Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01258-LTB-BNB

Document 154

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 04-cv-1258 -LTB-BNB STUDENT MARKETING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP, INC., f/k/a COLLEGE BOUND STUDENT ALLIANCE, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO SURREPLY ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendant College Partnership, Inc. ("College Partnership"), by and through its counsel, Brian K. Matise of the law firm of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., hereby respectfully requests an order to allow Defendant an extension of time to file a supplement to its surreply to include the results of an audit of the billing records submitted by Student Marketing Group. As grounds therefore, Defendant states as follows:

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1, Rosemary Orsini, counsel for Defendant conferred telephonically with Dianna Karg, counsel for Plaintiff, on October 25, 2005. Ms. Karg originally stated that Plaintiff opposed the motion, but then stated that she would discuss the matter with her client, and that if Defendant did not receive a response from her, it would be opposed. As of the time

Case 1:04-cv-01258-LTB-BNB

Document 154

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 2 of 5

of filing, there has been no response. Therefore according to Ms. Karg's instructions, the motion is presumed to be opposed.

MOTION 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees in this matter. However, the Motion for

Attorney Fees did not include an itemized list of the tasks for which Plaintiff was seeking fees and the hours spent on each. 2. College Partnership, in its Response Brief, objected to the Motion for Attorney Fees

in part on the grounds that it was impossible to determine whether the number of hours billed was reasonable. The number of hours billed by Plaintiff's counsel as listed in its Reply Brief on the Motion for Attorney Fees (1,086 hours consisting of 260 hours of Senior Partner time, 17 hours of Partner time, 676 hours of Associate Attorney time, and 133 hours of Paralegal time) exceeded the number of hours billed by College Partnership in this litigation ( 640 hours, consisting of 33 hours of Senior Partner time, 254 hours of Partner time, 352 hours of Associate time, and 1 hour of Legal Assistant time) by nearly a factor two. When combined with the much higher hourly rates of Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's fee request was more than 2 ½ times as great as Defendants' attorney fees in this matter. 3. Plaintiff filed its Reply Brief on October 19, 2005. Included as an exhibit to the

Reply was, for the first time, an 85-page detailed list of time entries for Plaintiffs'Pennsylvania counsel and local counsel, together with an itemization of costs. 4. College Partnership's preliminary review of the detailed time entries indicates that

one of the reasons for the large attorney fee request is duplicative and excessive billings. -2-

Case 1:04-cv-01258-LTB-BNB

Document 154

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 3 of 5

Accordingly, College Partnership seeks to have the attorney fee records audited by a respected nationwide legal auditing firm, Stuart, Maue, Mitchell & James, Ltd. ("Stuart Maue"). College Partnership is paying the cost of this audit. This audit will allow the duplicative and excessive billings to be identified and compiled in a form that will assist the Court to objectively evaluate the amount of excessive fees. College Partnership could not previously conduct this analysis before submitting its response brief because SMG did not provide the information until it submitted its Reply Brief on October 19, 2005. 5. College Partnership promptly submitted SMG's records to Stuart Maue the day after

it obtained them from Plaintiff. However, Stuart Maue requires at least three weeks to complete the audit. See Affidavit of John Trunko, attached as Exhibit 1. 6. The briefing schedule set by the Court in this matter provides that College Partnership

shall submit its surreply on or before October 26, 2005. However, the audit will not be completed by then. College Partnership requests an extension of time to supplement its surreply by including the results of the audit when complete. Accordingly, College Partnership seeks leave of the Court to submit the results of the audit as a supplement on or before November 24, 2005. 7. Pursuant to Local Rule D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1 (D), a copy of this Motion is being

served on all counsel of record and the moving party's client. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting Defendant an extension of time to file and serve on or before November 24, 2005 a supplement to its surreply to include the results of the audit being performed by Stuart Maue.

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01258-LTB-BNB

Document 154

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 4 of 5

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

Respectfully submitted, BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.

/s/ Rosemary Orsini Rosemary Orsini 40 Inverness Drive East Englewood, Colorado 80112 Telephone: (303) 792-5595 Facsimile: (303) 708-0527 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of October, 2005, I served a true and complete copy of the foregoing by depositing same in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following:

R. Daniel Scheid, Esq. Lewis Meyers & Schied, LLC 2300 15th St., # 320 Denver, CO 80202 Patrick J. McElhinny, Admission Pending Dianna S. Karg, Admission Pending Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 535 Smithfield St. Henry W. Oliver Building Pittsburgh, PA 15222

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-01258-LTB-BNB

Document 154

Filed 10/25/2005

Page 5 of 5

Mr. John J. Grace Dr. Janice Jones College Partnership, Inc. 333 S. Allison Parkway, Suite 100 Lakewood, CO 80226

/s/ Karen S. Field

-5-