Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 780

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE ELECTRONICALLY FILED GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS and TIMOTHY LOVE, ET AL. INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS v. STEVE BESHEAR, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-750-JGH

*********** PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS I. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $66,235.00, which encompasses a total of $30,635.00 for the Fauver law office, and $35,600.00 for Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC, and $453.00 in costs. II. FACTS Shortly after the Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor, Plaintiffs filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enforce their federal constitutional right to have their valid marriages recognized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. After filing briefs and the supporting testimony, this Court unequivocally held that the challenged statutes were in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs have thus far won a complete victory, and received precisely the relief they requested. Since this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Defendant Attorney General has publicly admitted that the laws challenged in

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 781

this case are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that this Court “got it right.”

III. AUTHORITY A. Plaintiffs are the “Prevailing Party” for the Purposes of Determining Attorneys’ Fees This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prevailing parties under Section 1983 are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. “[P]laintiffs may be considered ‘prevailing parties’ for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983). Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified. In these circumstances the fee award should not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit. Id. at 435. Whether or not Plaintiffs succeeded on every claim or every motion is unimportant—“[t]he result is what matters.” Id. This fee should not be reduced "simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit." But if the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the court should reduce the award accordingly. Harper v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 3 Fed. Appx. 204, 207 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hensley). It is hard to imagine a more favorable result for the Plaintiffs in this case. Although counsel is not requesting enhanced fees, this case should be considered an exceptional success.

B. The Appropriate Method for Determining Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees is the Lodestar Approach The lodestar approach is used to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-37 (1983). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Morales v. City of

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 782

San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts consider the following factors: the novelty and complexity of the issues; the special skill and experience of counsel; the quality of representation; the results obtained; and the contingent nature of the fee agreement. Id. at 364. All of the lodestar facts support awarding Plaintiffs their full attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated a novel issue of law that required specialized skill and experience in several areas of law, including family law and constitutional law. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided high-quality representation, achieving a complete victory within a year of filing.

C. The Hours and Rates Requested by Plaintiffs are Reasonable Counsel requests compensation for 275.54 hours spent litigating this case. The rates and hours expended by counsel are reasonable.

1. Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable Given counsels’ extensive expertise in civil rights, constitutional rights, and other civil litigation, these rates are commensurate or below what is charged by attorneys of like experience in the Louisville legal community. See Affidavits of Paul Hershberg and Gregory Belzley, attached hereto. Compared to other federal litigation involving constitutional claims, these hourly rates are reasonable. For example, in Maxwell's Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34596, 11 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 12, 2013) this Court awarded attorneys hourly rates ranging from “$475 - $180 for attorneys and $200 to $150 for paralegals.” In that case, the Court said: Plaintiffs claim that their success in this case, the difficulty of the issues involved including a rigorous Equal Protection Clause standard to surmount, and the level of legal skill and experience Plaintiffs' attorneys, paralegals, and librarian brought to this case, cumulatively justify this award. In support of their rates, Plaintiffs further argue that these that they have charged their client for their services. Plaintiffs support their rates with affidavits from two of the most prominent attorneys in this area, both of whom claim that Plaintiffs' rates are reasonable. Id., pp.11-13. Thus, the Dehner case is readily comparable to the instant case. This Court went on to state:

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 783

As shown above, this Court has previously awarded rates between $200 and $305 for attorney's fees under § 1988. For attorneys with a higher level of skill and experience, the rate was at the higher end of this range. There is no evidence that these attorneys forewent other opportunities to handle this dispute. Nevertheless, the time spent and the results obtained are significant enough to justify an extension beyond the higher end of that range. Accordingly, the Court will reduce each attorney's rate by 25%, using the attorney's 2011 rate as the basis for the reduction and rounding up to the nearest dollar figure. Thus making the highest rate $342 per hour. The Court finds these rates aligned with the value of the quality of work and the complexity of the case, and are therefore reasonable. Id., at 15. The Court's comprehensive analysis throughout Dehner is helpful to the resolution of this issue.

2. The hours expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel are reasonable Not only are the rates reasonable, but the time expended to achieve the results in this case was moderate. Conferences and other consultations were kept to a minimum. Work was clearly divided between the attorneys, each taking specific responsibilities for the tasks at hand. The attorneys carefully edited all briefs, resulting in high-quality legal memoranda that clearly and succinctly identified the novel issues to be decided by the Court, and managed a group of eight clients who were originally split into two different cases. Additionally, there was extensive media contact in this case, which necessitated the time and attention of counsel as well. Counsel has not billed for the entirety of this contact (which would be nearly possible to catalogue). The time spent on the case is broken down in the time records attached to this Motion (i.e., an invoice for attorneys Landenwich, Canon, and Dunman, a spreadsheet for the Fauver Law Office, and the affidavit of Mr. Winner). The time reflects the significant effort spent briefing the pleadings and memoranda in this case as well as preparing for hearings and managing client contact. To take timely action, counsel had to place other work aside to quickly prepare this case. The legal issues were unique and significant. Research and briefing was required on a variety of novel legal issues, including, among others: the application of the federal right to travel; the interplay between sexual orientation discrimination, sex discrimination, and the federal Constitution; the operation of the Kentucky state

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 784

constitution; the Supremacy Clause; the role of the Establishment Clause, etc. Significant briefing occurred on two separate occasions. See Dkt. Nos. 38, 40, 46. It should be noted that the law regarding the claims brought by Plaintiffs involved not only a great deal of historical and legislative research, but also required counsel to stay abreast of a rapidly changing legal landscape. As this Court is well aware, since the Windsor opinion, there have been several opinions issued by district courts, all reaching slightly different conclusions, and all briefed under (sometimes substantially) different legal theories using different approaches. These nuances have left counsel on terra incognito, and have required perhaps more research than the average 1983 case. In addition, the intervention of the Family Foundation as amicus, and their brief, required counsel to research social, cultural, and psychological issues (i.e., to engage in “Brandeis briefing”) which would normally not be required in federal litigation. Thus, the hours spent on the case are reasonable given the novelty and complexity of legal issues involved, the compressed schedule and the complete victory obtained for the Plaintiffs.

IV. ATTORNEYS’ OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES All litigation expenses in civil rights cases, including out-of-pocket expenses, are recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as long as the expenses were reasonable and necessary to the litigation of plaintiff’s claims and are not normally billed to the lawyer’s paying clients as overhead. Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d at 559-60 (photocopying, postage, telephone, etc.). “The Act [42 U.S.C. § 1988] essentially shifts the costs of litigation from the victim to the violator.” Spell v. McDaniel, 616 F. Supp. 1069, 1113 (E.D.N.C. 1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 824 F.2d 1380, (4th Cir. 1987), cert. den. sub nom. City of Fayetteville v. Spell, 484 U.S. 1027 (1988). In this case, counsel does not seek travel expenses, meals, copies, phone charges, paralegal time, or anything of the sort. Plaintiffs simply seek to recoup their original filing fee and the expense of ordering videos from the Legislative Research Commission regarding the legislative history of the

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 785

discriminatory constitutional amendment at issue in this case. These are quite modest expenses.

V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $66,235.00 and $453.00 in costs, totaling $66,688.00.

Respectfully submitted, s/Daniel J. Canon Daniel J. Canon Laura E. Landenwich L. Joe Dunman Louis P. Winner CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC Meidinger Tower, Suite 101 462 S. Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 561-2005 www.justiceky.com Counsel for all Plaintiffs

Shannon Fauver Dawn Elliott FAUVER LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1752 Frankfort Ave. Louisville , KY 40206 (502) 569-7710 www. fauverlaw.com Counsel for all Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 11, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Clay A. Barkley Brian Judy Assistant Attorney Generals Office of the Attorney General Suite 118 700 Capital Avenue Frankfort, KY 40601 Counsel for Defendants Steve Beshear and Jack Conway

/s/ Daniel J. Canon

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 786

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 787

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 788

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 789

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 790

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 791

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 792

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 793

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 794

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 795

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 796

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 797

Date

Matter

Description

User

Rate

Total

02/28/2013

00837-Bourke

Prep/research & telephonic hearing on Motion to Stay; corresp w counsel; media contact Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.00

$250.00

$750.00

10/09/2013

00837-Bourke

Receipt and review: Case pleadings; other case pleadings Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 2.20

$250.00

$550.00

10/18/2013

00837-Bourke

Corresp w Fauver, review pleadings and MTD, consult w/LEL & LPW, preliminary research Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$250.00

$250.00

10/21/2013

00837-Bourke

Meeting with Shannon and Dawn to discuss case [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$200.00

$300.00

10/21/2013

00837-Bourke

Meeting with co-counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 1.20

$250.00

$300.00

10/22/2013

00837-Bourke

Review pleadings, revise documentation and research Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$250.00

$250.00

10/23/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange regarding procedural steps w/ Canon & Landenwich [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.20

$200.00

$40.00

10/28/2013

00837-Bourke

Research legislative history of KRS 402.020 et seq., Const 233A; email w/ Canon [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$200.00

$300.00

10/28/2013

00837-Bourke

Review final draft of Second Amend Complaint [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$200.00

$100.00

10/28/2013

00837-Bourke

Research & draft amended complaint Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$250.00

$500.00

10/28/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft: Mot Restyle; Mot Leave, Second Amended Complaint Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 1.20

$250.00

$300.00

10/29/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft initial affidavits of clients based on Fauver email notes [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

10/29/2013

00837-Bourke

Research FRCP 5.1 re constitutional challenge; draft notice to USAG

Dan Canon

$250.00

$125.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 798
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

Billed on Invoice 798 0.50

10/29/2013

00837-Bourke

Research and draft amd complaint Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$250.00

$500.00

10/30/2013

00837-Bourke

Research and revise 2nd am complaint Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$250.00

$500.00

11/01/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft: 2nd amended complaint Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 0.80

$250.00

$200.00

11/08/2013

00837-Bourke

Corresp w counsel & clients Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

11/12/2013

00837-Bourke

Meeting at Fauver office to interview clients for affidavits [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$200.00

$400.00

11/12/2013

00837-Bourke

Meet w clients, gather info for affidavits Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$250.00

$500.00

11/20/2013

00837-Bourke

Review draft Joint Scheduling Order, email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

11/25/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Landenwich re: Entry of Appearance [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.00

$200.00

$0.00

11/26/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Goodman re: Entry of Appearance; filing of Entry of Appearance [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.20

$200.00

$40.00

11/27/2013

00837-Bourke

Review affidavits drafted and finalized by Chambers [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.80

$200.00

$160.00

11/27/2013

00837-Bourke

Review Ohio ruling Obergefell; email exchange w/ Winner, Canon & Landenwich [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$200.00

$300.00

12/02/2013

00837-Bourke

Review Answer to 2nd Amend Complaint from Defendants [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 799
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

12/02/2013

00837-Bourke

Corresp w clients and counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$250.00

$75.00

12/02/2013

00837-Bourke

Review amd answer Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$250.00

$75.00

12/04/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich re: MSJ arguments [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

12/05/2013

00837-Bourke

Review research results from Canon re: Windsor doctrine; email w/Canon; Review legislative video [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.50

$200.00

$500.00

12/05/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft Equal Prot & Due Process section of MSJ memo [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 4.00

$200.00

$800.00

12/05/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.00

$250.00

$750.00

12/06/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft Equal Prot & Due Process section of MSJ memo [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 6.00

$200.00

$1,200.00

12/06/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.00

$250.00

$750.00

12/06/2013

00837-Bourke

Research Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 1.20

$250.00

$300.00

12/08/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Fauver re: Federal SSM benefits [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

12/08/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft MSJ; review and revise co-counsel's portions Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 4.00

$250.00

$1,000.00

12/09/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange regarding affidavit execution w/ Canon & Landenwich [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

12/09/2013

00837-Bourke

Review and revise affidavits Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$250.00

$75.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 800
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

12/09/2013

00837-Bourke

Research: Legislative history; Establishment clause Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 3.00

$250.00

$750.00

12/09/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft, edit, and finalize pleading: MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 2.00

$250.00

$500.00

12/13/2013

00837-Bourke

Review affidavits and secure approval; corresp w clients and counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$250.00

$75.00

12/15/2013

00837-Bourke

Email exchange regarding draft of MSJ w/ Canon & Landenwich [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

12/15/2013

00837-Bourke

Research; write introduction to MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$250.00

$250.00

12/15/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft: MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 6.00

$250.00

$1,500.00

12/16/2013

00837-Bourke

Review, edit, and finalize MSJ and Memo in Support; File w/ court [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 6.00

$200.00

$1,200.00

12/16/2013

00837-Bourke

Meet w counsel; final review & revision of MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.50

$250.00

$625.00

12/16/2013

00837-Bourke

Review and edit MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$250.00

$375.00

12/16/2013

00837-Bourke

Compile exhibits, finalize, and file MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.80

$250.00

$200.00

12/16/2013

00837-Bourke

Draft: MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 8.20

$250.00

$2,050.00

12/17/2013

00837-Bourke

Review, copy, submit as exhibit to court legislative video [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$200.00

$300.00

01/01/2014

00837-Bourke

Review AG response Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$250.00

$250.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 801
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

01/02/2014

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich re: supplemental exhibits [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/13/2014

00837-Bourke

Review Defendants' Response to MSJ [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$200.00

$100.00

01/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwhich re: Reply to Defendants' Response to MSJ; Review email from Amicus re: proposed brief; meeting w/ Canon & Landenwich to discuss response [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

01/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Final review of Reply to Defendants' Response to MSJ [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

01/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Review & revise reply brief; corresp w counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

01/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Receipt and review: Response to MSJ Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

01/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Draft: Reply Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

01/16/2014

00837-Bourke

Review motion for leave to file Amicus Brief by Family Foundation [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/16/2014

00837-Bourke

Review mtn for leave to file amicus, research, discuss w/ counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

01/17/2014

00837-Bourke

Review of Order granting Amicus leave to file brief [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/17/2014

00837-Bourke

Review of Amicus Brief filed by Family Foundation [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$200.00

$100.00

01/17/2014

00837-Bourke

Receipt and review: Amicus brief; research psychological analysis Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 0.80

$250.00

$200.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 802
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

01/20/2014

00837-Bourke

Email exchange w/ Canon & Landenwich re: potential law clerk assistance on case [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/21/2014

00837-Bourke

Review of Acknowledgement of Constitutional Challenge from US DOJ [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/23/2014

00837-Bourke

Review of Order granting Plaintiffs' leave to respond to Amicus Brief [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

01/24/2014

00837-Bourke

Research and draft response to Amicus Brief; submit to Landenwich for inclusion [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.50

$200.00

$700.00

02/02/2014

00837-Bourke

Draft: Response to Amicus brief/research Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 2.20

$250.00

$550.00

02/03/2014

00837-Bourke

Review and edit Landenwich draft of Response to Amicus [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$200.00

$400.00

02/03/2014

00837-Bourke

Review & revise response to amicus brief, research, draft introduction & conclusion Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.50

$250.00

$375.00

02/03/2014

00837-Bourke

Draft: Response to Amicus Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 6.80

$250.00

$1,700.00

02/12/2014

00837-Bourke

Review advanced copy of Memorandum Opinion filed by Judge Heyburn [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

02/12/2014

00837-Bourke

Meeting w/ Canon & Landenwich to discuss Memorandum Order and next steps [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

02/12/2014

00837-Bourke

Press conferences and interviews re: Judge Heyburn's opinion. [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.50

$200.00

$700.00

02/12/2014

00837-Bourke

Receive and review opinion; filed various media contacts, meet w clients & counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 6.00

$250.00

$1,500.00

02/13/2014

00837-Bourke

Meeting with Intervening Plaintiffs to discuss procedural steps [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 803
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

02/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Final review of Mot to Intervene and Mot for Prelim Injunction & associate docs [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

02/14/2014

00837-Bourke

Press conferences and media interviews RE: Mot to Intervene [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$200.00

$400.00

02/19/2014

00837-Bourke

Review Order for Conference; email exchange re: attendance at Conference [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$200.00

$100.00

02/26/2014

00837-Bourke

Attend Conference w/ Judge regarding Motion to Intervene and effect of Final Order [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$200.00

$400.00

02/26/2014

00837-Bourke

Prep hearing for prelim inj/intervention; attend hearing; media contact Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 4.00

$250.00

$1,000.00

02/26/2014

00837-Bourke

Preparation for and Appearance at Hearing Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 1.20

$250.00

$300.00

02/27/2014

00837-Bourke

Review Motion for Stay filed by Defendants; Review Order granting Mot to Intervene; review Order denying injunction; Email exchange regarding attendance at Conference re: Mot to Stay; Review Order for Conference [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.20

$200.00

$240.00

02/27/2014

00837-Bourke

Press interview re: Mot to Stay [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Review of Order modifying style of the case to Love v. Beshear [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.10

$200.00

$20.00

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Press conference w/ media re: Mot to Stay and conference [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Attend Conference w/ Judge re: Mot to Stay [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 2.00

$200.00

$400.00

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Review Order Granting Mot to Stay [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.30

$200.00

$60.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-3 Filed 03/11/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 804
Date Matter Description User Rate Total

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Phone interview with media re: Order granting Stay [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$200.00

$100.00

02/28/2014

00837-Bourke

Research re stay requirements, prep for hearing, telephonic hearing Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 3.20

$250.00

$800.00

03/04/2014

00837-Bourke

Press interviews [JD] Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 1.00

$200.00

$200.00

03/04/2014

00837-Bourke

Prepare attorney fee petition and affidavits Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 3.00

$250.00

$750.00

03/06/2014

00837-Bourke

Receipt and review: Opinion and Order Billed on Invoice 798

Laura Landenwich 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

10/24/2014

00837-Bourke

Contact w county attorneys re: dismissal of clerks; review proposed motion from Stephanie French; conf w counsel Billed on Invoice 798

Dan Canon 0.50

$250.00

$125.00

146.00

$33,675.00

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 805

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 806

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 807

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-4 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 808

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 809

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 810

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 811

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-5 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 812

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 813

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 814

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 815

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-6 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 816

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-7 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 817

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-7 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 818

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 60-8 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 819

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE ELECTRONICALLY FILED TIMOTHY LOVE, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-750-JGH

STEVE BESHEAR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

************ ORDER Upon motion of the Plaintiffs, having reviewed the affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and having reviewed this file in its entirety the Court finds that the Defendant(s) are hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff's attorneys, Daniel J. Canon, Laura E. Landenwich, L. Joe Dunman, Louis P. Winner, Shannon Fauver, and Dawn Elliott the sum of $66,235.00 in attorneys fees and $453.00 in costs. This is a final and appealable Order and there is no just cause for delay in its entry.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful