Case 1:22-cv-02246-JPH-MKK Document 233 Filed 02/21/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3064

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

RENEE GABET and )

)
ANNIE OAKLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
) No. 1:22-cv-02246-JPH-MKK
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-vs.-
)
)
AMAZON.COM, INC., and
)
JOHN DOES 1-50,
)
Defendants. )
)

MOTION DETAILING FEES AND COSTS INCURRED

BY AMAZON.COM, INC. IN OPPOSING DOCKET 225
Case 1:22-cv-02246-JPH-MKK Document 233 Filed 02/21/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3065

Pursuant to the Court’s February 7, 2024 Order (Dkt. 230), Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.

respectfully submits this motion detailing its fees and costs incurred in opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion

for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas to Becky Burke, Vickie Musselman, George

Pappas and the Notice of Deposition of Chuck Gabet (Dkt. 225) (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). Amazon

seeks $15,976 in fees but does not seek to recover its costs. Grounds for the motion are set forth

in the accompanying brief and Declaration of Klaus H. Hamm, and are summarized below:

1. The Court’s February 7, 2024, Order denied Plaintiffs’ Motion and held it was not

substantially justified. The Order states that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) “mandates the Court award

the prevailing party its fees and costs in opposing or seeking a protective order unless the losing

side, after being given an opportunity to be heard, was substantially justified in taking its position.”

(Dkt. 230 at 6.) The Order stated that Plaintiffs’ “combined motion for a protective order and

motion to quash was not substantially justified.” (Id.) The Order additionally noted that Plaintiffs’

Motion “violated local rules, was filed in the wrong district … and demonstrated a lack of

transparency regarding the facts of the case and the relevant law” (Id.).

2. The Order required Amazon to submit within 14 days a motion detailing its fees

and costs incurred in opposing Docket 225. (Id. at 6–7.)

3. Amazon’s fees, reflected in the lodestar analysis of the number of hours expended

multiplied by the billing rate, are reasonable in both the number of hours spent (which are prorated

by Amazon by the individual task performed) and the attorneys’ billing rates, which are less than

the attorneys’ current standard billing rate. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch.

Dist. No. 205, 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding “[t]he attorney’s actual billing rate …

is presumptively appropriate”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

-1-
Case 1:22-cv-02246-JPH-MKK Document 233 Filed 02/21/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3066

4. In support of this motion, Amazon provides the billing entries of the two attorneys

involved in the preparation of Amazon’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion.

5. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief and

supporting declaration, Amazon respectfully requests an award of its reasonable fees incurred in

opposing Docket 225, namely $15,976 in attorneys’ fees incurred from January 29, 2024, to

February 2, 2024, as supported by Amazon’s counsel’s billing records.

February 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Klaus H. Hamm

Robert T. Cruzen (Admitted pro hac vice)
Klaus H. Hamm (Admitted pro hac vice )
Caroline L. Desmond (Admitted pro hac vice)
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 595-5300
Fax: (503) 595-5301
rob.cruzen@klarquist.com
klaus.hamm@klarquist.com
caroline.desmond@klarquist.com

Counsel for Defendant

AMAZON.COM, INC.

-2-