REASONABLE AND <br />NECESSARY, BCTH AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC <br />POLICY AND AS A CIRECT CCNSEOUENCE <br />OF THE MANNER IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS CON- <br />DUCTED THEIR CASE. <br />Plaintiffs appear to argue that the relatively small <br />penalty assessed against them (which they have contended <br />throughout was "excessive"). and the fact that both the <br />suit and plaintiffs' conduct of it were found to be frivo- <br />lour. somehow demonstrate that the time devoted to the case <br />over the course of 17 months of litigation was unreasonable. <br />The first and most important point that is ignored by <br />plaintiffs' theory is that litigation such as this invclves <br />important public policy considerations and obligations <br />extending well beyond such concerns as the art.ount in centro- <br />-2- <br />