3:13-cv-24068 #146

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH

ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM

GLAVARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH

MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON,

individually and as next friends of A.S.M., a minor

child;

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity as

CABEL COUNTY CLERK; and VERA J.

MCCORMICK, in her official capacity as

KANAWHA COUNTY CLERK;

Defendants,

and

STATE of WEST VIRGINIA,

Intervenor-Defendant.

No. 3:13-cv-24068

Hon. Robert Chambers

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum in support in support of their Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).

Based on this memorandum, the attached supporting materials, and the record in this case,

Plaintiffs seek a total sum of $350,256.19 in fees, expenses, and costs.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146 Filed 12/02/14 of 20 PageID #: 4635

2

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

overturning West Virginia Code section 48-2-104 and 48-2-4021, as well as “any other sources

of West Virginia law that exclude same-sex couples from marriage” (collectively, the “marriage

ban”), and permitting same-sex couples to marry. The marriage ban required that each marriage

license contain the names of “both the female and the male parties” and must contain the

statement that “[m]arriage is designed to be a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a

man.” W. Va. Code § 48-2-104(a), (c).

Plaintiffs are six gay and lesbian West Virginians, comprising three same-sex adult

couples: Casie Joe McGee and Sarah Elizabeth Adkins; Justin Murdock and William Glavaris;

and Nancy Elizabeth Michael and Jane Louise Fenton, and A.S.M., their minor child. Plaintiffs

sued Karen S. Cole and Vera J. McCormick in their official capacities as Cabell County Clerk

and Kanawha County Clerk, respectively. The State of West Virginia intervened as a defendant

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1(c) and 24(a).

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40),

alleging that the marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the

Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Docs. 26, 31, 85), as well as

motions for summary judgment (Docs. 62, 66).

On June 10, 2014, the Court stayed the case pending a decision from the Fourth Circuit in

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). (Doc. 125) In Bostic, the Fourth Circuit held

that Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Id. at 384. The Supreme Court

denied review in Bostic on October 6, 2014. Rainey v. Bostic, 135 S. Ct. 286 (2014); Schaefer v.

Bostic, 135 S. Ct. 308 (2014).


3

On November 7, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and

denied Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 140).

The Court concluded that the marriage ban “directly violate[s] the due process and equal

protection rights of same-sex couples” (id., slip op. at 18) and accordingly “grant[ed] the

Plaintiffs’ requested relief” and declared the marriage can unconstitutional (id. at 20).

On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to extend the time in which

to file a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and other costs. (Doc. 143). The Court granted the

motion and extended the deadline for filing a petition for fees and costs to December 2, 2014.

Plaintiffs are undoubtedly the prevailing parties in this case, and accordingly, they now

seek attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs for their success in this action.

ARGUMENT

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, alleging violations of 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Doc.

140). As a result, Plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to attorneys’ fees. As Congress has

provided: “In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982,

1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party,

other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §

1988(b). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that the enforcement of federal

civil rights laws depends upon “private litigation as a means of securing compliance with the

law.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-02 (1968). The availability of fee

awards for prevailing parties is critical if private parties are to undertake litigation to vindicate

the civil rights laws. See id. The purpose of providing for an award of such fees and expenses to

prevailing parties is to encourage “‘private litigants to act as ‘private attorneys general’ in


4

seeking to vindicate the civil rights laws. . . . ‘Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to

enforce the fundamental rights involved. The awards are a necessary means of enabling private

citizens to vindicate these Federal rights.’” Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240, 245 (D.C.

Cir. 1982) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-295 at 40 (1975), 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 774, 807).

As the Fourth Circuit has held, “[i]n light of Section 1988’s language and purpose, a

prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances

would render such an award unjust.” Lefemine v. Wideman, 758 F.3d 551, 555 (4th Cir. 2014)

(quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).

I. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to the Requested Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

A. Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties.

The Supreme Court has held that civil rights parties are prevailing parties “if they

succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties

sought.” Texas State Teachers Ass’n. v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989)

(quotation marks omitted); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 756-58 (1980). Plaintiffs here

succeeded on every significant issue in litigation: the marriage ban has been struck as

unconstitutional, and Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment (raising various

merits and procedural arguments) were denied. Plaintiffs are clearly the prevailing parties in this

case.

B. Plaintiffs’ Fees are Reasonable.

The only remaining question is whether the fees sought are reasonable. As explained

below, the fees, expenses, and costs that Plaintiffs seek are reasonable for litigation of this type

and scope.


5

An award of attorneys’ fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which is determined

by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable

hourly rate.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar “is presumed to be the reasonable fee,” Blum, 465 U.S. at

897; accord People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996), and

“includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a reasonable attorneys’ fee.”

Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566 (1986),

supplemented by 487 U.S. 711 (1987); see also Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Hurst,

No. 3:03-cv-2281, 2011 WL 3563295, at *10 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 11, 2011).

Two issues are addressed below demonstrating the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ requested

fees: 1) the reasonable number of hours expended by Plaintiffs’ attorneys to litigate this case;

and 2) the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ counsel. As explained further below, both the hours

incurred and the rates charged were reasonable for a case of this nature.

1. Plaintiffs Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours.

As the Court noted, this case is “one of many proceeding through the federal courts to

challenge same-sex marriage bans in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in

Windsor, decided just over one year ago.” (Doc. 140, slip op. at 1). This case involved a

“fundamental right”—the right given to every individual to exercise choice in the “important

relationship” of marriage. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiffs thus appropriately hired experienced attorneys who have substantial experience

in civil rights cases, including gay and lesbian rights. Declaration of Paul M. Smith (“Smith

Decl.”) ¶ 2 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). For example, Plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case have

represented clients in numerous prior suits challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage


6

bans.1 Mr. Smith has extensive litigation experience, having argued fifteen cases in the United

States Supreme Court, including the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.

558. See Smith Decl. ¶ 3. Lambda Legal was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620

(1996), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing sexual orientation

discrimination. See Declaration of Camilla B. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”) ¶ 2 & n.1 (attached hereto

as Exhibit C).

The extensive experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel, particularly in cases challenging

discrimination against gay and lesbian clients, made them well-suited to these responsibilities.

1 See, e.g., Sevcik v. Sandoval, __F.3d __, No. 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir.

Nov. 6, 2014) (holding Nevada’s marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648

(7th Cir. 2014) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d

352 (4th Cir. 2014) (counsel for intervening appellee class of Virginia same-sex couples)

(holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L.

Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub nom.

McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio

2014) (invalidating Ohio’s ban on recognition of same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages),

rev’d sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, __F.3d__, No. 14-3464, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014), cert

petition pending; Condon v. Haley, __F.Supp.3d __, No. 2:14–4010–RMG, 2014 WL 5897175

(D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolina’s marriage ban unconstitutional), appeal

pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, __F.Supp.3d__, No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG, 2014 WL

5361987 (D.P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Rico’s marriage ban), appeal pending;

Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (holding Arizona’s marriage ban

unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014), appeal and cert

petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (holding

Illinois’ marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL 6355918 (N.D.

Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex couple to marry);

Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013) (holding New

Jersey’s marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009)

(holding Iowa’s marriage ban unconstitutional); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)

(holding California’s marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)

(finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-19718 (Ill.

Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois’ marriage ban); Inniss v. Aderhold, No.

1:14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgia’s marriage ban);

Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9, 2014)

(challenging North Dakota’s marriage ban).


7

Given the importance of the issues presented in this case, and the fact that Plaintiffs’ lawyers had

handled similar cases in the past (and thus could perform their duties more efficiently than

counsel with less experience in this area of law), Plaintiffs were quite reasonable in retaining

attorneys from Lambda Legal and Jenner & Block to advance their interests throughout the

course of this litigation.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers also leanly staffed this case, working to avoid duplication of effort and

using attorneys with appropriate levels of experience to handle the various litigation tasks. See

Smith Decl. ¶¶ 4-8. In order to avoid unnecessary or duplicative work or the inefficient use of

resources, responsibilities in this case were allocated among several different attorneys only

when necessary, and according to the experience and expertise of each attorney. See id. For

example, the work required to locate suitable plaintiffs was performed by Lambda Legal, which

has considerable expertise in that area, see Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & n.1; and significant portions of

the briefing in this case were performed by Nicholas Tarasen and Trent McCotter, both of whom

are junior associates at Jenner & Block, see Smith Decl. ¶ 5; and the majority of this motion for

fees was prepared by Mr. McCotter, see id.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking compensation for the hours and legal work listed in the

time sheets and invoices attached to the Declaration of Paul M. Smith, Affidavit of John H.

Tinney, Jr. (“Tinney Aff.”) (attached hereto as Exhibit B), Declaration of Camilla B. Taylor,

Declaration of Karen L. Loewy (“Loewy Decl.”) (attached hereto as Exhibit D), Affidavit of

Elizabeth Littrell (“Littrell Aff.”) (attached hereto as Exhibit E). As noted above, these fees

pertain to work performed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout the course of this intensive

litigation, which included, among other things: preparing and filing a motion for summary

judgment; responding to Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment;


8

attending a scheduling conference; preparing and filing briefs on the issue of staying the case

pending Bostic; and ultimately obtaining a favorable final judgment.

Based on contemporaneous time records, Plaintiffs’ attorneys and paralegal and legal

support staff spent the following hours working on this case (as verified and substantiated in

detail in the attached Declarations and Affidavits of Smith, Tinney, Taylor, Loewy, and

Littrell):2

ATTORNEY HOURS

Paul M. Smith 22.5

Lindsay C. Harrison 91.25

R. Trent McCotter 95.75

Nicholas W. Tarasen 147.75

John H. Tinney, Jr. 92.9

James K. Tinney 25.6

Heather Foster Kittredge 52

John K. Cecil 0.4

Camilla B. Taylor 155.2

Karen L. Loewy 118.1

Elizabeth L. Littrell 157.7

NON-ATTORNEY STAFF HOURS

Cheryl Olson (paralegal) 13.5

Nodgie P. Kennedy (paralegal) 60.6

2 Expenses incurred for paralegal services are recoverable. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491

U.S. 274, 289 (1989). Delegating appropriate tasks to paralegals reduces the overall costs of civil

rights litigation. Id. at 288. Also, time spent preparing and defending a fee petition is

compensable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Ganey v. Garrison, 813 F.2d 650, 652 (4th Cir.

1987).


9

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have reviewed the time records summarized above and reprinted in

the Attachments to their Declarations. These records show sound and reasonable billing

judgment. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel often excluded considerable time for which their

firms did not feel it was appropriate to bill during the course of the litigation, and also excluded

additional hours to ensure that compensation is not sought for work that might be deemed as

properly excluded from a court-ordered fee award. See Smith Decl. ¶ 8; Tinney Aff. ¶ 4; Taylor

Decl. ¶ 7; Loewy Decl. ¶ 7; Littrell Aff. ¶ 4. For example, as shown by the “Requested Amount”

column in Exhibit A-2, travel time and duplicate time entries for conference calls were often

eliminated. Smith Decl. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs’ counsel also do not seek any fee enhancement above

the lodestar method despite their considerable expertise and experience in this area.

2. Plaintiffs Seek Reasonable Hourly Rates For Their Attorneys.

The hourly rate included in an attorney’s fee calculation must also be reasonable. See

Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 1994). “This requirement is

met by compensating attorneys at the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Id.

In cases that require only a “relatively straightforward procedural analysis,” the relevant

community will be the one in which the court sits. Allen v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:05-cv-0578,

2007 WL 1859046, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. June 26, 2007). However, “[i]n circumstances where it is

reasonable to retain attorneys from other communities, . . . the rates in those communities may

also be considered.” Rum Creek, 31 F.3d at 175.

Given the formidable task of seeking to have the marriage ban struck down as

unconstitutional—which was certainly not a “relatively straightforward procedural analysis,” as

shown by the bevy of arguments made in Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary

judgment—it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to seek outside counsel with considerable experience


10

handling suits alleging discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, as well as

violations of fundamental rights.

The hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ attorneys (from Jenner & Block, Lambda Legal,

and The Tinney Law Firm), as well as their paralegal/legal support staff, reflect their years of

practice, litigation experience, expertise. We explain below for each attorney the exceptionally

high level of experience and expertise justifying their hourly rates.

JENNER & BLOCK

The hourly rates established by the “Laffey Matrix” (attached hereto as Exhibit F) are

customarily used by courts in the District of Columbia to determine the reasonable rates for

attorneys located in Washington, D.C. See Harvey v. Mohammed, 951 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54

(D.D.C. 2013) (“To determine reasonable hourly rates, it is customary in this District to apply

the Laffey Matrix . . . .”); McDowell v. D.C., Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. D.C., 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). Accordingly, the

Laffey Matrix rates have been used below as the reasonable hourly rates for the Jenner & Block

attorneys, all of whom are located in Washington, D.C. Oftentimes, the Laffey Matrix rates were

substantially lower than the actual rates that the Jenner attorneys would charge their clients for

similar work. However, Jenner attorneys here request only the lower Laffey Matrix rates

because they are customarily deemed reasonable for Washington attorneys (and accepted by the

federal government when it is responding to fee petitions without any further showing).

Paul M. Smith

Jenner & Block attorney Paul M. Smith graduated from Yale Law School in 1979, where

he served as Editor in Chief of the Yale Law Journal. Upon graduation from law school, he

clerked for Judge James L. Oakes, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and Supreme Court


11

Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Mr. Smith is Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court

Practice and Co-Chair of the Media and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting

Practices. He has had an active Supreme Court practice for nearly three decades, including oral

arguments in fifteen Supreme Court cases involving matters ranging from free speech and civil

rights to civil procedure. Among his important victories has been Lawrence v. Texas, the

landmark gay rights case, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, establishing the First

Amendment rights of those who produce and sell video games.

Chambers USA has repeatedly named Mr. Smith one of the country’s leading lawyers in

appellate litigation, media and entertainment law, and First Amendment litigation for multiple

years. In 2010, Washingtonian magazine recognized him as one of “Washington's Top

Lawyers,” Washington DC Super Lawyer named him one of the “Top 10 Lawyers in D.C.,” and

The National Law Journal named him one of the “Decade’s Most Influential Lawyers.” Best

Lawyers named him the Washington DC First Amendment Lawyer of the Year for 2012. Mr.

Smith was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award from the American Bar Association Section

of Individual Rights and Responsibilities for his work promoting civil rights and civil liberties.

He is AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell’s highest peer recognition for ethical

standards and legal ability.

Lindsay C. Harrison

Ms. Harrison graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2003, where she served

as Articles Editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and was voted Best

Oralist at the Ames Moot Court Competition. She clerked for the Honorable Alan S. Gold, U.S.

District Court, Southern District of Florida; and for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett, Court of

Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Harrison, a partner at Jenner & Block, concentrates her practice


12

in appellate and Supreme Court matters. She has significant experience briefing and arguing

matters before both federal and state appellate courts and has filed numerous merits and amicus

briefs with the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Harrison also presented a successful argument

before the Supreme Court in the landmark immigration case of Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749

(2009). Ms. Harrison’s practice also focuses on issues involving gender and sexual orientation

discrimination. For example, she has filed significant amicus briefs in cases such as Flores-

Villar v. United States, No. 09-5801 (S. Ct. 2010), which involved an equal protection challenge

to gender discrimination in citizenship laws. For her work, Ms. Harrison has been named by The

National Law Journal as one of forty “game-changing lawyers age 40 and under” who are

“leaders in the law,” and was named by the National LGBT Bar Association in 2012 as one of

the best LGBT Lawyers Under 40.

THE TINNEY LAW FIRM

For The Tinney Law Firm attorneys, who are located in West Virginia, the determination

of reasonable rates is “best guided by what [those] attorneys earn from paying clients for similar

services in similar circumstances.” Rum Creek, 31 F.3d at 175 (quotations omitted); see also

Fogle v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc. 275 F.3d 613, 615 (7th Cir. 2001) (“The best evidence of

the lawyer’s quality is the fee he commands in the market.”). In other words, “market rates may

be proved by the rate which clients normally and willingly pay the petitioning attorneys.” Rum

Creek, 31 F.3d at 175. Accordingly, the actual rates charged by The Tinney Law Firm attorneys

are used below as their reasonable rates. See Tinney Aff. ¶¶ 3-4. Additionally, an affidavit from

Michael O. Callaghan, Esq., has been attached as further support of the reasonableness of the

requested rates. See Affidavit of Michael O. Callaghan (attached hereto as Exhibit G).


13

John H. Tinney, Jr.

Mr. Tinney graduated in 1995 from Wake Forest University School of Law, where he

was a recipient of the Bennett Liverman Scholarship. He was then in private practice for three

years before serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert B. King, United States Court of

Appeals, Fourth Circuit. He then joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern

District of West Virginia, where he was an Assistant United States Attorney. While there, he

prosecuted a variety of cases and represented the United States at the Fourth Circuit.

After spending almost three years at the United States Attorney’s Office, Mr. Tinney

returned to private practice at The Tinney Law Firm in Charleston, where he has represented

diverse clients in both state and federal courts. For example, he has represented companies like

Ernst & Young and Schering Plough, Inc., and he also defended the Supreme Court of Appeals

of West Virginia in constitutional challenges to the court’s trial court rules and recusal

proceedings. He has been a member of the Judge John A. Field American Inns of Court since

2002 and is also a member of the Federal Bar Association, Defense Research Institute, and West

Virginia Defense Trial Counsel.

LAMBDA LEGAL

Lambda Legal is the nation’s oldest and largest legal organization committed to

achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and

those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work. Lambda

Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge its clients, but relies in part

upon fees awarded by the courts. Legal services and other non-profit organizations are entitled

to have § 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of reasonable market rates even if lower

salaries are paid to the organization’s attorneys. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984);


14

accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457 n.37 (1982). The rates requested by

Lambda Legal attorneys (between $300 and $350, depending on experience, see Taylor Decl. ¶ 6

& n.2; Loewy Decl. ¶ 6 & n.2; Littrell Aff. ¶ 3) are well within the range of fees awarded in this

jurisdiction, and significantly below the market rates for civil rights lawyers with comparable

experience, ability, and reputation. See, e.g., Stiltner v. Cabell County Comm’n, No. 3:13–cv–

07513, 2014 WL 1330206 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 1, 2014); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 873 F.Supp.2d

973 (N.D. Ill. 2012); Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127890, 10

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012).

Camilla B. Taylor

Ms. Taylor received her law degree from Columbia Law School in 1996 and her

bachelor’s degree from Yale College in 1993. She has been admitted to practice law in New

York since 1997 and in Illinois since 2004. After working as a litigation associate with

Shearman & Sterling LLP in New York City and as an attorney with the Criminal Appeals

Bureau of the Legal Aid Society of New York City, Ms. Taylor joined Lambda Legal in July,

2002. Ms. Taylor was promoted to National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal in the

spring of 2010. Ms. Taylor has extensive expertise briefing and arguing cases before both state

and federal trial and appellate courts in cases challenging the constitutionality of marital

exclusions around the country, including Baskin, 766 F.3d 648, Lee, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill.

Feb. 21, 2014), Garden State Equal., 82 A.3d 336, and Gartner v. Iowa Dep’t of Public Health,

830 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2013), to name just a few. Recently, Ms. Taylor argued Baskin, supra,

766 F.3d 648, before the district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which resulted in a

decision authored by Judge Posner striking down Indiana’s marriage ban. She was lead counsel

in Varnum, 763 N.W. 2d 862, in which the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down


15

Iowa’s marriage ban in April, 2009, making Iowa the third state in the nation to permit same-sex

couples to marry.

Ms. Taylor is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and serves

on the American Constitution Society Chicago Chapter Board of Advisors. Recognition for her

work includes the Columbia Law School Distinguished Graduate in the Public Interest award

(2012), the American Constitution Society Ruth Goldman Award (2012), and Crain's Chicago

Business' “40 under 40” (2009), among others.

a. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Hourly Rates

ATTORNEY RATE

Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14) $771

Paul M. Smith (6/1/2014-12/2/14) $789

Lindsay C. Harrison (9/10/2013-5/31/14) $567

Lindsay C. Harrison (6/1/2014-12/2/14) $655

R. Trent McCotter (9/10/2013-5/31/14) $320

R. Trent McCotter (6/1/2014-12/2/14) $328

Nicholas W. Tarasen (9/10/2013-5/31/14) $320

Nicholas W. Tarasen (6/1/2014-12/2/14) $328

John H. Tinney, Jr. $300

James K. Tinney $240

Heather Foster Kittredge $225

John K. Cecil $205

Camilla B. Taylor $350

Karen L. Loewy $325

Elizabeth L. Littrell $300

NON-ATTORNEY STAFF RATE

Cheryl Olson $175

Nodgie P. Kennedy $100


16

b. Plaintiffs’ Fee Award Should Equal $342,576.25

Multiplying the time worked by each attorney by the hourly rates for each year yields the

following calculation:

ATTORNEY HOURS RATE TOTAL

Paul M. Smith (9/10/2013-5/31/14) 18 $771 $13,878.00

Paul M. Smith (6/1/2014-12/2/14) 4.5 $789 $3,550.50

Lindsay C. Harrison (9/10/2013-5/31/14) 79 $567 $44,793.00

Lindsay C. Harrison (6/1/2014-12/2/14) 12.25 $655 $8,023.75

R. Trent McCotter (9/10/2013-5/31/14) 85 $320 $27,200.00

R. Trent McCotter (6/1/2014-12/2/14) 10.75 $328 $3,526.00

Nicholas W. Tarasen (9/10/2013-5/31/14) 136 $320 $43,520.00

Nicholas W. Tarasen (6/1/2014-12/2/14) 11.75 $328 $3,854.00

John H. Tinney, Jr. 92.9 $300 $27,870.00

James K. Tinney 25.6 $240 $6,144.00

Heather Foster Kittredge 52 $225 $11,700.00

John K. Cecil 0.4 $205 $82.00

Camilla B. Taylor 155.2 $350 $54,320.00

Karen L. Loewy 118.1 $325 $38,382.50

Elizabeth L. Littrell 157.7 $300 $47,310.00

NON-ATTORNEY STAFF HOURS RATE TOTAL

Cheryl Olson 13.5 $175 $2,362.50

Nodgie P. Kennedy 60.6 $100 $6,060.00

ATTORNEYS' FEES SUBTOTAL: $342,576.25


17

C. Plaintiffs are Entitled to the Requested Expenses and Costs

With regard to expenses and costs, the invoices attached to the Tinney and Taylor

Declarations detail the out-of-pocket expenses incurred. See Tinney Aff. ¶ 4; Taylor Decl. ¶ 8.3

These expenses were necessarily incurred and are the type of out-of-pocket expenses normally

billed to fee-paying clients. As such, they are recoverable as part of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

See West Virginia Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 87 n.3 (1991). These “costs” are

recoverable as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), as well as other

disbursements that were billed to and paid by Plaintiffs as a component of attorneys’ fees.

It is also appropriate to require Defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs’ attorneys for

reasonable costs. A reasonable attorneys fee includes “those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses

incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee-paying client, in the course of

providing legal services.” Spell v. McDaniel, 852 F.2d 762, 771 (4th Cir.1988). Here, Plaintiffs’

counsel have included in the supporting affidavits a detailed accounting requesting compensation

for such out of pocket expenses as travel, exhibit preparation, copies, postage, deposition costs,

printing costs, and the like. These are the sorts of expenses generally charged to a fee paying

client and should be reimbursed fully.

Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the following costs (detailed in the attached

Declarations): John H. Tinney, Jr.: $896.35, see Tinney Aff. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1; Camilla B. Taylor:

$6,783.59, see Taylor Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 2. The total out-of-pocket expenses requested is

$7,679.94.

3 Jenner attorneys are not seeking reimbursement of their expenses, see Smith Decl. ¶ 14,

and the Lambda Legal attorneys are not seeking reimbursement of the hours spent by their legal

assistants, see Taylor Decl. ¶ 7.


18

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this litigation and as such are entitled to their

attorneys’ fees and costs. The attorneys’ fees sought here are reasonable and not excessive.

They are consistent with those rates normally charged by Plaintiffs’ attorneys to their fee-paying

clients for the type of work in question, and they are within the prevailing market rate charged by

attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Likewise, the expenses and costs sought here

are due to be recovered as they were necessarily incurred during the course of the lawsuit as out-

of-pocket expenses, and are of the same type as those ordinarily charged to clients by counsel.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should award Plaintiffs the

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs as requested.

Dated: December 2, 2014

Respectfully submitted,


ADKINS, et al.

By Counsel:

/s/ John H. Tinney, Jr.

THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC

THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC

John H. Tinney, Jr. (WVSB #6970)

Heather Foster Kittredge (WVSB #8543)

PO Box 3752

Charleston, West Virginia 25337-3752

Phone: (304) 720-3310

Fax: (304) 720-3315

[email protected]

[email protected]

Camilla B. Taylor (pro hac vice)

105 West Adams, 26th Floor


mailto:[email protected]


19

Chicago, Illinois 60603-6208

Phone: (312) 663-4413

Fax: (312) 663-4307

[email protected]

Elizabeth L. Littrell (pro hac vice)

730 Peachtree Street, NE

Suite 1070

Atlanta, Georgia 30308-1210

Phone: (404) 897-1880

Fax: (404) 897-1884

[email protected]

Karen L. Loewy (pro hac vice)

120 Wall Street, 19th Floor

New York, New York 10005-3904

Phone: (212) 809-8585

Fax: (212) 809-0055

[email protected]

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Paul M. Smith (pro hac vice)

Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice)

Luke C. Platzer (pro hac vice)

R. Trent McCotter (pro hac vice)

1099 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20001-4412

Phone: (202) 639-6000

Fax: (202) 639-6006

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiffs









20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of December 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing

memorandum with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participants:

Elbert Lin, Esquire

Julie Ann Warren, Esquire

Julie Marie Blake, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

State Capitol Building 1, Room E-26

Charleston, WV 25305

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor State of West Virginia

Charles R. Bailey, Esquire

Michael W. Taylor, Esquire

Bailey & Wyant, PLLC

500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600

Post Office Box 3710

Charleston, WV 25337-3710

Counsel for Defendant Vera J McCormick

Lee Murray Hall, Esquire

Sarah A. Walling, Esquire

Jenkins Fenstermaker, PLLC

325 Eight Street

Huntington, WV 25701-2225

Counsel for Defendant Karen S. Cole

/s/ John H. Tinney, Jr.

John H. Tinney, Jr.

Counsel for Plaintiffs


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

HUNTINGTON DIVISION


ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAMGLAVARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETHMIrHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON,individually and as next friends of A.S.M., a minor

child;

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity asCABEL COUNTY CLERK; and VERA J.MCCORMICK, in her official capacity asKANAWHA COUNTY CLERK;

Defendants,

and

STATE of WEST VIRGINIA,

Intervenor-Defendant.

No. 3:13-cv-24068


DECLARATION OF PAUL M. SMITH

I, Paul M. Smith, hereby declare as follows:

I am a partner at Jenner &Block LLP ("Jenner") and counsel for Plaintiffs in the

above-captioned case. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand

knc~~~ledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to

do so, and on records contemporaneously generated and kept by my Firm in the ordinary course

of its law practice. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of

Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-1 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 4655

2. Jenner became involved in this litigation in September of 2013 to provide

Jenner's unique expertise in litigation advancing the rights of gay and lesbian individuals, as well

as its considerable expertise in appellate and Supreme Court practice. Given the challenge of

seeking to have several duly-passed state statutes struck down as unconstitutional, Plaintiffs were

quite reasonable in seeking the assistance of attorneys located outside of West Virginia who have

considerable expertise in civil rights litigation, and, in particular, experience in litigation focused

on vindicating the rights of the gay and lesbian community.

3. I chair Jenner's Appellate and Supreme Court practice, and serve as co-chair of

Jenner's Media and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting practices. I have

argued fifteen cases before the United States Supreme Court, beginning with Celotex Corp. v:

Cattrett, 477 U.S.. 317 (1986). I also have extensive experience litigating complex cases in

federal and state courts across the country, including major civil rights cases. My experience

with civil rights litigation includes: (1) arguing Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case;

(2) other constitutional challenges to state and federal laws that discriminate on the basis of

sexual orientation, including the litigation in Virginia that ultimately led to the Fourth Circuit's

decision in Bostic v. Schaefer°, which held that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional;

(3) multiple cases in the 1980s involving the rights of residents of state mental health facilities;

(4) a large gender bias case brought against Nassau County, NY in the 1990s; and (5)

constitutional challenges to state and federal laws that restrict freedom of expression. In 2010, I

was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award from the American Bar Association Section of

Individual Rights and Responsibilities, and was named one of the "Decade's Most Influential

Lawyers" by The National Law Journal. In addition, I am a member of the Board of Directors of

the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

2


3

4. Jenner provided considerable support throughout this entire case. Jenner was the

primary drafter of almost all pleadings and submissions, including Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment (which was ultimately granted in-full by the Court), as well as oppositions to

the motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment filed by the three defendants,

including the defendant-intervenor West Virginia. Jenner participated in conference calls with

co-counsel to determine litigation strategy and also frequently communicated with opposing

counsel regarding scheduling matters and potential settlement issues.

5. To reduce billing costs, Nicholas W. Tarasen and R. Trent McCotter, both of

whom are junior associates at Jenner, were primarily responsible for researching and drafting the

briefs and motions in this case, with oversight from Lindsay C. Harrison and me. Mr. McCotter

was responsible for preparing this fee petition. Brief biographies of the Jenner attorneys

involved in this matter are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are time records for this case detailing the time for

which Jenner is seeking compensation in this case.

7. Throughout the time Jenner worked on this matter, its timekeepers have been

required to keep daily time-records that reflect the amount of time spent on this matter each day,

along with a description of the tasks performed. These records are entered into a computer

database, checked, and maintained in computer-readable format.

8. Jenner attorneys expended the following hours in this litigation: September 2013

through May 31, 2014: Paul Smith (18.0 hours), Lindsay C. Harrison (79.0 hours), R. Trent

McCotter (85.0 hours), and Nicholas W. Tarasen (136.0 hours); June 1, 2014, through present:

Paul Smith (4.5 hours), Lindsay C. Harrison (12.25 hours), R. Trent McCotter (10.75 hours), and

Nicholas W. Tarasen (11.75 hours). Where necessary, I exercised my billing judgment and


reduced or eliminated the fees sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a

Court-ordered fees award. For example, when numerous Jenner attorneys participated on calls, I

often reduced or eliminated the Amount Requested for any duplicate time entries. I also reduced

travel time, such as when Ms. Harrison traveled to Charleston for a hearing in early January

2014.

9. Jenner normally charges for the services of its attorneys on the basis of hourly

rates. Here, Jenner attorneys are seeking hourly fees based on the Laffey Matrix rates, which

were often substantially lower than the Jenner attorneys' actual hourly rates. The Laffey Matrix

shows hourly rates for attorneys in Washington, D.C., based on each attorney's years of

experience. The federal courts in the District of Columbia customarily consider the Laffey

Matrix rates to be reasonable for work performed by attorneys located in Washington, D.C. See

HaNvey v. Mohammed, 951 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2013) ("To determine reasonable hourly

rates, it is customary in this District to apply the Laffey Matrix ...."). Accordingly, the lodestar

calculation is made based upon reasonable hourly rates for all current attorneys, as determined

by the Laffey Matrix rates. In the Laffey Matrix, these rates change each year on June 1. From

the beginning of the litigation through May 31, 2014, the following rates were in effect in the

Laffey Matrix: Paul Smith: $771; Lindsay C. Harrison: $567; R. Trent McCotter: $320; Nicholas

W. Tarasen: $320. From June 1, 2014, until the present, the following rates were in effect in the

Laffey Matrix: Paul Smith: $789; Lindsay C. Harrison: $655; R. Trent McCotter: $328; Nicholas

W. Tarasen: $328. In the attached time sheets, the Jenner attorneys' actual rates are labeled as

"Or~g Rate"; their requested rates, per the Laffey Matrix, are labeled as "Req Rate."

10. Applying these rates to the hours expended, Jenner seeks the following in

attorneys' fees: September 2013 through May 31, 2014: Paul Smith: $13,878.00; Lindsay C.

G~


Harrison: $44,793.00; R. Trent McCotter: $27,200.00; Nicholas W. Tarasen: $43,520.00; June 1,

2014, through the present: Paul Smith: $3,550.50; Lindsay C. Harrison: $8,023.75; R. Trent

McCotter: $3,526.00; Nicholas W. Tarasen: $3,854.00. The total amount of fees sought for

Jenner attorneys is $148,345.25.

11. In addition to the participation of Jenner's attorneys, a Jenner paralegal, Cheryl L.

Olson, provided assistance in cite-checking, editing, and filing logistics. In 2014, Cheryl Olson

expended 13.5 hours.

12. Jenner normally charges for the services of its paralegals on the basis of hourly

rates. Again, Jenner is seeking the lower Laffey Matrix paralegal rate, rather than the actual

hourly rate charged by Ms. Olson. During the time during which Ms. Olson assisted with this

case, the Laffey Matrix rate for a paralegal in Washington, D.C., was $175.

13. Applying these rates to the hours Cheryl Olson expended, Jenner seeks the

following in fees: 2014: Cheryl Olson: $2,362.50.

14. In the exercise of my billing judgment, Jenner has determined it will not seek any

costs in this Court.

15. The total fees sought by Jenner are $150,707.75.r

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in the District o~olumbia on December 2,

M. Smith

F~


Paul M. SmithPaul M. Smith is Chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and Co-Chair of the Media

and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting Practices. He has had an active

Supreme Court practice for three decades, including oral arguments in 15 Supreme Court cases

involving matters ranging from free speech and civil rights to civil procedure. Among his

important victories have been Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case, and Brown v.

Entertainment Merchants Ass 'n, establishing the First Amendment rights of those who produce

and sell video games.

Chambers USA has named Mr. Smith one of the country's leading lawyers in appellate litigation,

media and entertainment law, and First Amendment litigation for multiple years. In 2010,

Wa~~hingtonian magazine recognized him as one of "Washington's Top Lawyers," Washington

DC' Super Lawyer named him one of the "Top 10 Lawyers in D.C.," and The National Law

Journal named him one of the "Decade's Most Influential Lawyers." Best Lawye~^s named him

the Washington DC First Amendment Lawyer of the Year for 2012. Mr. Smith was awarded the

Thurgood Marshall Award by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and

Responsibilities for his work promoting civil rights and civil liberties. He is AV Peer Review

Rated, Martindale-Hubbell's highest peer recognition for ethical standards and legal ability.

Mr. Smith is a member of the firm's Content, Media &Entertainment Practice and serves on the

Policy Committee. He also serves the firm as a member of the Diversity &Inclusion Committee.

He represents the members of the D.C. Bar in the ABA House of Delegates. Mr. Smith was a

member of the D.C. Bar Board of Governors from 2002-2008. He is a member and former chain

of the National Board of Directors of the American Constitution Society and former board

member and co-chair of Lambda Legal. Mr. Smith is also a member of the Board of Directors of

the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Mr. Smith is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and New York

Lindsay C. HarrisonLindsay C. Harrison regularly participates in appellate litigation matters before the federal

appellate courts and the Supreme Court in a wide variety of subject matters. Corporations and

individuals turn to her for help with litigation in federal and state trial courts, as well as in

arbitration, including international arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute

Resolution. She has substantial experience litigating matters involving the hospitality industry,

successfully representing hotel management companies in high-stakes, multi-million dollar

lawsuits and arbitrations.

In 2014, Law360 named Ms. Harrison a "Rising Star" in the hospitality practice area, one of only

four young attorneys chosen nationwide for this recognition, and The National Law Journal

selected her as a "D.C. Rising Star" —one of 40 "game-changing lawyers age 40 and under" who

are "leaders in the law" in the nation's capital. In 2013, she was named to the BTI Consulting

GrLap's Client Service All-Star List.

Ms. Harrison has a substantial pro bono practice, which has included a successful argument

before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an asylum-seeker and the ongoing representation of

7


a death row inmate in Georgia. For her work in the landmark immigration case of Nken v.

Holde~~, Ms. Harrison was awarded the 2008 Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Pro Bono Award. In 2010, she

received the inaugural Rosner and Rosner Young Professionalism Award from the American Bar

Association, in recognition of her pro bono legal work and involvement in public service

endeavors.

Ms. Harrison is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court and a former chair of the

Amicus Committee of the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia. She serves as

a member of the firm's Finance, Associate Development &Evaluation and Alternative Billing

Committees.

Ms. Harrison is admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia.

R. Trent McCotterR. Trent McCotter is an Associate in the Litigation Department. He joined the Firm in 2012.

Mr. McCotter received his B.A. in Economics, summa cum laude, from the University of North

Ca~;~lina at Chapel Hill in 2008. He received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of

North Carolina School of Law in 2011. During law school, he served as an Articles Editor on

the North Carolina Law Review, won the Joyner Award for Best Student-Written Law Review

Note, and received eight Book Awards. He also interned with the Hon. Paul Newby on the

Supreme Court of North Carolina and with the Hon. Rick Elmore on the North Carolina Court of

Appeals. Prior to joining Jenner &Block, Mr. McCotter served as law clerk to the Hon. R.

Lanier Anderson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Mr. McCotter has drafted numerous briefs at the United States Courts of Appeals and has

assisted with several amicus and merits briefs for Supreme Court cases and petitions for

certiorari. He is admitted to practice in North Carolina and the District of Columbia.

Nicholas W. TarasenNick Tarasen is an associate in the firm's Litigation Department. Prior to joining Jenner &

Block in 2013, Mr. Tarasen was a law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2012, Mr. Tarasen graduated with high honors from

theUniversity of Chicago Law School,-where he was comments editor of the University of

Chicago Law Review and co-chair of the Hinton Moot Court Board. During law school, Mr.

Tarasen participated in the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, where he helped obtain class

certification and conduct discovery in a federal employment discrimination class action lawsuit,

resulting in an $11 million settlement. He also interned for the Office of the Illinois Attorney

General's Civil Appeals Division, where he assisted in the representation of state agencies before

federal and state appellate courts.

Mr. Tarasen maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes litigating cases regarding the

rights of LGBT individuals and representing immigrants before federal appellate courts. Before

attending law school, he worked as a paralegal in the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal, a

national legal organization that advocates for the rights of LGBT individuals and those with

HIV. Mr. Tarasen is admitted to practice in California.


Tim

e R

epor

t: Je

nner

& B

lock

LLP

Sept

201

3 th

roug

h M

ay 3

1, 2

014

McG

ee v

. Col

e (S

.D. W

. Va.

)

Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e09

/16/

2013

LIN

DS

AY

C. H

AR

RIS

ON

1.00

1.00

630.

0056

7.00

630.

0056

7.00

Rev

iew

ed le

gal m

emor

anda

in p

repa

ratio

n fo

r stra

tegy

cal

l.

09/1

7/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

251.

2563

0.00

567.

0078

7.50

708.

75

Par

ticip

ated

in c

all w

ith c

o-co

unse

l re

filin

g of

law

suit,

tim

ing,

pr

ess

cove

rage

, inc

lusi

on o

f chi

ld p

lain

tiff;

sum

mar

ized

cal

l for

P

. Sm

ith.

09/1

8/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

250.

0063

0.00

567.

0078

7.50

0.00

Com

plet

ed p

ro h

ac a

pplic

atio

n an

d co

rres

pond

ed w

ith lo

cal

coun

sel,

T. M

cCot

ter r

e sa

me.

09/2

3/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0063

0.00

567.

0063

0.00

567.

00R

evie

wed

revi

sion

s to

com

plai

nt.

09/3

0/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

250.

0063

0.00

567.

0015

7.50

0.00

Spo

ke to

K. L

oew

y re

pro

hac

vic

e; c

orre

spon

ded

with

P.

Sm

ith a

nd K

. Loe

wy

re s

ame.

10/0

2/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

250.

0063

0.00

567.

0078

7.50

0.00

Rev

iew

ed p

ress

cov

erag

e of

litig

atio

n; c

orre

spon

ded

with

P.

Sm

ith re

juris

t arti

cle.

11/0

1/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

002.

0063

0.00

567.

001,

260.

001,

134.

00R

evie

wed

SJ

brie

f; ca

ll w

ith T

. McC

otte

r & K

. Loe

wy

re S

J br

ief.

11/2

5/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

252.

2563

0.00

567.

001,

417.

501,

275.

75R

evie

wed

mot

ion

to in

terv

ene

and

emai

led

K. L

oew

y re

sam

e;

revi

sed

draf

t SJ

mot

ion.

11/2

6/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

502.

5063

0.00

567.

001,

575.

001,

417.

50R

evis

ed s

umm

ary

judg

men

t dra

ft an

d se

nt to

P. S

mith

.

11/2

7/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0063

0.00

567.

0063

0.00

567.

00C

all w

ith le

gal t

eam

to d

iscu

ss m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s an

d in

terv

entio

n.

12/0

4/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5063

0.00

567.

0094

5.00

850.

50R

evie

wed

N. T

aras

en re

sear

ch re

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

and

corr

espo

nded

with

him

re s

ame.

12/0

5/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

4.

504.

5063

0.00

567.

002,

835.

002,

551.

50R

esea

rche

d an

d dr

afte

d op

posi

tion

to B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s.

12/0

6/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

002.

0063

0.00

567.

001,

260.

001,

134.

00R

evis

ed o

ppos

ition

to m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s on

abs

tent

ion

grou

nds

and

emai

led

with

team

re s

ame.

12/0

9/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0063

0.00

567.

0063

0.00

567.

00R

evie

wed

Lam

bda

edits

to o

ppos

ition

; rev

ised

opp

ositi

on;

corr

espo

nded

with

N. T

aras

en re

sam

e.

12/1

0/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5063

0.00

567.

0031

5.00

283.

50R

evie

wed

fina

l opp

ositi

on to

mot

ion

to d

ism

iss

for f

iling

; em

aile

d lo

cal c

ouns

el re

exh

ibit.

12/1

7/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

3.

003.

0063

0.00

567.

001,

890.

001,

701.

00

Rev

iew

ed S

tate

's m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s an

d ne

w m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s by

cle

rk a

nd c

orre

spon

ded

with

Lam

bda

re re

spon

ses;

co

rres

pond

ed w

ith N

. Tar

asen

and

T. M

cCot

ter r

e sa

me.

12/1

8/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5063

0.00

567.

0094

5.00

850.

50C

orre

spon

ded

with

N. T

aras

en re

sta

ndin

g; re

view

ed re

sear

ch

re s

tand

ing

and

futil

ity.

12/1

9/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5063

0.00

567.

0094

5.00

850.

50W

orke

d on

opp

ositi

on to

mot

ion

to d

ism

iss.

12/2

0/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

502.

5063

0.00

567.

001,

575.

001,

417.

50R

evie

wed

dec

lara

tions

and

Lam

bda

edits

to o

ppos

ition

s;

corr

espo

nded

with

Lam

bda

folk

s re

edi

ts a

nd o

ppos

ition

s.

12/2

1/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0063

0.00

567.

0063

0.00

567.

00R

evie

wed

dra

ft op

posi

tion

to S

tate

's m

otio

n se

nt b

y N

. Ta

rase

n.12

/22/

2013

LIN

DS

AY

C. H

AR

RIS

ON

1.25

1.25

630.

0056

7.00

787.

5070

8.75

Rev

ised

opp

ositi

on to

Sta

te's

mot

ion

to d

ism

iss.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

12/2

7/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5063

0.00

567.

0094

5.00

850.

50

Rev

iew

ed e

dits

to o

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s;

emai

led

C. T

aylo

r re

stat

us o

f opp

ositi

on a

nd s

umm

ary

judg

men

t mot

ion.

12/3

0/20

13LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5063

0.00

567.

0094

5.00

850.

50E

dite

d pl

eadi

ngs.

01/0

2/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0065

5.00

567.

0065

5.00

567.

00R

evie

wed

filin

g m

ater

ials

and

pre

pare

d fo

r hea

ring

in W

est

Virg

inia

.01

/03/

2014

LIN

DS

AY

C. H

AR

RIS

ON

1.00

1.00

655.

0056

7.00

655.

0056

7.00

Cor

resp

onde

d w

ith c

o-co

unse

l abo

ut h

earin

g.

01/0

6/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

12

.00

6.00

655.

0056

7.00

7,86

0.00

3,40

2.00

Trav

eled

to C

harle

ston

and

Hun

tingt

on fo

r sta

tus

hear

ing;

pa

rtici

pate

d in

sta

tus

hear

ing;

con

fere

nce

call

with

co-

coun

sel

follo

win

g he

arin

g; e

mai

led

co-c

ouns

el re

hea

ring;

trav

eled

ho

me

from

W. V

a.

01/2

1/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

501.

5065

5.00

567.

0098

2.50

850.

50

Cal

l with

Elb

ert L

in re

brie

fing

sche

dule

; cor

resp

onde

d w

ith c

o-co

unse

l and

Elb

ert L

in re

sam

e; re

ad 9

th C

ircui

t dec

isio

n re

he

ight

ened

scr

utin

y.

01/2

2/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

250.

2565

5.00

567.

0016

3.75

141.

75C

orre

spon

ded

with

co-

coun

sel a

nd o

ppos

ing

coun

sel r

e sc

hedu

le.

01/2

4/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

251.

2565

5.00

567.

0081

8.75

708.

75

Rev

iew

ed m

otio

n to

ext

end

brie

fing

sche

dule

; cor

resp

onde

d w

ith c

o-co

unse

l re

prop

osed

resp

onse

; cor

resp

onde

d w

ith T

. M

cCot

ter r

e op

posi

tion.

01/2

7/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5065

5.00

567.

0032

7.50

283.

50R

evis

ed d

raft

oppo

sitio

n on

dea

dlin

es a

nd c

orre

spon

ded

with

co

-cou

nsel

re s

ame.

01/2

9/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

251.

2565

5.00

567.

0081

8.75

708.

75

Rev

iew

ed ju

dge'

s or

der o

n m

otio

ns to

dis

mis

s; d

rafte

d su

mm

ary

and

circ

ulat

ed to

co-

coun

sel;

corr

espo

nded

with

N.

Tara

sen,

C. T

aylo

r re:

issu

e re

gard

ing

suffi

cien

cy o

f de

fend

ants

.

01/3

1/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

002.

0065

5.00

567.

001,

310.

001,

134.

00C

orre

spon

ded

with

N. T

aras

en a

nd C

. Tay

lor r

e: re

sear

ch o

n re

med

ies.

02/0

4/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

251.

2565

5.00

567.

0081

8.75

708.

75

Rev

iew

ed c

orre

spon

denc

e; e

mai

led

J. C

arpe

nter

re

disb

urse

men

ts; c

orre

spon

ded

with

N. T

aras

en re

rem

edy

issu

es.

02/0

5/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

3.

503.

5065

5.00

567.

002,

292.

501,

984.

50R

evis

ed B

urfo

rd II

brie

f; co

rres

pond

ed w

ith N

. Tar

asen

re

sam

e.

02/0

6/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

502.

5065

5.00

567.

001,

637.

501,

417.

50R

evis

ed B

urfo

rd II

brie

f; co

rres

pond

ed w

ith N

. Tar

asen

, P.

Sm

ith re

sam

e.

02/0

7/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

3.

503.

5065

5.00

567.

002,

292.

501,

984.

50W

orke

d on

Bur

ford

mem

o; c

orre

spon

ded

with

N. T

aras

en a

nd

P. S

mith

re B

urfo

rd is

sues

; em

aile

d E

. Lin

re c

all.

02/1

0/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.

001.

0065

5.00

567.

0065

5.00

567.

00C

all w

ith E

. Lin

and

em

ail t

o te

am re

sam

e; re

vise

d B

urfo

rd

brie

f.

02/1

1/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

002.

0065

5.00

567.

001,

310.

001,

134.

00R

evie

wed

brie

f bef

ore

filin

g; c

orre

spon

ded

with

N T

aras

en re

sa

me.

02/1

2/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.

002.

0065

5.00

567.

001,

310.

001,

134.

00R

evis

ed b

rief f

or fi

ling;

sen

t brie

f to

the

team

.

02/1

3/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5065

5.00

567.

0032

7.50

283.

50C

all w

ith te

am re

McG

ee u

pdat

es; e

mai

led

P. S

mith

re c

all.

02/1

4/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5065

5.00

567.

0032

7.50

283.

50E

mai

led

team

re s

umm

ary

judg

men

t ple

adin

gs; r

ead

Sta

te's

su

mm

ary

judg

men

t mot

ion.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

02/1

7/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5065

5.00

567.

0032

7.50

283.

50R

evie

wed

K. L

oew

y ou

tline

; em

aile

d te

am re

out

line

and

SJ

brie

f.

02/1

9/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

250.

2565

5.00

567.

0016

3.75

141.

75C

orre

spon

ded

with

T. M

cCot

ter a

nd te

am re

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent d

eadl

ines

and

pag

es.

02/2

0/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

3.

003.

0065

5.00

567.

001,

965.

001,

701.

00R

evis

ed B

urfo

rd b

rief;

revi

sed

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

rief;

corr

espo

nded

with

team

re s

ame.

02/2

2/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

5.

505.

5065

5.00

567.

003,

602.

503,

118.

50W

orke

d on

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

rief.

02/2

4/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

3.

503.

5065

5.00

567.

002,

292.

501,

984.

50R

evis

ed s

umm

ary

judg

men

t dra

ft an

d in

corp

orat

ed e

dits

from

te

am.

03/2

6/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.

500.

5065

5.00

567.

0032

7.50

283.

50R

ead

prec

eden

t re

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

and

emai

led

team

re

sam

e.87

.75

79.0

056

,551

.25

44,7

93.0

0

12/0

3/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

3.50

3.50

355.

0032

0.00

1,24

2.50

1,12

0.00

Res

earc

h re

: Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

in s

uppo

rt of

opp

ositi

on to

D

efen

dant

McC

orm

ick'

s M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s.

12/0

4/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.50

0.50

355.

0032

0.00

177.

5016

0.00

Rev

iew

/edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt M

cCor

mic

k's

Mot

ion

to

Dis

mis

s.

12/0

5/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.50

1.50

355.

0032

0.00

532.

5048

0.00

Res

earc

h, re

view

and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt

McC

orm

ick'

s M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s.

12/0

6/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.75

1.75

355.

0032

0.00

621.

2556

0.00

Rev

iew

and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt M

cCor

mic

k's

Mot

ion

to D

ism

iss.

12/0

9/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.50

0.50

355.

0032

0.00

177.

5016

0.00

Rev

iew

and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt M

cCor

mic

k's

Mot

ion

to D

ism

iss.

12/1

0/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.50

0.50

355.

0032

0.00

177.

5016

0.00

Rev

iew

Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt M

cCor

mic

k's

Mot

ion

to

Dis

mis

s; fi

nd e

xhib

it in

sup

port.

12/1

7/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

2.00

2.00

355.

0032

0.00

710.

0064

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft O

ppos

ition

to D

efen

dant

Col

e's

Mot

ion

to

Dis

mis

s.

12/1

8/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

8.25

8.25

355.

0032

0.00

2,92

8.75

2,64

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft O

ppos

ition

to D

efen

dant

Col

e's

Mot

ion

to

Dis

mis

s; re

sear

ch O

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s.

12/1

9/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

2.50

2.50

355.

0032

0.00

887.

5080

0.00

Res

earc

h, re

view

and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt C

ole'

s M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s; re

view

New

Mex

ico

sam

e-se

x m

arria

ge

deci

sion

.

12/2

0/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

4.75

4.75

355.

0032

0.00

1,68

6.25

1,52

0.00

Rev

iew

and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Def

enda

nt C

ole'

s M

otio

n to

D

ism

iss;

rese

arch

and

dra

ft O

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's M

otio

n to

D

ism

iss;

revi

ew U

tah

sam

e-se

x m

arria

ge d

ecis

ion

for

appl

icab

ility

to O

ppos

ition

.

12/2

1/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

6.50

6.50

355.

0032

0.00

2,30

7.50

2,08

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft O

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s.

12/2

3/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

6.50

6.50

355.

0032

0.00

2,30

7.50

2,08

0.00

Res

earc

h, re

view

, and

edi

t Opp

ositi

on to

Sta

te's

Mot

ion

to

Dis

mis

s; in

tegr

ate

Sum

mar

y Ju

dgm

ent a

ffida

vits

.

12/3

0/20

13N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.25

1.25

355.

0032

0.00

443.

7540

0.00

Rev

iew

dra

ft su

mm

ary

judg

men

t mot

ion;

revi

ew P

erry

and

K

itche

n de

cisi

ons

to s

uppo

rt as

serti

ons

in d

raft

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent m

otio

n.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

01/0

6/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.75

0.00

435.

0032

0.00

326.

250.

00R

evie

w c

orre

spon

denc

e re

: res

ults

of s

ched

ulin

g co

nfer

ence

; at

tend

con

fere

nce

call

re: s

ched

ulin

g co

nfer

ence

.

01/2

9/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

4.50

4.50

435.

0032

0.00

1,95

7.50

1,44

0.00

Rev

iew

dis

trict

judg

e's

opin

ion

re B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n; re

sear

ch

issu

es p

erta

inin

g to

Pla

intif

fs' a

bilit

y to

obt

ain

stat

ewid

e re

lief

in re

spon

se.

01/3

0/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

6.25

6.25

435.

0032

0.00

2,71

8.75

2,00

0.00

Res

earc

h is

sues

per

tain

ing

to P

lain

ti ffs

' abi

lity

to o

btai

n st

atew

ide

relie

f, in

resp

onse

to d

istri

ct ju

dge'

s op

inio

n re

B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n.

01/3

1/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.50

0.50

435.

0032

0.00

217.

5016

0.00

Res

earc

h re

spon

se to

dis

trict

judg

e's

orde

r re

stat

e-w

ide

effe

ct

of re

lief a

nd p

oten

tial a

men

dmen

ts.

02/0

3/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

4.00

4.00

435.

0032

0.00

1,74

0.00

1,28

0.00

Dra

ft m

emor

andu

m re

: pot

entia

l am

endm

ent i

n re

spon

se to

C

ourt'

s Ja

nuar

y 29

ord

er; r

esea

rch

and

draf

t brie

f re

resp

onse

to

Jud

ge's

Jan

uary

29

orde

r re:

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion.

02/0

4/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

5.75

5.75

435.

0032

0.00

2,50

1.25

1,84

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft m

emo

re: p

oten

tial f

or a

men

dmen

t in

resp

onse

to J

udge

's J

anua

ry 2

9 or

der;

rese

arch

and

dra

ft br

ief

re: B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n in

resp

onse

to J

udge

's J

anua

ry 2

9 or

der.

02/0

5/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

9.75

9.75

435.

0032

0.00

4,24

1.25

3,12

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft b

rief r

e: B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n in

resp

onse

to

Judg

e's

Janu

ary

29 o

rder

.

02/0

6/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

8.25

8.25

435.

0032

0.00

3,58

8.75

2,64

0.00

Add

ition

al re

sear

ch, d

rafti

ng, a

nd e

ditin

g fo

r brie

f re:

Bur

ford

ab

sten

tion

in re

spon

se to

Jud

ge's

Jan

uary

29

orde

r.

02/1

0/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.00

0.00

435.

0032

0.00

435.

000.

00

Arr

ange

for a

nd a

ttend

con

fere

nce

call

re p

ossi

ble

amen

dmen

t/res

pons

e to

Cou

rt's

Janu

ary

29 o

rder

; rev

iew

and

up

date

brie

f re

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion.

02/1

1/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.50

1.50

435.

0032

0.00

652.

5048

0.00

Inco

rpor

ate

edits

to b

rief r

e B

urfo

rd a

bste

ntio

n in

resp

onse

to

Cou

rt's

Janu

ary

29 o

rder

.

02/1

2/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.75

0.75

435.

0032

0.00

326.

2524

0.00

Rev

iew

edi

ts to

brie

f re

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

in re

spon

se to

C

ourt'

s Ja

nuar

y 29

ord

er; i

ncor

pora

te fu

rther

edi

ts to

brie

f and

se

nd to

loca

l cou

nsel

for f

iling

.

02/1

3/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.00

0.00

435.

0032

0.00

435.

000.

00R

evie

w D

efen

dant

s' s

umm

ary

judg

men

t brie

fs; a

ttend

co

nfer

ence

cal

l re:

sam

e.

02/1

4/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

2.25

2.25

435.

0032

0.00

978.

7572

0.00

Rev

iew

Def

enda

nts'

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

riefs

; rev

iew

and

or

gani

ze e

xhib

its to

Def

enda

nts'

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

riefs

; ar

rang

e fo

r dis

tribu

tion

of b

inde

r re

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

riefin

g to

Wes

t Virg

inia

team

.

02/1

7/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.75

0.75

435.

0032

0.00

326.

2524

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft e

-mai

l to

L. H

arris

on re

: sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent r

espo

nse

and

repl

y du

e da

tes.

02/1

9/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.00

1.00

435.

0032

0.00

435.

0032

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d co

rres

pond

with

co-

coun

sel (

C. T

aylo

r) re

de

adlin

es fo

r fili

ng s

umm

ary

judg

men

t res

pons

e/re

ply.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

02/2

0/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

4.50

4.50

435.

0032

0.00

1,95

7.50

1,44

0.00

Rev

iew

Def

enda

nts'

resp

onse

s re

: Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

and

othe

r pro

cedu

ral i

ssue

s; d

raft

outli

ne o

f rep

ly b

rief r

e: B

urfo

rd

abst

entio

n an

d ot

her p

roce

dura

l iss

ues;

rese

arch

and

dra

ft S

umm

ary

Judg

men

t res

pons

e/re

ply

brie

f.

02/2

1/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

13.5

013

.50

435.

0032

0.00

5,87

2.50

4,32

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft p

arts

SJ

Rep

ly/O

ppos

ition

brie

f re

failu

re

to jo

in n

eces

sary

par

ties

and

Bak

er v

. Nel

son;

rese

arch

and

dr

aft r

eply

brie

f re:

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

and

othe

r pro

cedu

ral

issu

es.

02/2

2/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

12.5

012

.50

435.

0032

0.00

5,43

7.50

4,00

0.00

Res

earc

h an

d dr

aft r

eply

brie

f re

Bur

ford

abs

tent

ion

and

othe

r pr

oced

ural

issu

es.

02/2

3/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.75

0.00

435.

0032

0.00

761.

250.

00

Atte

nd c

onfe

renc

e ca

ll re

: SJ

oppo

sitio

n/re

ply;

dra

ft ad

ditio

nal

para

grap

hs fo

r Sum

mar

y Ju

dgm

ent r

espo

nse/

repl

y br

ief r

e:

faci

al c

onst

itutio

nal c

halle

nges

and

sta

ndin

g.

02/2

4/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

7.25

7.25

435.

0032

0.00

3,15

3.75

2,32

0.00

Edi

t, re

vise

, and

file

Rep

ly B

rief r

e B

urfo

rd A

bste

ntio

n / B

rief i

n R

espo

nse

to S

tate

's M

otio

n to

Dis

mis

s; e

dit a

nd re

vise

S

umm

ary

Judg

men

t Rep

ly B

rief /

Res

pons

e to

Def

enda

nts'

C

ross

-Mot

ions

for S

umm

ary

Judg

men

t.

02/2

5/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

11.2

511

.25

435.

0032

0.00

4,89

3.75

3,60

0.00

Rev

ise,

edi

t, an

d as

sist

in fi

ling

of S

umm

ary

Judg

men

t Rep

ly

Brie

f / R

espo

nse

to D

efen

dant

s' C

ross

-Mot

ions

for S

umm

ary

Judg

men

t.

02/2

6/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

1.75

1.75

435.

0032

0.00

761.

2556

0.00

Rev

iew

rece

nt m

arria

ge e

qual

ity d

ecis

ion

from

the

Wes

tern

D

istri

ct o

f Tex

as; d

raft

and

circ

ulat

e no

tice

of s

uppl

emen

tal

auth

ority

to s

ubm

it ne

w d

ecis

ion.

140.

5013

6.00

57,9

17.5

043

,520

.00

10/0

9/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.75

0.75

985.

0077

1.00

738.

7557

8.25

Tele

phon

e ca

ll w

ith c

o-co

unse

l re

MS

J su

bsta

nce

and

timin

g.

10/2

2/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Em

aile

d w

ith te

am re

opp

ositi

on to

ext

ensi

on o

f tim

e an

d re

view

ed d

raft.

10/2

3/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.25

0.25

985.

0077

1.00

246.

2519

2.75

Rev

iew

ed ru

ling

on e

xten

sion

mot

ion.

11/2

2/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Rev

iew

ed S

tate

's in

terv

entio

n m

otio

n an

d co

nsid

ered

any

po

tent

ial r

espo

nses

.11

/26/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

2.

002.

0098

5.00

771.

001,

970.

001,

542.

00R

evie

wed

dra

ft M

SJ.

11/2

6/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Rev

iew

ed M

TD fi

led

by K

anaw

ha C

ount

y C

lerk

.11

/26/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

5098

5.00

771.

0049

2.50

385.

50E

mai

led

with

team

re M

cCor

mic

k M

TD.

11/2

7/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.25

0.25

985.

0077

1.00

246.

2519

2.75

Tele

phon

e ca

ll w

ith te

am re

MTD

file

d by

Kan

awha

cle

rk.

12/0

6/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

1.00

1.00

985.

0077

1.00

985.

0077

1.00

Edi

ted

resp

onse

to c

lerk

's M

TD.

12/0

9/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Rev

iew

ed L

L co

mm

ents

on

our d

raft

of re

spon

se to

cle

rk's

ab

sten

tion

mot

ion.

12/1

6/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Tele

phon

e ca

ll re

pla

n fo

r sch

edul

ing

conf

eren

ce w

ith

defe

ndan

ts.

12/1

6/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Edi

ted

MS

J.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e12

/16/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

1.

001.

0098

5.00

771.

0098

5.00

771.

00R

evie

wed

def

enda

nts'

filin

gs.

12/2

3/20

13P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

985.

0077

1.00

492.

5038

5.50

Edi

ted

and

com

men

ted

on re

spon

se to

Sta

tes'

sta

ndin

g m

otio

n.12

/28/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

1.

001.

0098

5.00

771.

0098

5.00

771.

00E

dite

d M

SJ

draf

t.12

/29/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

5098

5.00

771.

0049

2.50

385.

50E

mai

led

with

team

re p

age

limit

issu

e re

gard

ing

MS

J.12

/30/

2013

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

5098

5.00

771.

0049

2.50

385.

50R

evie

wed

new

ver

sion

of s

umm

ary

judg

men

t brie

f.01

/06/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

250.

251,

100.

0077

1.00

275.

0019

2.75

Rev

iew

ed e

mai

l rep

ort r

e sc

hedu

ling

conf

eren

ce.

01/0

6/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.25

0.25

1,10

0.00

771.

0027

5.00

192.

75R

evie

wed

and

com

men

ted

on re

spon

se to

mot

ion

to s

trike

su

pple

men

tal a

utho

rity

filin

g.

01/3

0/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

771.

0055

0.00

385.

50E

mai

led

with

co-

coun

sel r

e re

spon

se to

cou

rt's

conc

erns

abo

ut

stat

ewid

e ef

fect

s of

a ru

ling.

02/0

7/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

771.

0055

0.00

385.

50E

mai

led

with

team

abo

ut n

ext s

teps

.02

/12/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

1.

001.

001,

100.

0077

1.00

1,10

0.00

771.

00E

dite

d br

ief r

espo

ndin

g to

the

cour

t on

Bur

ford

issu

e.02

/12/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

501,

100.

0077

1.00

550.

0038

5.50

Rev

iew

ed c

lerk

s' M

SJ.

02/1

9/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

771.

0055

0.00

385.

50R

evie

wed

opp

onen

ts' f

iling

s.02

/22/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

1.

001.

001,

100.

0077

1.00

1,10

0.00

771.

00E

dite

d ou

r sec

tions

of M

SJ

repl

y.

02/2

3/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.75

0.75

1,10

0.00

771.

0082

5.00

578.

25R

evie

wed

LL

edits

to o

ur s

ectio

ns o

f MS

J re

ply;

par

ticip

ated

in

mee

ting

with

LL

and

Jenn

er te

am v

ia te

leph

one.

02/2

4/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

1.50

1.50

1,10

0.00

771.

001,

650.

001,

156.

50E

dite

d B

urfo

rd re

ply

brie

f and

MS

J re

ply

brie

f.18

.00

18.0

018

,506

.25

13,8

78.0

0

10/0

9/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

410.

0032

0.00

102.

5080

.00

Em

ails

with

P. S

mith

re d

rafti

ng M

SJ;

brie

fly re

view

ed s

ame-

sex

Virg

inia

brie

fing.

10/1

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.25

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

512.

500.

00Fi

nish

ed re

adin

g sa

me-

sex

Virg

inia

brie

fing.

10/1

1/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.75

0.75

410.

0032

0.00

307.

5024

0.00

Cal

l with

K. L

oew

y an

d L.

Har

rison

re re

sear

ch in

to W

est

Virg

inia

law

and

out

line

of M

SJ;

em

ail t

o K

. Loe

wy

re W

est

Virg

inia

legi

slat

ive

hist

ory

and

rese

arch

on

min

or p

lain

tiff's

le

gal c

laim

s.10

/12/

2013

R. T

RE

NT

MC

CO

TTE

R0.

500.

5041

0.00

320.

0020

5.00

160.

00B

egan

revi

ewin

g m

ater

ials

sen

t by

K. L

oew

y.

10/1

3/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.50

3.50

410.

0032

0.00

1,43

5.00

1,12

0.00

Fini

shed

revi

ewin

g m

ater

ial s

ent b

y K

. Loe

wy;

beg

an d

rafti

ng

MS

J; e

mai

l to

L. H

arris

on a

nd L

. Pla

tzer

re s

ame.

10/1

6/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.25

3.25

410.

0032

0.00

1,33

2.50

1,04

0.00

Em

ail t

o La

mbd

a Le

gal r

e W

est V

irgin

ia le

gisl

ativ

e hi

stor

y;

read

sev

eral

mem

os o

n th

e hi

stor

y of

mar

riage

in W

est

Virg

inia

; res

earc

h on

his

tory

of W

est V

irgin

ia p

rohi

bitio

ns o

n m

arria

ge; e

mai

l to

S. M

ellin

re o

btai

ning

prio

r Wes

t Virg

inia

la

ws;

con

tinue

d w

ritin

g M

SJ.

10/1

7/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

5.50

5.50

410.

0032

0.00

2,25

5.00

1,76

0.00

Res

earc

h on

his

tory

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

Wes

t Virg

inia

's a

nd

othe

r sta

tes'

mar

riage

sta

tute

s; e

mai

ls w

ith te

am re

sam

e.10

/18/

2013

R. T

RE

NT

MC

CO

TTE

R0.

500.

5041

0.00

320.

0020

5.00

160.

00E

mai

ls w

ith L

ambd

a re

MS

J.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

10/1

9/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

2.25

2.25

410.

0032

0.00

922.

5072

0.00

Em

ails

with

P. S

mith

re s

tatu

s of

MS

J; fi

nish

ed re

adin

g C

ott

Affi

davi

t; co

ntin

ued

editi

ng M

SJ.

10/2

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.00

1.00

410.

0032

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

Con

tinue

d re

visi

ng M

SJ.

10/2

2/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

2.00

2.00

410.

0032

0.00

820.

0064

0.00

Rea

d em

ails

re e

xten

sion

of t

ime

for d

efen

dant

s to

file

re

spon

se; r

evie

wed

opp

ositi

on to

ext

ensi

on o

f tim

e; e

mai

led

edits

; con

tinue

d re

visi

ng M

SJ.

10/2

5/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

102.

500.

00C

ompl

eted

atto

rney

not

ifica

tion

form

for t

he S

outh

ern

Dis

trict

of

Wes

t Virg

inia

filin

g sy

stem

.

10/2

9/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

7.00

7.00

410.

0032

0.00

2,87

0.00

2,24

0.00

Con

tinue

d w

ork

on M

SJ;

rese

arch

on

prio

r Wes

t Virg

inia

m

arria

ge, d

ivor

ce, a

nd p

rope

rty la

ws;

em

ails

with

K. L

oew

y re

sa

me.

10/3

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

5.00

5.00

410.

0032

0.00

2,05

0.00

1,60

0.00

Con

tinue

d w

ork

on M

SJ;

cre

ated

out

line

of S

tate

men

t of

Und

ispu

ted

Fact

s.

10/3

1/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

6.50

6.50

410.

0032

0.00

2,66

5.00

2,08

0.00

Com

plet

ed fi

rst d

raft

of M

SJ;

em

aile

d sa

me

to K

. Loe

wy

and

L.

Har

rison

.

11/0

1/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.50

1.50

410.

0032

0.00

615.

0048

0.00

Cal

l with

K. L

oew

y an

d L.

Har

rison

re M

SJ;

em

ails

to L

. H

arris

on re

sam

e; e

mai

l to

T. P

eavl

er re

add

ition

al re

sear

ch

on m

arria

ge b

an.

11/0

6/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.00

1.00

410.

0032

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

Sea

rche

d fo

r leg

isla

tive

hist

ory

of m

arria

ge b

an.

11/0

7/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.25

3.25

410.

0032

0.00

1,33

2.50

1,04

0.00

Rev

ised

MS

J in

acc

orda

nce

with

com

men

ts fr

om K

. Loe

wy;

em

aile

d S

. Mel

lin re

his

tory

of W

est V

irgin

ia's

mar

riage

law

s.11

/08/

2013

R. T

RE

NT

MC

CO

TTE

R4.

504.

5041

0.00

320.

001,

845.

001,

440.

00C

ontin

ued

revi

sing

MS

J; e

mai

ls w

ith T

. Pea

vler

re s

ame.

11/1

4/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.75

1.75

410.

0032

0.00

717.

5056

0.00

Con

tinue

d re

visi

ng M

SJ;

em

aile

d re

vise

d dr

aft o

f sam

e to

te

am.

11/2

4/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

102.

500.

00E

mai

l to

L. H

arris

on re

sta

tus

of M

SJ

and

timel

ine

for

Def

enda

nts

to fi

le th

eir r

espo

nse.

11/2

6/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rea

d M

TD fi

led

by D

efen

dant

McC

orm

ick;

read

em

ails

from

te

am d

iscu

ssin

g sa

me.

11/2

7/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

410.

0032

0.00

102.

5080

.00

Con

fere

nce

call

with

team

re s

ched

ulin

g or

der a

nd to

dis

cuss

re

spon

se to

sta

te's

MTD

; em

ails

to P

. Sm

ith a

nd L

. Har

rison

re

abst

entio

n.

12/0

5/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rea

d em

ails

from

opp

osin

g co

unse

l and

P. S

mith

re

sche

dulin

g R

ule

26(f)

mee

ting;

read

dra

ft of

opp

ositi

on to

m

otio

n to

abs

tain

; em

aile

d co

mm

ents

and

edi

ts o

n sa

me

to

team

.

12/1

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rev

iew

ed fi

ling

of o

ppos

ition

to M

TD; e

mai

led

copy

of B

aker

to

loca

l cou

nsel

for f

iling

.12

/13/

2013

R. T

RE

NT

MC

CO

TTE

R0.

250.

2541

0.00

320.

0010

2.50

80.0

0E

mai

ls w

ith te

am to

sch

edul

e co

nfer

ence

re M

SJ.

12/1

5/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

410.

0032

0.00

102.

5080

.00

Rea

d W

est V

irgin

ia c

ases

sum

mar

ized

by

K. L

oew

y re

equ

al

prot

ectio

n an

d m

arria

ge.

12/1

6/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.75

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

717.

500.

00

Con

fere

nce

call

with

team

re s

tatu

s of

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent b

rief

and

dead

lines

for u

pcom

ing

Rul

e 26

(f) c

all;

liste

ned

to R

ule

26(f)

mee

ting

via

phon

e; re

view

ed M

TDs

filed

by

Def

enda

nt

Col

e an

d th

e W

est V

irgin

ia A

ttorn

ey G

ener

al.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

12/1

8/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rev

iew

ed d

raft

of o

ppos

ition

to C

ole'

s M

TD; m

ade

edits

to

sam

e an

d em

aile

d to

team

.

12/1

9/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rev

iew

ed P

. Sm

ith's

edi

ts to

opp

ositi

on to

Col

e's

MTD

; rea

d em

ails

from

Lam

bda

team

with

thei

r edi

ts to

sam

e; e

mai

l to

N.

Tara

sen

re s

ame.

12/2

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

2.75

2.75

410.

0032

0.00

1,12

7.50

880.

00

Rev

iew

ed a

dditi

onal

edi

ts to

opp

ositi

on to

Col

e's

MTD

; em

ails

w

ith N

. Tar

asen

re s

ame;

revi

sed

stat

emen

t of u

ndis

pute

d fa

cts

in M

SJ;

em

aile

d up

date

d dr

aft t

o L.

Har

rison

; res

earc

hed

whe

ther

MS

J ca

n be

file

d be

fore

dis

cove

ry; e

mai

l sum

mar

izin

g fin

ding

s to

L. H

arris

on.

12/2

2/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

410.

0032

0.00

102.

5080

.00

Em

ails

with

L. H

arris

on a

nd C

. Tay

lor r

e co

mpl

etin

g pl

aint

iffs'

af

fidav

its.

12/2

3/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.00

1.00

410.

0032

0.00

410.

0032

0.00

Rea

d dr

aft o

f opp

ositi

on to

Sta

te's

MTD

; em

ail t

o te

am w

ith

edits

to s

ame.

12/2

6/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

410.

0032

0.00

102.

5080

.00

Rev

iew

ed L

ambd

a's

edits

to o

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's p

artia

l MTD

.

12/2

7/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rea

d em

ail f

rom

C. T

aylo

r re

edits

to M

SJ;

em

ails

with

N.

Tara

sen

and

L. H

arris

on re

sam

e.

12/2

8/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.25

3.25

410.

0032

0.00

1,33

2.50

1,04

0.00

Rev

iew

ed P

. Sm

ith's

edi

ts to

revi

sed

MS

J; e

dite

d M

SJ

in

acco

rd w

ith s

ame;

em

ail t

o te

am s

umm

ariz

ing

sam

e an

d ta

sks

left

to c

ompl

ete.

12/2

9/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

410.

0032

0.00

205.

0016

0.00

Rea

d em

ails

from

team

re s

horte

ning

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent

mot

ion.

12/3

0/20

13R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.00

3.00

410.

0032

0.00

1,23

0.00

960.

00

Em

ails

to N

. Tar

asen

re re

sear

ch o

n P

erry

and

Kitc

hen

opin

ions

and

sho

rteni

ng m

otio

n fo

r sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent;

crea

ted

sepa

rate

sta

tem

ent o

f und

ispu

ted

fact

s; e

mai

led

sam

e to

team

; em

ails

with

N. T

aras

en re

sam

e; re

vise

d M

SJ;

em

aile

d sa

me

to te

am; r

evis

ed o

ppos

ition

to S

tate

's M

TD;

emai

led

draf

t to

team

for r

evie

w.

01/0

1/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Rea

d D

efen

dant

s' jo

int m

otio

n to

sta

y br

iefin

g on

sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent;

emai

l to

team

re s

ame.

01/0

2/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Rea

d pr

opos

ed R

ule

28(j)

lette

r of s

uppl

emen

tal a

utho

rity;

em

ail t

o K

. Loe

wy

re s

ame.

01/0

6/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.75

0.00

480.

0032

0.00

360.

000.

00

Rev

iew

ed d

raft

of o

ppos

ition

to m

otio

n to

stri

ke s

uppl

emen

tal

auth

ority

; add

ed a

dditi

onal

reco

rd c

ites

and

fixed

nits

in s

ame;

em

ail r

e sa

me

to te

am; c

onfe

renc

e ca

ll w

ith te

am a

fter

sche

dulin

g he

arin

g.01

/08/

2014

R. T

RE

NT

MC

CO

TTE

R0.

500.

5048

0.00

320.

0024

0.00

160.

00R

ead

filed

ver

sion

of o

ur M

SJ.

01/1

8/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Em

ail t

o te

am re

Rul

e 26

lette

r.

01/2

6/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.75

0.75

480.

0032

0.00

360.

0024

0.00

Dra

fted

oppo

sitio

n to

mot

ion

to a

men

d sc

hedu

ling

orde

r; em

aile

d sa

me

to L

. Har

rison

.

01/2

7/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Fina

l edi

ts o

n op

posi

tion

to m

otio

n to

am

end

sche

dule

; em

ails

w

ith te

am re

sam

e.

01/2

9/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Em

ails

with

team

re c

ourt'

s or

der p

artia

lly g

rant

ing

mot

ions

to

dism

iss.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

02/0

6/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

480.

0032

0.00

240.

0016

0.00

Rev

iew

ed m

emor

andu

m a

nd d

raft

brie

f on

issu

e of

Bur

ford

ab

sten

tion

rais

ed b

y di

stric

t cou

rt in

its

Ord

er.

02/1

3/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.00

480.

0032

0.00

240.

000.

00C

all w

ith te

am re

writ

ing

MS

J.

02/1

5/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

2.00

2.00

480.

0032

0.00

960.

0064

0.00

Rea

d M

SJs

file

d by

all

defe

ndan

ts; r

evie

wed

out

line

of

rele

vant

rese

arch

topi

cs p

repa

red

by L

ambd

a.

02/1

7/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.75

0.75

480.

0032

0.00

360.

0024

0.00

Res

earc

h on

dea

dlin

es a

nd re

quire

men

ts fo

r fili

ng re

ply

and

oppo

sitio

n to

MS

Js; e

mai

ls w

ith N

. Tar

asen

re s

ame.

02/1

8/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

3.25

3.25

480.

0032

0.00

1,56

0.00

1,04

0.00

Beg

an re

sear

chin

g an

d dr

aftin

g re

ply/

oppo

sitio

n se

ctio

n on

m

arria

ge a

s a

fund

amen

tal r

ight

.

02/1

9/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

8.25

8.25

480.

0032

0.00

3,96

0.00

2,64

0.00

Res

earc

h on

filin

g ex

tens

ion

unde

r Rul

e 6(

d); e

mai

ls w

ith te

am

re s

ame;

com

plet

ed d

raft

of re

ply

brie

f sec

tion

on m

arria

ge a

s a

fund

amen

tal r

ight

; res

earc

hed

and

com

plet

ed d

raft

of re

ply

sect

ion

on g

ende

r and

sex

ual o

rient

atio

n di

scrim

inat

ion.

02/2

0/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.25

1.25

480.

0032

0.00

600.

0040

0.00

Com

plet

ed w

ritin

g an

d re

view

of r

eply

sec

tions

on

mar

riage

as

a fu

ndam

enta

l rig

ht a

nd s

exua

l orie

ntat

ion/

gend

er

disc

rimin

atio

n; e

mai

l to

L. H

arris

on w

ith d

raft

of s

ame.

02/2

2/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.50

0.50

480.

0032

0.00

240.

0016

0.00

Rev

iew

ed d

raft

of a

ll se

ctio

ns fo

r rep

ly b

rief p

repa

red

by

Jenn

er; e

mai

ls w

ith te

am re

add

ition

al c

itatio

ns fo

r sam

e.

02/2

3/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

0.00

120.

0080

.00

Rea

d em

ails

from

team

re c

ombi

ning

sec

tions

of r

eply

brie

f; em

ail t

o te

am re

sam

e.

02/2

4/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

2.50

0.00

480.

0032

0.00

1,20

0.00

0.00

Rev

iew

ed fu

ll dr

aft o

f rep

ly in

sup

port

of M

SJ;

add

ed a

dditi

onal

ci

tes

and

edits

to s

ame;

em

ails

and

cal

l with

team

re s

ame.

02/2

5/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.00

1.00

480.

0032

0.00

480.

0032

0.00

Rev

iew

ed fi

nal d

raft

of re

ply

brie

f for

MS

J; a

ssis

ted

in

prep

arin

g sa

me

for f

iling

; em

ails

with

N. T

aras

en re

sam

e;

read

file

d ve

rsio

n of

sam

e.92

.25

85.0

039

,502

.50

27,2

00.0

0

02/1

0/20

14C

HE

RY

L L.

OLS

ON

0.75

0.75

325.

0017

5.00

243.

7513

1.25

Cite

che

cked

brie

f in

resp

onse

to J

anua

ry 2

9 m

emor

andu

m

opin

ion.

02/1

1/20

14C

HE

RY

L L.

OLS

ON

0.75

0.75

325.

0017

5.00

243.

7513

1.25

Cite

che

cked

brie

f in

resp

onse

to J

anua

ry 2

9 m

emor

andu

m

opin

ion.

02/2

4/20

14C

HE

RY

L L.

OLS

ON

7.50

7.50

325.

0017

5.00

2,43

7.50

1,31

2.50

Cite

che

cked

mem

oran

dum

in fu

rther

resp

onse

to c

ourt'

s or

der

of J

anua

ry 2

9 an

d op

posi

tion

to s

tate

's s

econ

d m

otio

n to

di

smis

s; p

lain

tiffs

' com

bine

d re

ply

in s

uppo

rt of

pla

intif

fs'

mot

ion

for s

umm

ary

judg

men

t and

opp

ositi

on to

def

enda

nts'

cr

oss-

mot

ions

for s

umm

ary

judg

men

t.

02/2

5/20

14C

HE

RY

L L.

OLS

ON

4.50

4.50

325.

0017

5.00

1,46

2.50

787.

50

Cite

che

cked

pla

intif

fs' c

ombi

ned

repl

y in

sup

port

of p

lain

tiffs

' m

otio

n fo

r sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent a

nd o

ppos

ition

to d

efen

dant

s'

cros

s-m

otio

ns fo

r sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent.

13.5

013

.50

4,38

7.50

2,36

2.50


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

TOTA

L FO

R S

EPTE

MB

ER 2

013

THR

OU

GH

MA

Y 31

, 201

413

1,75

3.50

$


Tim

e R

epor

t: Je

nner

& B

lock

LLP

June

1, 2

014,

to p

rese

ntM

cGee

v. C

ole

(S.D

. W. V

a.)

Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

07/2

9/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.50

1.50

655.

0065

5.00

982.

5098

2.50

Rev

iew

ed S

tate

's fi

ling

re B

ostic

; rev

ised

dra

ft of

opp

ositi

on to

st

ay; c

orre

spon

ded

with

co-

coun

sel r

e sa

me.

10/0

6/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.00

2.00

655.

0065

5.00

1,31

0.00

1,31

0.00

Ana

lyze

d re

sults

of S

upre

me

Cou

rt ce

rt de

nial

; cor

resp

onde

d w

ith c

o-co

unse

l re:

stra

tegy

.

10/0

7/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

4.75

4.75

655.

0065

5.00

3,11

1.25

3,11

1.25

Dra

fted

prop

osed

judg

men

t; di

scus

sed

settl

emen

t with

E. L

in;

corr

espo

nded

with

co-

coun

sel r

e se

ttlem

ent o

ptio

ns.

10/0

8/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

2.50

2.50

655.

0065

5.00

1,63

7.50

1,63

7.50

Wor

ked

on s

ettle

men

t iss

ues.

10/2

1/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

0.50

0.50

655.

0065

5.00

327.

5032

7.50

Rev

iew

ed re

ply

brie

f re

stan

ding

issu

es.

11/0

7/20

14LI

ND

SA

Y C

. HA

RR

ISO

N

1.00

1.00

655.

0065

5.00

655.

0065

5.00

Rev

iew

ed s

umm

ary

judg

men

t dec

isio

n; c

orre

spon

ded

with

team

re

dec

isio

n.12

.25

12.2

58,

023.

758,

023.

75

07/2

9/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

4.50

4.50

435.

0032

8.00

1,95

7.50

1,47

6.00

Dra

ft m

otio

n to

lift

stay

/ op

posi

tion

to s

tate

mot

ion

to c

ontin

ue

stay

in re

spon

se to

Fou

rth C

ircui

t dec

isio

n in

Bos

tic.

10/2

2/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

6.50

6.50

435.

0032

8.00

2,82

7.50

2,13

2.00

Res

earc

hed,

dra

fted

and

edite

d R

eply

re M

otio

n to

Vac

ate

Sta

y an

d E

nter

Jud

gmen

t.

10/2

3/20

14N

ICH

OLA

S W

. TA

RA

SE

N

0.75

0.75

435.

0032

8.00

326.

2524

6.00

Mad

e fin

al e

dits

to R

eply

re M

otio

n to

Vac

ate

Sta

y an

d E

nter

Ju

dgm

ent.

11.7

511

.75

5,11

1.25

3,85

4.00

06/1

1/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

789.

0055

0.00

394.

50Te

leph

one

call

with

co-

coun

sel r

e pl

anni

ng n

ext s

teps

afte

r a

CA

4 ru

ling.

07/2

9/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

789.

0055

0.00

394.

50R

evie

wed

sta

y m

otio

n fil

ed b

y th

e de

fend

ants

.07

/30/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

1.

001.

001,

100.

0078

9.00

1,10

0.00

789.

00E

dite

d op

p to

sta

y m

otio

n.

10/0

7/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

1.00

1.00

1,10

0.00

789.

001,

100.

0078

9.00

Em

aile

d w

ith te

am a

bout

how

to g

et ju

dgm

ent a

nd fo

rm th

ereo

f.10

/21/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

501,

100.

0078

9.00

550.

0039

4.50

Rev

iew

ed fi

lings

and

em

aile

d w

ith te

am re

sam

e.10

/22/

2014

PA

UL

M. S

MIT

H

0.

500.

501,

100.

0078

9.00

550.

0039

4.50

Edi

ted

draf

t rep

ly s

uppo

rting

mot

ion

for j

udgm

ent.

10/2

3/20

14P

AU

L M

. SM

ITH

0.50

0.50

1,10

0.00

789.

0055

0.00

394.

50R

evie

wed

Lam

bda

Lega

l edi

ts to

repl

y br

ief i

n su

ppor

t of

judg

men

t.4.

504.

504,

950.

003,

550.

50

11/1

1/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

8.00

120.

0082

.00

Res

earc

h on

dea

dlin

e to

see

k at

torn

eys

fees

; em

ails

with

team

re

sam

e.


Dat

eN

ame

Orig

Hrs

Req

Hrs

Orig

Rat

eR

eq R

ate

Orig

Am

tR

eq A

mt

Nar

rativ

e

11/1

3/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

1.00

1.00

480.

0032

8.00

480.

0032

8.00

Res

earc

h on

ext

ensi

on o

f tim

e fo

r fili

ng m

otio

n fo

r atto

rney

s'

fees

; em

ails

with

team

re s

ame;

beg

an d

rafti

ng m

otio

n fo

r at

torn

eys'

fees

.

11/1

7/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

0.25

0.25

480.

0032

8.00

120.

0082

.00

Em

ails

with

team

re s

tatu

s of

mot

ion

for e

xten

sion

of t

ime

to

seek

atto

rney

s fe

es.

11/2

4/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

4.00

4.00

480.

0032

8.00

1,92

0.00

1,31

2.00

Con

tinue

d dr

aftin

g m

otio

n fo

r atto

rney

s fe

es; e

mai

ls w

ith te

am re

co

llect

ing

docu

men

tatio

n in

sup

port

of s

ame.

11/2

5/20

14R

. TR

EN

T M

CC

OTT

ER

5.25

5.25

480.

0032

8.00

2,52

0.00

1,72

2.00

Con

tinue

d dr

aftin

g m

otio

n fo

r atto

rney

s fe

es; e

mai

ls w

ith te

am re

co

llect

ing

docu

men

tatio

n in

sup

port

of s

ame.

10.7

510

.75

5,16

0.00

3,52

6.00

TOTA

L FO

R J

UN

E 1,

201

4, T

HR

OU

GH

PR

ESEN

T18

,954

.25

$


EXHIBIT B


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Huntington Division

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH ADKINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

V.

KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity as CABELL COUNTY CLERK, et al.

Defendants.

And

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Defendant-Intervenor.

Civil Action No. 3: 13-cv-24068 Bon. Robert Chambers

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN H. TINNEY, JR.

John H. Tinney, Jr., personally appearing before the undersigned officer duly authorized

to administer oaths, does hereby depose and say as follows:

1. My name is John H. Tinney, Jr. Tam a resident of Charleston, Kanawha County,

West Virginia and member in good standing of the West Virginia State Bar. I am legally

competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. I am

a founding Member of The Tinney Law Firm, PLLC.

2. Education, Experience and Qualific31tions

A. Education: I received my undergraduate degree in 1992, cum laude, from

Washington & Lee University. I attended Wake Forest University School of Law, where I received


my Juris Doctorate in 1995. I have consistently met my continuing legal education requirements

since my admission to the West Virginia State Bar in 1995.

B. Previous Employment: I was initially employed as an associate attorney

with the Charleston based law firm of Spilman, Thomas and Battle. After working in private

practice for approximately three years, I was employed as the law clerk for the Hon. Robert B.

King on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Following my clerkship,

I worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of West Virginia.

C. Current Employment: I am a founding and current member of The Tinney

Law Firm, PLLC. During my tenure as a Member, I have represented a diverse aiTay of clients in

matters in federal and state comt, including several constitutional challenges to state law

proVISIOnS.

3. Hourly Rate: I am requesting an hourly rate of $300 per hour for the time I have

spent on this matter. I believe this rate to be reasonable and in line or below the current market

rate for an attorney with my experience and qualifications. The lower rates requested for additional

attorneys and paralegals in this firm who performed work on this matter are also reasonable and

in line or below the market rates given their individual experience and education.

4. Hours and Expenses: The document attached to this fee petition is a true and coiTect

compilation of the contemporaneously made time records I and other attorneys and paralegals in

this firm have maintained for services performed in this case. The firm' s time records have been

edited and reduced where such entries appeared excessive, redundant or inefficient and reflect a

reduction in the actual time spent and the tasks performed. It is my opinion that the amounts of

billable time and expenses described represent a reasonable use of attorney and paralegal time, in

2


light of the issues presented in this case, the factual posture ofthe matter and the results achieved

by the plaintiffs.

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, TO WIT:

I, Nodgie P. Kennedy , a Notary Public of said county, do hereby certify that John H. Tinney, Jr. , whose name is signed to the writing herein, has this day acknowledged the same before me in my said county.

Given under my hand and notarial seal this ';>.._'C\.~ day of 'S:)\!c:.~~re...- , 2014.

My commission expires: ~ \~ \ ~

~~~&~~ NOTAR PUBLIC

[SEAL]

3


EXHIBIT 1


The TINNEY LAW FIRM

PLLC 222 Capitol Street Suite 500 Charleston, WV 25301

304/720-3310 (phone) 304/720-3315 (fax) FEIN# 55-0785857

INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:

Jon Davidson, Esq. Lambda Legal 3325 Wilshore Blvd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729

RE: Constitutional challenge to West Virginia same sex marriage ban

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

9/26/2013 JHTJR Confer with B. Littrell; Review various documents forwarded by Lambda.

HDFK Research re: due diligence.

9/27/2013 JKT Examine complaint; Research history of legal challenges in West Virginia related to same sex marriage issues; Examine engagement letter, etc.

JHTJR Work on review of complaint and retention agreements and co-counsel agreements; Work on review of NJ decision issued today; Telephone conference with legal team.

HDFK Telephone conference with Glasser, Brown re: background; Review and analysis of draft complaint; Email messages with client re: pro hac vice, logistics; Obtain pro hac vice checks from Bailey & Glasser; Revise complaint; Analysis of pro hac vice paperwork; Research

October 31, 2013

INVOICE #: 22711

Hrs/Rate Amount

2.00 600.00 300.00/hr

0.30 67.50 225.00/hr

3.00 720.00 240.00/hr

3.00 900.00 300.00/hr

3.50 787.50 225.00/hr


RE: Constitutional challenge to West Virginia same sex marriage han

service issue re: clerk/commission; Telephone conference with team.

9/27/2013 NPK Analyze email string with co-counsel re: filing of complaint and pro hac vice admission information; Analyze, convert, and revise draft complaint to Firm's system; Draft civil case information statement and summonses; Draft Statement(s) ofVisiting Attorney(s) for co-counsel Taylor and Litrell; Analyze response and instruction re: admission of 7 attorneys pro hac vice; Draft statements as to each attorney; Receive attorney signature pages via email; Confer with attorneys re: filing and litigation strategy; Analyze email messages with co-counsel re: same.

9/30/2013 JKT Examine constitutional challenge complaint; Research re: similar issues and cases.

JHTJR Confer with press officer and other members of legal team re: filing of complaint.

HDFK Telephone conference with Jon Adams; Prepare for filings.

JKC Discuss complaint with Heather Foster Kittredge; Review Complaint.

NPK Confer with attorneys re: plan of action; Produce and document final retainer agreements for execution by plaintiffs; Revise Statement(s) of Visiting Attorneys and Designation of Local Counsel forms; Attend to check requests for West Virginia State Bar and USDC Court Clerk in connection with pro hac vice; Draft letter to West Virginia State Bar transmitting attorney Statement(s) and pro hac vice fee; Revise Civil Case Information Sheet and Summonses to final; Attend to new case file, forms and information; Telephone call with USDC Clerk re: details of filing and issuance of summons.

PAGE

Hrs/Rate

2.60 100.00/hr

2.20 240.00/hr

1.00 300.00/hr

3.70 225.00/hr

0.40 205.00/hr

2.60 100.00/hr

2

Amount

260.00

528.00

300.00

832.50

82.00

260.00


RE: Constitutional challenge to West PAGE 3 Virginia same sex marriage ban

Hrs/Rate Amount

10/112013 JHTJR Travel to and from Huntington, West Virginia for press 4.00 1,200.00 conference; Finalize filing of complaint; Participate in 300.00/hr press conference; Finalize representation agreements; Review various news articles.

JKT Examine complaint; Examine news coverage and internet 2.50 600.00 coverage; Discuss case with counsel. 240.00/hr

HDFK Roundtrip travel to and from Huntington, West Virginia 4.00 900.00 for press conference; Hand-deliver pro hac vice paperwork. 225.00/hr

NPK File Civil Case Information Sheet, Complaint, Summons 4.20 420.00 and filing fee payment information via CM/ECF; 100.00/hr Telephone calls to and from Court Clerk re: filings and CMIECF issues; Forward filings to various Court IT personnel; Telephone call confirming filing and issuing case docket number; Receive and review Court executed Summons; Prepare service copies; File Statement of Visiting Attorney form and filing fee payment information for each attorney Smith, Platzer, McCotter, Loewy, Littrell, Harrison, and Taylor via Court's CM/ECF; Receive and review Standing Order referring Discovery Matters to Magistrate Judge; Draft letter to West Virginia State Bar transmitting fee and as-filed Visiting Attorney Statement forms.

10/2/2013 JHTJR Confer with various members of trial team re: service of 2.00 600.00 process and other administrative matters. 300.00/hr

JKT Research re: other state's same sex marriage challenges; 2.70 648.00 Examine press coverage; Discuss with counsel re : path 240.00/hr forward; Discussion of rules on notice to Attorney General and research re: same.

HDFK Telephone conference with Karen L; Analysis of 5.1 notice 0.70 157.50 of constitutional question; Telephone conference with 225.00/hr process server; Email messages with defense team.



10/2/20 13 NPK Analyze information relative to Cabell County process server; Place call and leave message; Draft letter for John H. Tinney, Jr. to Paul Smith, Jenner & Block, transmitting executed Co-Counsel Agreement; Draft letter for John H. Tinney, Jr. to Lindsay Harrison, Jenner & Block, transmitting plaintiffs Retainer Agreement executed by each plaintiff and The Tinney Law Firm, PLLC; Travel to Kanawha County Clerk's office as process servicer of Summons and Complaint on Defendant McCormick; Prepare proof of service and Certificate of Service; File service documents via Court's CMIECF; Prepare follow-up tasks as to Answer.

10/3/20 13 JHTJR Work on various administrative issues, including service of Cabell County Clerk.

HDFK Research notice provision; Revise notice.

NPK Attend to issue with process service in Cabell County; Receive and review Court's notice of visiting attorneys re: CM/ECF filing and email notification; Confer with attorney re: notice of suit to Attorney General's office.

10/4/2013 JHTJR Work on notice of constitutional challenge and service on West Virginia Attorney General; Confer with counsel re: service and path forward; Review various news articles re: filing.

HDFK Revise notice; Gather media coverage; Work out administrative issues such as billing and service.

NPK Analyze West Virginia Attorney General's website in connection with service of notice; Telephone calls to Attorney General's office; Revise Notice of Constitutional Question to final; Prepare Certificate of Service and exhibit; Transmit to co-counsel for review and approval; Telephone call with Court Clerk re: service by US Marsha; Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge; Analyze email transmittal to proposed process server; File Notice of

PAGE

Hrs/Rate

2.30 100.00/hr

1.50 300.00/hr

1.50 225.00/hr

0.80 100.00/hr

1.50 300.00/hr

1.20 225.00/hr

3.00 100.00/hr

4

Amount

230.00

450.00

337.50

80.00

450.00

270.00

300.00



Hrs/Rate Amount

Constitutional Question via CM/ECF; Copy all counsel via email and prepare service copies via certified mail.

10/5/2013 JHTJR Review news articles re: same sex marriage in West 0.30 90.00 Virginia. 300.00/hr

10/7/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: service issues to Huntington 0.30 90.00 Clerk's office. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email message to Proctor re: service information. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze status of service on Cabell County Clerk and 0.20 20.00 co-counsel's questions on verified amended complaint. 100.00/hr

10/8/2013 JHTJR Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and national counsel 1.00 300.00 re: path forward and briefing schedules; Work on 300.00/hr finalizing service.

HDFK Work on service; Research verified complaint. 1.80 405.00 225.00/hr

NPK Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and transmit 0.90 90.00 complaint package for process service with information 100.00/hr and instruction via email; Receive and review executed Proof of Service; Prepare Certificate of Service and file via Court's CM/ECF system; Prepare follow-up task as to Answer.

10/9/2013 JHTJR Confer with national counsel and Heather Foster Kittredge. 1.10 330.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of VA Motion for Summary Judgment; Strategy; 0.90 202.50 Telephone conference. 225.00/hr

NPK Receive and review Court's notice re: Certification of 1.10 110.00 Constitutional Question; Transmit to co-counsel via email; 1 00.00/hr Attend to case management and organization; Analyze



Hrs/Rate Amount

email message from attorney Taylor transmitting Motion for Summary Judgment used in similar Virginia litigation.

I 0110/2013 JKT Examine certification; Examine coverage; Research re: 1.80 432.00 Attorney General intervention and procedure. 240.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string with sample Motion for Summary 0.30 30.00 Judgment and Memo in Support as filed in VA USDC. 100.00/hr

10/ 11/2013 JHTJR Work on draft of memo for oversized brief. 1.00 300.00 300.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string with co-counsel re: motions practice 0.20 20.00 and timing; Review proposed motion to exceed page 100.00/hr limitations.

10/1 6/2013 JHTJR Review various news articles re: West Virginia lawsuit and 1.00 300.00 progress in other states. 300.00/hr

NPK Review executed Co-Counseling Agreement. 0.20 20.00 1 00.00/hr

10118/2013 JHTJR Review voicemail message from counsel and confer with 0.50 150.00 counsel re: response. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis and strategy re: defense counsel request for 0.50 112.50 extension to respond. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string re: counsel for defendant, defendant's 0.60 60.00 request for extension oftime to answer, implications and 1 00.00/hr strategy.

10/21/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel multiple times re: requests for 1.40 420.00 extension; Review motion by McCormick to extend 300.00/hr deadlines.



Hrs/Rate Amount

10/21 /2013 NPK Analyze email strings with co-counsel re: requested 0.40 40.00 extension, counsel for Cabell County Clerk and litigation 100.00/hr strategy; Analyze email string with opposing counsel re: extension and plan of action.

10/22/2013 JHTJR Work on drafting response to motion; Review Order. 1.30 390.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with defense team; Analysis of Motion for 3.30 742.50 Extension; Telephone conference with Chambers' clerk 225.00/hr advising there will be a response; Analysis of rules in preparation for filing response; Analysis of case law; Revisions to circulation of draft of opposition to Motion to Extend.

NPK Review Defendant McCormick's Motion to Extend Time 2.10 210.00 Frame to File a Responsive Pleading; Review 1 00.00/hr Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant McCormick's motion; Review Order Suspending Defendant McCormick's Responsive Pleading Deadline; Review Motion for Expedited Ruling on Defendant McCormick's Motion; Analyze email string with co-counsel re: strategy and response; Conduct computer search relating to opposition to motion for extension per Heather Foster Kittredge; Analyze press re: case and document same to file; Assist with preparation of opposition to McCormick's motion to extend time frame; Revise Certificate of Service to reflect opposing counsel's service by CM/ECF and by U.S. Mail; File Opposition; Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and Lambda Legal paralegal re: plaintiff updates.

10/23/2013 JHTJR Review reply brief by McCormick; Review Memorandum 0.70 210.00 Opinion and Order. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of Reply to Response to Motion to Extend. 0.20 45.00 225.00/hr



10/23/2013 NPK Review Defendant McCormick's Memorandum in Reply to Opposition ofPlaintiffs to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Extend Time Frame to File Responsive Pleading; Analyze local press in connection with case; Analyze email string with co-counsel re: response to local reporter and response by public relations; Review Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant McCormick's motion for extension and providing same extension to Defendant Cole without the request.

10/24/2013 JHTJR Review notice of appearance for Cole.

NPK Review Notice of Appearance of attorney Lee Murray Hall .

1 0/25/2013 NPK Analyze email message from Jenner & Block inquiring into status of execution of plaintiffs' retainer agreements; Analyze electronic file as to document transmittal history; Address status of plaintiffs retainer agreements with Heather Foster Kittredge.

10/31/2013 HDFK Telephone call with State Bar, District Clerk, Chambers' Clerk re: pro hac vice admission supplement of K. Loewy; Email message to K. Loewy.

FEE TOTAL

CLIENT COSTS

10/1/2013 FilingFee Clerk, USDC, SDWV- Pro hac vice admissions for Elizabeth L. Littrell, Karen L. Loewy, and Camilla B. Taylor.

PAGE 8

Hrs!Rate

0.90 100.00/hr

0.10 300.00/hr

0.20 100.00/hr

0.30 1 00.00/hr

0.60 225.00/hr

81.50

Oty/Price

3 $50.00

Amount

90.00

30.00

20.00

30.00

135.00

$17,427.50

150.00



1 0/31/20 13 Copying cost Photocopies for October 2013.

Postage Postage for October 2013.

TOTAL CLIENT COSTS

TOTAL THIS INVOICE

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

Name James K. Tinney John H. Tinney, Jr. Heather D. Foster Kittredge John K. Cecil Nodgie P. Kennedy

Payment due within 30 days

Timekeeper Summary Hours 12.20 23.70 22.30

0.40 22.90

PAGE 9

Oty/Price Amount

684 171.00 $0.25

1 31.64 $31.64

$352.64

$17,780.14

$17,780.14

Rate Amount ------':.-==:== 240.00 $2,928.00 300.00 $7,110.00 225.00 $5,017.50 205.00 $82.00 100.00 $2,290.00


The TINNEY LAW FIRM

PLLC 5 Greenbrier Street Charleston, WV 25311

3 04/72 0-3 31 0 (phone) 304/720-3315 (fax) FEIN # 55-0785857

INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:

Jon Davidson, Esq. Lambda Legal 3325 Wilshore Blvd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 9001 0-1729


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

1118/2013 JHTJR Review multiple news articles re: status of West Virginia lawsuit.

11111 /2013 JHTJR Confer with Lambda attorneys re: recent filings.

11/18/2013 NPK Review fully executed Retainer Agreement as to each plaintiff; Document same to file.

11/22/2013 HDFK Review motion by Attorney General to intervene.

NPK Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Intervene and Integrated Memorandum of Law in Support.

ll/25/2013 HDFK Review email message from clerk to Chambers re: motion to intervene of Attorney General; Email messages with plaintiff team re: clerk email message and response to same.

II

November 30, 2014

INVOICE #: 22928

Hrs/Rate

1.00 300.00/hr

0.50 300.00/hr

0.30 1 00.00/hr

0.10 225.00/hr

0.30 100.00/hr

0.30 225.00/hr

Amount

300.00

150.00

30.00

22.50

30.00

67.50



Hrs/Rate Amount

11/26/2013 JHTJR Brief review of new filings. 0.40 120.00 300.00/hr

JKT Examine Motion to Dismiss. 1.40 336.00 240.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: teleconference and 0.90 202.50 response to Motion to Dismiss; Analysis ofMemo and 225.00/hr Motion to Dismiss (abstention).

NPK Review Defendant Vera McCormick's Motion to Dismiss 0.50 50.00 with exhibits and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof; 100.00/hr Analyze email string re: proposed plan of action and conference to discuss further.

11/27/2013 JKT Examine Motion to Dismiss and email questions from 1.20 288.00 counsel. 240.00/hr

HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiffteam re: response to 0.30 67.50 Motion to Dismiss. 225.00/hr

12/2/2013 JHTJR Review Order allowing State of West Virginia to intervene 0.40 120.00 as defendant; Review scheduling Order. 300.00/hr

JHTJR Confer with counsel re: multiple issues. 0.30 90.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages re: timing of response to opposition and 0.50 112.50 scheduling order; Analysis of Order and Notice issued by 225.00/hr court re: 26(f) scheduling conference, disdomes; Analysis of Order granting West Virginia Attorney General motion to intervene.

NPK Analyze email message re: Court Clerk contact; Review 0.50 50.00 Order granting the State of West Virginia's Motion to 100.00/hr Intervene; Review Order and Notice setting dates; Prepare follow-up tasks re: same; Analyze email string re: response to Motion to Dismiss.



Hrs/Rate Amount

12/3/2013 JKT Examine Motion to Dismiss and discuss with counsel. 1.50 360.00 240.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string re: strategy and legal research; 0.90 90.00 Investigate prior case research in connection with Younger 100.00/hr and Rooker Feldman absention doctrine; Respond to attorney with relevant information.

12/5/2013 JHTJR Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge and others re: 0.50 150.00 scheduling a meeting with counsel re: scheduling. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of local rules re: disclosure; Strategy re: Rule 0.60 135.00 26(f) meeting, timing, cross-motions; Email messages with 225.00/hr plaintiff team.

12/6/2013 JHTJR Work on review of draft opposition to Motion to Dismiss. 1.00 300.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: availability for 0.40 90.00 26(f) meeting and response in opposition to Motion to 225.00/hr Dismiss; Email messages with all counsel re: Rule 26(f) meeting.

12/9/20 13 JHTJR Work on review and comment on final version of response 2.00 600.00 to Motion to Dismiss. 300.00/hr

JKT Examine and discuss Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 1.80 432.00 with counsel. 240.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with all counsel re: location of26(f) 0.80 180.00 meeting; Email messages with plaintiff team re: analysis of 225.00/hr opposition to Motion to Dismiss.

NPK Analyze email strings re: work on Opposition to 0.60 60.00 McCormick's Motion to Dismiss; Analyze and revise 100.00/hr Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss to final ; Prepare Certificate of Service.



Hrs/Rate Amount

12/10/20 13 JHTJR Review final draft of response to Motion to Dismiss. 1.00 300.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Prepare and file Memorandum in Opposition to 0.50 112.50 McCormick's Motion to Dismiss. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze draft and conduct Westlaw research and confer 1.90 190.00 with James K. Tinney as to case for attachment as exhibit 100.00/hr to memorandum of law; Revise memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss; Transmit final to all counsel for approval of filing; File memorandum of law via Court's CM/ECF system; Analyze email messages re: exhibit; Review substitute exhibit; Telephone call with Court Clerk re: amended documents; Transmit new exhibit to Court Clerk; Review notice of revision and documents as filed; Email messages with co-counsel.

12/13/2013 HDFK Strategy for setting deadlines at Rule 26(f) conference. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

12/16/2013 JHTJR Confer with counsel for plaintiffs; Participate in Rule 26(f) 2.00 600.00 planning meeting. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with national counsel re: 26(f) meeting; 0.60 135.00 Analysis of change of attorney information by state of 225.00/hr West Virginia; Analysis of Cole's Motion to Dismiss and memo; Analysis of state of West Virginia's Motion to Dismiss.

NPK Review Defendant Karen S. Cole's Motion to Dismiss and 0.50 50.00 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss; Notice of 100.00/hr change of attorney information for the office of West Virginia Attorney General; Prepare notes to file.

12/17/2013 NPK Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Dismiss and 0.50 50.00 Integrated Memorandum of Law in Support; Review 1 00.00/hr Defendant McCormick's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant McCormick's Motion to Dismiss.



Hrs/Rate Amount

12/18/2013 HDFK Review email messages from judge's clerk re: scheduling 0.10 22.50 conference. 225.00/hr

12/19/2013 JHTJR Work on drafting proposed planning report and confer with 2.50 750.00 client and counsel re: same. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis, strategy, and preparation re: Rule 26(f) report. 0.50 112.50 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze suggested edits received and revise Joint Report 0.40 40.00 of Parties Planning Meeting for final review. 1 00.00/hr

12/20/2013 JHTJR Work on finalizing and filing of Rule 26(f) report. 2.00 600.00 300.00/hr

JKT Examine draft opposition and discuss with counsel. 1.10 264.00 240.00/hr

HDFK Analysis and approval of Opposition to Cole's Motion to 0.40 90.00 Dismiss in preparation for filing. 225.00/hr

NPK Revise Joint Report of Meeting to include defendant 1.40 140.00 signature blocks; Attend to case management and 1 00.00/hr organization; Analyze draft Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to Dismiss; Analyze revision to Joint Report of Parties Planning Meeting; File Joint Report of Parties Planning Meeting via Court's CM/ECF system.

12/23/2013 JHTJR Review and file response in opposition to Cole Motion to 0.80 240.00 Dismiss. 300.00/hr

HDFK Final preparation of Opposition to Cole's Motion to 0.20 45.00 Dismiss for filing (email messages with counsel). 225.00/hr

NPK Revise Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant 0.90 90.00 Cole's Motion to Dismiss to final; Prepare Certificate of 1 00.00/hr Service and file memo via CM/ECF system.



Hrs/Rate Amount

12/27/2013 JHTJR Review email messages from C. Taylor; Review signature 0.50 150.00 pages; Confer wtih clients. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages re: client verification signature pages. 0.20 45.00 225.00/hr

NPK Review signature pages via FedEx from Jane Louise 0.40 40.00 Fenton and Nancy Elizabeth Michael; Review signature 1 00.00/hr pages via FedEx from William Glavaris and Justin Murdock; Review signature pages via hand delivery from Sarah Adkins and Casie McGee.

12/30/2013 JHTJR Work on finalizing draft briefs and filing of same. 2.50 750.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of rules and strategy re: filing Motion for 1.20 270.00 Summary Judgment and statement of undisputed facts; 225.00/hr Analysis of Cole Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; Email messages with Camilla to file Motion for Summary Judgment today; Telephone conference with Camilla re: filing of Motion for Summary Judgment.

NPK Review Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in 3.30 330.00 Opposition of Defendant Cole's Motion to Dismiss; 100.00/hr Analyze and revise draft Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Law in Opposition to State of West Virginia's Motion to Dismiss to final ; File memorandum via Court's CM/ECF system; Analyze and revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Prepare exhibits to motion; File motion, exhibits and memorandum via Court's CM/ECF system.

12/31/2013 JHTJR Work on review of additional exhibits to file with memo in 0.40 120.00 opposition. 300.00/hr

NPK Analyze Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State's 1.90 190.00 Motion to Dismiss and to missing exhibits; Telephone call 100.00/hr with court clerks in Charleston and Huntington to discuss amending to add declarations; Review notice of change to



Hrs/Rate Amount

filing; Confer with co-counsel re: additional exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment; Analyze legislative history, opinions and draft Declaration for John H. Tinney, Jr.; Revise Declaration and prepare exhibits; File same via Court's CM/ECF system.

1/2/2014 JHTJR Review notice of supplemental authority. 0.30 90.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Strategy and preparation re: filing notice of supplemental 0.20 45.00 authority. 225.00/hr

1/3/2014 JHTJR Review defendant's petition to strike. 0.20 60.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of McCormick motion to strike and memo in 0.30 67.50 support. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze and produce supplemental authority for filing in 1.20 120.00 connection with oppositions to Motion to Dismiss; Review 100.00/hr Notice of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Certificate of Service to final ; Prepare exhibits; File Notice and exhibits via court's CM/ECF system; Review Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Authority and Memorandum of Law in Support.

1/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: hearing before Judge Chambers. 0.30 90.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team in preparation for 0.30 67.50 scheduling conference on 1/6/14. 225.00/hr

1/6/2014 JHTJR Work on review and filing of response to motion to strike; 6.50 1,950.00 Review pending motions and memoranda; Confer with 300.00/hr counsel re: hearing; Travel to Huntington, West Virginia; Participate in scheduling hearing before Judge Chambers; Additional conference with counsel; Return travel to Charleston, West Virginia.



Hrs/Rate Amount

I /6/2014 HDFK Travel to scheduling conference; Meeting with L. 6.50 1,462.50 Harrison, co-counsel, in preparation; Attend scheduling 225.00/hr conference; Return travel; Telephone conference re: conference with co-counsel; Strategy re: filing reply to motion to strike additional authority.

NPK Analyze email strings and proposed draft response to 0.30 30.00 defendants' joint motion to strike supplemental authority, 100.00/hr hearing and conference call; Review as-filed copy of Plaintiffs' reply in opposition to motion to strike defendants McCormick and Cole.

119/2014 HDFK Review District Court report of scheduling conference. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

HDFK Review and analyze reply by state of West Virginia to 0.20 45.00 memorandum in opposition. 225.00/hr

NPK Review District Judge Daybook Entry from 1/6/14's 0.10 10.00 scheduling conference. 1 00.00/hr

1110/2014 NPK Review Reply in Support of State of West Virginia's 0.30 30.00 Motion to Dismiss; Review Order holding Plaintiffs' 1 00.00/hr Motion for Summary Judgment in abeyance pending issuance of Scheduling Order.

1/13/2014 HDFK Analysis of Cole and McCormick reply to opposition to 0.20 45.00 motion to strike. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Opposition to Motion 0.20 20.00 to Strike. 100.00/hr

1114/2014 JHTJR Brief review of email messages and opinion from federal 0.50 150.00 district court overturning Oklahoma same sex marriage ban. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages re: strategy on pleading filed as re: 0.20 45.00 Defendant's Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike. 225.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

1116/2014 JHTJR Review recent news articles re: maniage cases. 0.30 90.00 300.00/hr

1117/2014 JHTJR Review Order from Judge Chambers; Review recent news 0.40 120.00 articles. 300.00/hr

HDFK Review Order re: defendants joint motion to stay briefing 0.10 22.50 on plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Order staying the deadline for responses to 0.10 10.00 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. 100.00/hr

112112014 JHTJR Review multiple email messages from counsel for all 1.00 300.00 parties re: various scheduling issues and deadlines. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with trial team re: Elbert Lin request for 0.40 90.00 extension on Rule 26 disclosures. 225.00/hr

1/22/2014 JHTJR Review multiple email messages re: scheduling and 0.50 150.00 deadlines. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages re: extension requested by Attorney 0.20 45.00 General. 225.00/hr

1124/2014 JHTJR Review email messages from counsel and review State's 0.50 150.00 motion to extend deadlines. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with trial team re: motions briefings 0.30 67.50 schedule and analysis of Attorney General motion to 225.00/hr amend deadline to respond to plaintiffs Motion for Summaty Judgment.

NPK Review Defendant Intervenor's Motion to Amend the 0.20 20.00 Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary 100.00/hr Judgment.

1127/2014 JHTJR Work on review of multiple email messages and draft 1.00 300.00 documents. 300.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

1127/2014 HDFK Strategy and analysis of response in partial opposition to 0.40 90.00 Motion to Amend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs 225.00/hr Motion for Summary Judgment; Analysis of West Virginia Reply supporting motion to amend deadline to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment.

NPK Review and file Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to Defendant 0.70 70.00 Intervenor's Motion to Amend the Deadline to Respond to 1 00.00/hr Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment via Court's CM/ECF system; Review state of West Virginia's reply support its motion to amend the deadline to respond to plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.

1/29/2014 JHTJR Review memorandum opinion and confer with counsel re: 1.00 300.00 same. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of Memorandum Opinion and Order; Strategy re: 0.80 180.00 same. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Memorandum Opinion and Order. 0.20 20.00 1 00.00/hr

1130/2014 HDFK Email messages re: strategy, Burford. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

NPK Prepare follow-up tasks pursuant to deadlines set for in 0.30 30.00 Memorandum Opinion and Order; Analyze and document 100.00/hr to file newspaper article re: Judge's decision.

2/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with West Virginia Attorney General's office re: 0.50 150.00 exceeding page limitations. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiffs team re: page limitations. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze WSAZ article on Anti-Gay Discrimination Bill 0.20 20.00 introduced and note to file. 100.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

2/5/2014 HDFK Analysis of Motion to Exceed Page Limits. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

NPK Review State of West Virginia's Unopposed Motion to 0.10 10.00 Extend the Page Limit for Its Initial Summary Judgment I 00.00/hr filing.

2/6/2014 JHTJR Review unopposed motion and Order re: same; Review 1.40 420.00 memo re: possible amendment and draft brief. 300.00/hr

HDFK Review Order granting motion to exceed page limits; 0.60 135.00 Analysis of Memo and Brief re: Burford and amending 225.00/hr complaint; Email messages with plaintiffs team re: memo/brief.

NPK Review Order granting State's motion to exceed page 0.10 10.00 limits. 100.00/hr

2/7/2014 JHTJR Review draft memoranda and confer with counsel on 2.00 600.00 multiple issues. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: teleconference to 0.10 22.50 discuss memo and brief on abstention, amending complaint. 225.00/hr

2/10/2014 HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiff team re: memo/brief 0.40 90.00 re: abstention, amending complaint; Email messages with 225.00/hr plaintiff team re: teleconference; Review Cole/McCormick joint motion to exceed page limits.

NPK Review Joint Motion of Defendants Cole and McCormick 0.10 10.00 to Extend the Page Limits on Their Response to Plaintiffs' 100.00/hr Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

211 1/2014 JHTJR Work on review of memo and brief; Review Order re: 1.10 330.00 Joint Motion to Extend. 300.00/hr

NPK Analyze Charleston Gazette article on legislature and copy 0.40 40.00 to file; Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge re: clients' 100.00/hr and co-counsel's strategy and filing; Review Order granting



Hrs/Rate Amount

Defendants' Cole and McCormick Joint Motion to Exceed Page Limit.

2/12/20 14 JHTJR Work on review of Burford II draft briefing; Work on 2.00 600.00 review of defendant's motion for Summary Judgment. 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages and strategy with plaintiff team. 0.30 67.50 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze and revise to final the Memorandum of Law in 0.90 90.00 Response to Court's Order of 1/29/14; Prepare Certificate 100.00/hr of Service and file same via Court' CM/ECF system.

2113/201 4 JHTJR Work on dispositive motion briefing. 2.50 750.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Telephone conference with plaintiff team re: conversation 0.40 90.00 with Lee Hall. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of Cole and 1.30 130.00 McCormick; Review Joint Memorandum in Support and in 100.00/hr Opposition to Plaintiffs ' Motion for Summary Judgment; Review Notice of Change of Attorney information; Prepare notes to file and contact information; Review West Virginia's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Review West Virginia's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Indexed Exhibits; Review West Virginia's Memorandum Supporting its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

2/ 14/2014 JHTJR Review opinion and confer with counsel; Review proposed 1.60 480.00 amicus filing by Family Policy Council. 300.00/hr

NPK Review Motion for Leave to File Brief, and The Family 0.50 50.00 Policy Council of West Virginia's Amicus Curiae Brief in 1 00.00/hr Support of Defendant-Intervenor's Motion for Summary Judgment.



Hrs/Rate Amount

2/18/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: multiple briefing issues. 0.50 150.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: motion to court to 1.40 315.00 combine reply/opposition to cross-motions; Telephone 225.00/hr conference with E. Lin re: combining reply/opposition; Telephone conference with Lee Hall re: combining reply/opposition; Prepare Motion re: reply/opposition to cross-motions.

NPK Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge re: local federal 0.30 30.00 rules; Analyze West Virginia Code and respond to inquiry. 100.00/hr

2/19/2014 JHTJR Review draft motion to exceed page limits and extend 0.50 150.00 deadlines; Revise draft motion. 300.00/hr

HDFK Telephone conference with C. Bailey re: combine 0.10 22.50 reply/opposition to cross-motions. 225.00/hr

NPK Revise Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Reply 1.70 170.00 Memoranda and to Extend the Page Limitation and Filing 100.00/hr Deadline to final; Prepare Certificate of Service, file motion via Court's CM/ECF system; Review West Virginia's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Due to Failure to Join the Proper Defendants; Review West Virginia's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 2/12 Memorandum of Law and Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Review Joint Response of Defendants Cole and McCormick to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Response to Court's Order of 1129/14; Confer with Heather Foster Kittredge re: opposing counsel Lee Hall; Draft email message to attorney Hall on behalf of Heather Foster Kittredge re: extension of time to file responsive pleading; Note to file.

2/20/2014 JKT Examine recent filings . 1.10 264.00 240.00/hr



2/20/2014 NPK Review Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate reply memoranda.

2/24/2014 JHTJR Work on review of final draft and filing of same.

NPK Analyze and revise Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Responding to the Court's Order of 1/29114 and Opposition to the State's Motion to Dismiss to final; Prepare Certificate of Service; File via Court's CM/ECF system.

2/25/2014 JHTJR Work on review and comment to combined Summary Judgment brief.

NPK Analyze and document to file the as-filed Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.

2/26/2014 NPK Work on case management and organization; Telephone call with J. Warren, Attorney General's office, requesting extension of time; Transmit message to attorney for response and follow-up.

2/28/2014 NPK Review Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor's Unopposed Joint Motion to Amend the Deadline to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.

3/3/2014 JHT JR Review Order granting motion for extension of time to file reply; Review petition for leave to file supplemental authority.

3/4/2014 NPK Review Order granting Defendants' Joint Motion to Amend the Deadline to Reply; Review State of West Virginia's Reply Supporting its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Review Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Submit Notice of Supplemental Authority, Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority with Exhibit A, DeLeon v. Perry; Review Order granting

PAGE 14

Hrs/Rate Amount

0.10 10.00 100.00/hr

2.00 600.00 300.00/hr

0.70 70.00 100.00/hr

1.50 450.00 300.00/hr

0.40 40.00 1 00.00/hr

1.20 120.00 100.00/hr

0.30 30.00 100.00/hr

0.50 150.00 300.00/hr

0.60 60.00 1 00.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion; Review Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority with Exhibit A entered by Clerk.

3/9/2014 JHTJR Review recent press articles re: marriage. 0.40 120.00 300.00/hr

3/12/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel for state and co-counsel re: request to 0.50 150.00 exceed all briefing limitations. 300.00/hr

NPK Attend to case management and organization. 0.50 50.00 100.00/hr

3/13/2014 NPK Review Order granting Family Policy Council of West 0.10 10.00 Virginia leave to file and amicus curiae brief; Prepare 1 00.00/hr follow-up task as to response.

3117/2014 HDFK TN cases - Email messages with defense counsel re: notice 0.70 157.50 of supp. authority; Strategy re: supp. authority. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Defendants and Defendant-Intervemor's Joint 0.80 80.00 Reply Supporting their Motions for Summary Judgment; 1 00.00/hr Review Reply (Cole and McCormick) to Plaintiffs' Combined Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment; Review Plaintiffs' Second Notice of Supplemental Authority with attachment.

3/21/2014 HDFK Email messages with C. Taylor re: future notices of supp. 0.20 45.00 authority. 225.00/hr

3/24/2014 NPK Review as filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Submit 0.30 30.00 Third Notice of Supplemental Authority, Plaintiffs' Third 1 00.00/hr Notice of Supplemental Authority with accompanying Deboer v. Snyder.

3/25/2014 JHTJR Review third notice of supplemental authority and Order 0.50 150.00 granting motion to file same. 300.00/hr



3/25/2014 HDFK Review order from court re: third notice of supplemental authority and entry of notice of supplemental authority.

3/26/2014 JHTJR Review Wolf opinion and confer with counsel re: fmih notice of supplemental authority.

JKT Examine issues related to abstention doctrines.

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: abstention authority.

3/27/2014 JHTJR Review fourth notice of supplemental authority and order granting same.

4/1/2014 HDFK Review Order granting fourth notice of supplemental authority and notice as filed.

4/5/2014 HDFK Email messages re: West Virginia Attorney General amicus brief in Bostic; Analysis of amicus brief.

4/6/2014 JHTJR Review email messages from counsel re: amicus briefs in Bostic appeal.

HDFK Email messages re: Chambers/Bostic.

4/ 14/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: filing of supplemental notice of authority.

HDFK Email messages re: notice of supplemental authority.

4/ 15/2014 JHTJR Review filing.

HDFK Email messages with plaintiff team re: consent to West Virginia Attorney General filing notice of supplemental authority.

PAGE

Hrs/Rate

0.10 225.00/hr

1.00 300.00/hr

0.60 240.00/hr

0.20 225.00/hr

0.30 300.00/hr

0.20 225.00/hr

0.30 225.00/hr

0.30 300.00/hr

0.10 225.00/hr

0.20 300.00/hr

0.20 225.00/hr

0.20 300.00/hr

0.30 225.00/hr

16

Amount

22.50

300.00

144.00

45.00

90.00

45.00

67.50

90.00

22.50

60.00

45.00

60.00

67.50



Hrs/Rate Amount

4/15/2014 NPK Review Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Submit Fifth 0.40 40.00 Notice of Supplemental Authority with the attached 100.00/hr Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority and Exhibit A (Henry v. Himes); Review State of West Virginia's Unopposed Motion to Submit Notice of Supplemental Authority with the attached State of West Virginia's Notice of Supplemental Authority and Exhibit A (Common Cause, et al. v. Eiden, Jr.)

4/16/2014 JHTJR Review Court's Order and supplemental filing. 0.20 60.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Review orders granting West Virginia Attorney General to 0.20 45.00 file notice of supplemental authority, Plaintiff to file notice 225.00/hr of supplemental authority and notices.

NPK Work on case management and organization; Review 0.70 70.00 Order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to submit fifth 100.00/hr notice of supplemental authority; Review Order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to submit fifth notice of supplemental authority; Review Order granting State's unopposed motion to submit notice of supplemental authority; Review as entered Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit; Review as entered State's Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit.

4/25/2014 HDFK Review motion to file supplemental authority of Plaintiff. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

NPK Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Sixth Notice of 0.10 10.00 Supplemental Authority with Plaintiffs' Sixth Notice of 1 00.00/hr Supplemental Authority attaching Baskin v. Bogan.

4/28/2014 JHTJR Review filings and orders. 0.30 90.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Review order granting plaintiff to file notice of 0.10 22.50 supplemental authority and notice. 225.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

4/28/2014 NPK Review Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Notice 0.20 20.00 of Sixth Supplemental Authority; Review Plaintiffs' Notice I 00.00/hr of Sixth Supplemental Authority.

5/9/2014 JHTJR Review news articles re: Fourth Circuit argument re: VA 0.30 90.00 marnage case. 300.00/hr

5/16/2014 JHTJR Review recent court decisions and review petition to file 1.00 300.00 supplemental authority. 300.00/hr

HDFK Review and analyze response to defendant Cole in support 0.10 22.50 of plaintiffs motion to file notice of supplemental authority. 225.00/hr

NPK Review as-filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Seventh 0.40 40.00 Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit (77 pages); 100.00/hr Review Defendant Cole's Consent to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority.

5/20/2014 JHTJR Work on review of P A strike of marriage laws. 1.00 300.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Review Order and Notice re: seventh supplemental notice 0.20 45.00 of authority. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Order granting plaintiffs' motion to submit seventh 0.20 20.00 notice of supplemental authority; Review entry of 100.00/hr Plaintiffs' seventh notice of supplemental authority.

5/23/2014 JHTJR Work on review of additional supplemental authority. 1.00 300.00 300.00/hr

HDFK Review plaintiffs motion re: notice of supplemental 0.10 22.50 authority. 225.00/hr

HDFK Review Order and Eighth Notice of Supplemental 0.20 45.00 Authority. 225.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

5/23/20 14 NPK Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Notice of Eighth 0.30 30.00 Supplemental Authority with proposed Plaintiffs' Notice of 100.00/hr Eighth Supplemental Authority and Exhibits A and B.

5/27/2014 NPK Review Order granting Plaintiffs Motion to Submit Eighth 0.20 20.00 Notice of Supplemental Authority; Review entry of 100.00/hr Plaintiffs Eighth Notice of Supplemental Authority with exhibit.

6/3/2014 JHTJR Confer with Assistant West Virginia Attorney General re: 0.50 150.00 proposal. 300.00/hr

6/4/2014 JHTJR Confer with West Virginia Attorney General; Confer with 0.40 120.00 national counsel. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analyze request by Attorney General to put jurisdiction 0.40 90.00 issues before court immediately. 225.00/hr

6/ 10/2014 JHTJR Review Order staying case until Fourth Circuit issues 0.20 60.00 opmwn. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of Order staying case. 0.10 22.50 225.00/hr

HDFK Consideration of supplementation of two (2) new recent 0.10 22.50 cases. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Order staying civil case pending Fourth Circuit 0.10 10.00 decision in related case. 100.00/hr

7/25/2014 NPK Telephone call with Chair of Fairness West Virginia; 0.60 60.00 Status attorneys; Telephone call with Heather Foster 100.00/hr Kittredge; Forward information to Lambda Legal representatives and analyze response.

7/29/2014 JKT Correspondence and examine pleadings related to 0.40 96.00 continuing stay pending appeal. 240.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

7/29/2014 NPK Review State of West Virginia's Motion to Continue 0.20 20.00 Merits Stay and to Calendar Oral Argument on Threshold 100.00/hr Issues.

7/30/2014 JKT Examine correspondence related to Fourth Circuit ruling. 0.70 168.00 240.00/hr

NPK Analyze Plaintiffs' Opposition to Intervenor-Defendant 0.40 40.00 State of West Virginia's Motion to Continue Merits Stay 1 00.00/hr and Cross-Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; File same via Court's CMIECF system; Transmit as filed document to co-counsel.

7/31/20 14 NPK Review State of West Virginia's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 0.60 60.00 Cross-Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; Analyze 100.00/hr various articles on case and document same to fil e.

911512014 NPK Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Ninth Notice of 0.30 30.00 Supplemental Authority attaching Plaintiffs' Ninth Notice 100.00/hr of Supplemental Authority and Exhibits A-D.

9116/2014 NPK Review Order granting motion to submit Ninth Notice of 0.10 10.00 Supplemental Authority and staying case pending Supreme I 00.00/hr Court decision.

9/ 18/2014 NPK Document Charleston Gazette article to file. 0.10 10.00 100.00/hr

10/6/2014 JHTJR Work on review and comment on motion for ruling on 2.00 600.00 Summary Judgment motion; Confer with national counsel 300.00/hr re: vanous Issues.

HDFK Consideration and analysis re: requesting court to lift stay, 0.20 45 .00 enter judgment. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string re: State Attorney General's plan; 1.00 100.00 Review and revise to final the proposed Motion to Lift 100.00/hr Stay and Enter Judgment, prepare Cetiificate of Service and file via Court's CM/ECF system; Analyze email message with co-counsel regarding and make revisions to



Hrs/Rate Amount

motion and certificate; File Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment via Court's CM/ECF system.

10/7/2014 JKT Discuss Supreme Court developments and Attorney 0.80 192.00 General developments. 240.00/hr

JHTJR Confer with national counsel re: multiple issues related to 2.00 600.00 West Virginia's decision to discontinue defending the 300.00/hr unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage.

HDFK Analysis of certified denials, impact on West Virginia 0.90 202.50 equality case. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string re: contact with Attorney General's 0.60 60.00 office, proposed judgment and various issues re: same; 100.00/hr Review Order lifting stay and setting briefing deadlines; Prepare follow-up tasks.

10/8/2014 JHTJR Confer with national counsel re: negotiations re: Summary 0.40 120.00 Judgment motions. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of cert. denials and Attorney General's 0.30 67.50 representations re: such. 225.00/hr

NPK Analyze email string re: continued negotiations toward a 0.30 30.00 stipulated judgment, theories re: same and binding issues. 100.00/hr

I 0/9/2014 JHTJR Work on resolution and confer with counsel re: West 2.00 600.00 Virginia Attorney General's decision to stop defending 300.00/hr unconstitutional marriage ban.

NPK Analyze email string re: Attorney General's offer of 0.90 90.00 settlement; Analyze press re: lifting ban on same-sex 100.00/hr marriage.

10/ 10/2014 JKT Examine news coverage and correspondence re: Attorney 2.80 672.00 General's change in position as it relates to the case. 240.00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

10/10/2014 NPK Confer with attorneys re: press coverage and citizen 0.50 50.00 feedback. 100.00/hr

1 0/16/2014 JHT JR Confer with counsel re: dismissal discussions with the 1.00 300.00 State. 300.00/hr

10/20/2014 JHTJR Review response in opposition to Motion for Summary 1.00 300.00 Judgment. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of response of West Virginia Attorney General 0.40 90.00 and joinder by McCormick to Plaintiff motion to lift stay 225.00/hr and enter judgment.

NPK Review State of West Virginia's response to Plaintiffs 0.40 40.00 Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment; Review 100.00/hr Defendant McCormick's Joinder in State of West Virginia's response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment.

10/2112014 JHTJR Review recent filings and confer with national counsel re: 1.00 300.00 potential resolution strategies. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis re: Attorney General stance re : cert. denials on 0.70 157.50 West Virginia equality case. 225.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of Cole response to Plaintiff motion to lift stay 0.20 45.00 and enter judgment. 225.00/hr

NPK Review Defendant Karen Cole's response to Plaintiffs 0.20 20.00 Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment. 100.00/hr

10/22/2014 JHTJR Confer with counsel re: resolution and potential for 1.00 300.00 petition for fees and costs. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of West Virginia Attorney General stance on cert. 0.20 45.00 denials and impact on West Virginia case. 225 .00/hr



Hrs/Rate Amount

10/22/2014 NPK Review Defendant McCormick's Joinder in Defendant 0.20 20.00 Karen Cole's Response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to 100.00/hr Lift Stay and Enter Judgment.

10/23/2014 JHTJR Review response to Motion to Stay and confer with 1.00 300.00 counsel re: same. 300.00/hr

NPK Review Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of 0.20 20.00 Amended Motion to Lift Stay and Enter Judgment. 1 00.00/hr

11/7/2014 JHTJR Review memorandum opinion and order and judgment 2.00 600.00 order granting plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 300.00/hr and finding the marriage ban unconstitutional and confer with counsel re: same.

HDFK Analysis of Order granting Plaintiffs Summary Judgment; 0.70 157.50 Review Judgment Order. 225.00/hr

11/14/2014 JHTJR Confer with attorneys re: motion to extend deadline for fee 0.60 180.00 petition. 300.00/hr

HDFK Analysis of filing motion to extend time to file fee petition. 0.20 45.00 225.00/hr

11/18/2014 JHTJR Review Amended Motion to Extend Deadline; Review 0.50 150.00 Order. 300.00/hr

11/26/2014 HDFK Prepare for fee petition filing. 0.50 112.50 225.00/hr

FEE TOTAL 150.00 $34,428.50



CLIENT COSTS

Oty/Price Amount

11/30/2013 Copying cost 35 8.75 Photocopies for November 2013. $0.25

12/31/2013 Copying cost 456 114.00 Photocopies for December 2013. $0.25

1/31/2014 Copying cost 233 58.25 Photocopies for January 2014. $0.25

Postage 1 0.46 Postage for January 2014. $0.46

2/28/2014 Copying cost 606 151.50 Photocopies for February 2014. $0.25

3/31 /20 14 Copying cost 250 62.50 Photocopies for March 2014. $0.25

4/30/2014 Copying cost 120 30.00 Photocopies for April2014. $0.25

6/30/2014 Copying cost 180 45.00 Photocopies for June 2014. $0.25

7/31/2014 Copying cost 79 19.75 Photocopies for July 2014. $0.25

9/30/2014 Copying cost 137 34.25 Photocopies for September 2014. $0.25

1 0/31/2014 Copying cost 40 10.00 Photocopies for October 2014. $0.25

11/30/2014 Copying cost 37 9.25 Photocopies for November 2014. $0.25



TOTAL CLIENT COSTS

TOTAL THIS INVOICE

PREVIOUS BALANCE

Name James K. Tinney John H. Tinney, Jr. Heather D. Foster Kittredge Nodgie P. Kennedy

Payment due within 30 days

Current 30 Da~s 34,972.21 0.00

Timekeeper Summary

60 Da~s 0.00

Hours 13.40 69.20 29.70 37.70

90 Da~s 0.00

PAGE 25

Rate 240.00 300.00 225.00 100.00

Amount

$543.71

$34,972.21

$17,780.14

Amount $3,216.00

$20,760.00 $6,682.50 $3,770.00

120 Da~s 352.64


EXHIBIT C


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM GLA V ARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON, individually and as next friends of A. S.M., a minor child;

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity as CABEL COUNTY CLERK; and VERA J. MCCORMICK, in her official capacity as KANAWHA COUNTY CLERK;

Defendants,

and

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;


No. 3:13-cv-24068


DECLARATION OF CAMILLA B. TAYLOR

I, CAMILLA B. TAYLOR, after being duly sworn, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am one of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am

Counsel and the National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education

Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth herein. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on

first-hand knowledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called


upon to do so. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of

Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

2. Lambda Legal is the nation's oldest and largest legal organization committed to

achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans gender people and

those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work. Lambda

Legal has been party counsel in numerous challenges to state laws banning same-sex couples

from marriage. 1 Lambda Legal also was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996),

and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing sexual orientation discrimination.

1 See, e.g., Sevcikv. Sandoval, _F.3d_, No. 12-17668,2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (holding Nevada's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), cert denied 135 S.Ct. 316, Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (counsel for intervening appellee class ofVirginia samesex couples) (holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (invalidating Ohio's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages), rev'd sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, _F.3d_, No. 14-3464,2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014), cert petition pending; Condon v. Haley, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 2:14-4010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolina's marriage ban unconstitutional), appeal pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG, 2014 WL 5361987 (D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Rico's marriage ban), appeal pending; Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. AZ. 2014) (holding Arizona's marriage ban unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014), appeal and cert petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (holding Illinois' marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL 6355918 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex couple to marry); Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013) (holding New Jersey's marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (holding Iowa's marriage ban unconstitutional); In reMarriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (holding California's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois' marriage ban); Inniss v. Aderhold, No. 1 :14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgia's marriage ban); Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK. (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9, 2014) (challenging North Dakota's marriage ban).

2


Lambda Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge its clients, but relies in

part upon fees awarded by the courts.

3. Lambda Legal worked closely with West Virginia co-counsel, The Tinney Law

Firm PLLC, and Jenner & Block LLP to bring this litigation seeking a declaration that West

Virginia laws excluding lesbian and gay couples from marriage are unconstitutional, and

injunctive relief permitting same-sex couples to marry. Lambda Legal's role in this litigation was

essential given its unique and highly specialized expertise in constitutional advocacy on behalf of

lesbian and gay persons, and in particular, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of

exclusions from marriage.

4. I have been a lawyer with Lambda Legal since July, 2002. I was promoted to

National Marriage Project Director in the spring of2010. I have been party counsel in numerous

cases successfully challenging the constitutionality of marital exclusions around the country,

including Baskin, 766 F.3d 648, Lee, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014), Garden State

Equal., 82 A.3d 336, and Gartner v. Iowa Dep 't of Public Health, 830 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2013),

to name a few, and I have extensive expertise in briefing and arguing such cases. For example, I

recently argued Baskin, supra, 766 F.3d 648, before the district court and Seventh Circuit Court

of Appeals, which resulted in a decision striking down Indiana's marriage ban. I was lead

counsel in Varnum, 763 N.W. 2d 862, in which the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck

down Iowa's marriage ban in April, 2009, making Iowa the third state in the nation to permit

same-sex couples to marry.

5. I received my law degree from Columbia Law School (1996) and my bachelor's

degree from Yale College (1993). I have been admitted to practice law in New York since 1997

and in Illinois-since 2004. I am currently an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School

3


of Law, and serve on the American Constitution Society Chicago Chapter Board of Advisors.

Recognition for my work includes the Columbia Law School Distinguished Graduate in the

Public Interest award (2012), the American Constitution Society Ruth Goldman Award (2012),

and Crain's Chicago Business' "40 under 40" (2009). Prior to joining Lambda Legal, I was an

attorney with the Criminal Appeals Bureau of the Legal Aid Society of New York City and a

litigation associate with Shearman & Sterling LLP inN ew York City.

6. I am requesting an hourly rate of$350.00 per hour for the time spent on this case.

This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights lawyer with my experience, ability, and

reputation.2 Additionally, this fee is reasonable given the time and labor expended, the novelty

and difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to perform properly the legal services

rendered, the customary fee for like work, the results obtained, the undesirability of the case

within the legal community in which the suit arose, and fee awards in similar cases. See

Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235,243 (4th Cir.2009).

7. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct compilation of my time records for

services performed in this case. These entries itemize the time actually spent and the tasks

performed. However, in certain instances where entries appeared inefficient or duplicative of the

work performed by other attorneys, I exercised my judgment to reduce or eliminate the fees

sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a Court -ordered fees award.

2 See, e.g., Gibson v. City of Chicago, 873 F.Supp.2d 973 (N.D.Ill. 2012) (Chicago attorney with 17 years of practice awarded reasonable hourly rate, in suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, of$395); Stiltner v. Cabell County Comm 'n, No. 3:13-cv-07513, 2014 WL 1330206 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 1, 2014) (attorney awarded hourly rate of$325 for preparing and prosecuting a "routine discovery motion" because attorney had "practiced a number of years," operated a small boutique law firm, personally performed the tasks for which reimbursement was sought, and because of lack of objection by Defendants). Legal services and other non-profit organizations are entitled to have § 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of reasonable market rates even if lower salaries are paid to the organization's attorneys. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). Accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457 n.37 (1982).

4


Lambda Legal also is not seeking fees for hours expended by legal assistants. It is my opinion

that the amount of billable time and expenses described represent a frugal use of attorney time

and expenses, in light of the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and the results

achieved. The cost of attorneys' fees for my participation in this litigation is $54,320.00.

8. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a compilation of the costs

incurred by Lambda Legal in litigating this case. The costs total $6783.59.


knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in Chicago, Illinois, on December 2, 2014.

5


EXHIBIT 1


United States District CourtSouthern District of West Virginia (Huntington)

CASE #: 3:13-cv-24068, MCGEE ET AL V. COLE ET ALCAMILLA B. TAYLOR

Date Filed time task pleading

6/26/13 0.2researched statutory and common law protections for spouses in WV

7/12/13 1.5researched WV criteria for voidable marriages

7/19/13 0.8conference with potential co-counsel

7/22/13 9

researched proper defendants (3.5), evolution of marriage in WV (5.1), call with potential co-counsel (.3)

7/23/13 5

researched marriage ban in WV (1.5), child standing (2), marriage laws that distinguish between married and unmarried persons (1.5)

7/24/13 4.2researched 4th Cir law concerning heightened scrutiny (1.2), rational basis analysis (3)

7/29/13 1 conf with potential co-counsel

8/5/13 5conf with potential co-counsel (.5), drafted (4.5) complaint

8/6/13 3researched marriage laws and venue in WV (1.1) and drafted complaint (1.9) complaint

8/15/13 1.2 conf with plaintiffs8/16/13 2 conf with plaintiffs

8/19/13 12.2

traveled to Huntington, WV (6.2), met with potential plaintiffs (6), potential local counsel

8/20/13 2.5 met with potential local counsel

8/21/13 6 traveled from WV (6)8/22/13 2.5 drafted complaint (2) and co-counsel agreement (0.5)8/23/13 3.4 drafted client declarations (1.2) complaint (2.2)8/29/13 0.2 revised co-counsel agreement

9/2/13 0.3 revised co-counsel agreement

Page 1 of 4




Date Filed time task pleading

9/13/13 0.2 research on legislative history

9/15/13 2.5 edited complaint9/18/13 0.5 drafted PHV motion

9/19/13 0.7conference concerning case strategy

9/20/13 0.3 reviewed/revised complaint9/24/13 0.5 drafted PHV motion 9/25/13 1 conf about case strategy

10/3/13 2.4 researched ntc const questionnotice of const question

10/21/13 0.1 Reviewed M to Extend Time to File a Resp10/21/13 0.2 reviewed/revised Resp to McCormick M11/22/13 0.2 reviewed M to Intervene (WV)11/26/13 0.4 reviewed M to Dismiss (McCormick)11/27/13 0.5 conf about case strategy

12/4/13 2.4 drafted initial disclosures12/8/13 1 reviewed/revised draft Resp to M to dismiss (McCormick)

12/13/133

reviewed/revised plaintiff decsPlaintiffs' MSJ

12/16/13 1.7participated in 26(f) conf (.5) and reviewed mtn to dismiss (Cole) (.2) and WV (1)

M to Dismiss (Cole)

12/17/13 0.5 researched plaintiff standing

12/19/134

drafted Rule 26(f) report (1.5); reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss (2.5) Rule 26(f) Report

12/20/13 0.5 reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss12/21/13 0.5 reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss

12/23/13 4revised opp to state's M to Dismiss (1); drafted MSJ (3) Resp to M to Dismiss (WV); Plaintiffs' MSJ

12/26/13 1.5revised opp to State's M to Dismiss

12/27/13 6 drafted Plaintiffs' MSJ Plaintiffs' MSJ12/28/13 5.4 revised Plaintiffs' MSJ Plaintiffs' MSJ12/29/13 7 revised Plaintiffs' MSJ Plaintiffs' MSJ

12/30/13 8revised Plaintiffs' MSJ (7.8); reviewed Reply in Support of MTD (Cole) (.2) Plaintiffs' MSJ; Reply in Support of MTD (Cole)

12/31/13 0.1 reviewed M to Stay1/2/14 0.2 reviewed/revised draft ntc supplemental authority

Page 2 of 4




Date Filed time task pleading1/3/14 0.1 reviewed M to Strike Supp Auth1/5/14 1 drafted Resp to M to Strike1/6/14 1 co-counsel discussion re: scheduling conf1/9/14 0.7 reviewed Reply (M to Dismiss)

1/13/14 0.2 reviewed Reply to Resp in Opp M to Strike1/17/14 0.1 reviewed Order1/24/14 0.1 reviewed M to Amnd Deadline to Resp1/26/14 0.3 reviewed/revised Resp in Opp to M to Amnd

1/29/14 1.8

reviewed/notes on order (.8); drafted and reviewed email correspondence with co-counsel concerning order with respect to topics to research and outline of response (1)

Order

2/6/14 2.5research on proper defendant (2); conf on case strategy (.5)

2/9/14 0.6 reviewed/revised Resp to Court Order/Opp M to Dismiss2/11/14 1.5 revised Resp to Court Order/ Opp M to Dismiss

2/12/14 1reviewed both cross M for SJ (.8) and WV Answer (.2) M for SJ

2/13/14 1 conf about case strategy2/14/14 0.1 reviewed M of Family Policy as Amicus2/17/14 4.8 drafted Reply in Support of MSJ2/18/14 2 drafted Reply in Support of MSJ2/19/14 0.8 reviewed Brief (McCormick) in further support of MTD; State's MTD

2/20/14 2.2

corresponded with co-counsel concerning outline in reply to state's MTD (1.2); research concerning absence of link between procreation and WV marriage laws (1)

2/21/14 4 revised reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ

2/24/146

reviewed/revised Burford reply (2);revised reply in support of MSJ (4) Burford reply; reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ

3/3/14 1.5

drafted mtn to file ntc supplemental authority (.5); reviewed WV's reply in support of MTD (1)

3/14/14 0.1 reviewed Replies to 89

Page 3 of 4




Date Filed time task pleading4/15/14 0.5 drafted WV Notice of Supp Auth6/10/14 0.1 reviewed Order Staying decision

7/29/14 0.9

reviewed WV's motion to stay (.2); corresponded with co-counsel re: response (.2); reviewed draft cross motion to lift stay (.5)

7/30/14 0.1 reviewed WV's response in opp to cross-motion for stay10/6/14 1 drafted/revised Am Motion to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment10/7/14 0.1 reviewed Order lifting Stay

10/20/14 0.1 reviewed Resp to Pls 13210/23/14 3.2 drafted Reply in support of entry of judgment

11/7/14 0.5 reviewed OrderTOTAL 155.2 54,320.00$

Page 4 of 4


EXHIBIT 2


United States District C

ourt

Southe

rn District o

f West V

irginia (H

untin

gton

)CA

SE #: 3:13‐cv‐240

68MCG

EE ET AL

V. COLE ET AL

Expe

nses of A

ttorne

ys C. Taylor, B. Littrell and K. Loe

wy and Paralegal G

. Gon

zalez

Acc

ount

des

crip

tion

Invo

ice

date

Vend

or n

ame

Am

ount

Det

ails

Postage: Legal: H

DQ9/23

/201

3FEDE

X$1

6.93

Che

ck fo

r filing

fee to co‐coun

sel

Postage: Legal: M

RO9/25

/201

3FEDE

X$1

09.58

Retainers to and from

Clients

Postage: Legal: M

RO10

/2/201

3FEDE

X$1

7.43

Retainer re

turned

from

Clients M

urdo

ck & Glavaris

Postage: Legal: M

RO1/1/20

14FEDE

X$1

11.43

Affid

avits to

and

from

Clients

Postage: Legal: SRO

9/23

/201

3FEDE

X$1

6.93

Atty B. Littrell: Pro Hac Vice materials to co‐coun

sel

Travel: Legal: H

DQ8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$25.00

Atty K. Loe

wy: travel, plaintiff interview

s (baggage fee)

Travel: Legal: H

DQ8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$139

.30 Atty K. Loe


s ( cab

fare to

and

from

the airport)

Travel: Legal: M

RO8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$767

.60

Atty C. Taylor &

Paralegal G. G

onzalez: travel

, pla

intif

f in

terv

iew

s (flights

to and

from

WV)

Travel: Legal: M

RO8/20

/201

3CA

MILLA

TAY

LOR

$1.90

Attny C. Taylor: travel, plaintiff interview

s (toll to airp

ort)

Travel: Legal: M

RO8/24

/201

3GRA

CIELA GONZA

LEZ

$73.72

Atty C. Taylor &

Paralegal G. G

onzalez: travel, plaintiff

interviews (gas in WV, cab

hom

e from

airp

ort, parking

fees)

Travel: Legal: M

RO8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$423

.94

Atty C. Taylor &

Paralegal G. G

onzalez: travel, plaintiff

interviews (car ren

tals and C. Taylor's parking

at a

irport)

Travel: Legal: SRO

8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$670

.60

Atty B. Littrell: travel, plaintiff interview

(mileage)

Travel: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$200

.00

Atty B. Littrell: travel, filing

(flight change fee)

Travel: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$15.74


(meals)

Travel: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$667

.99


(flight)

Lodging: Legal: M

RO8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$622

.62

Attys B

. Littrell, K. Loe

wy, Paralegal G. G

onzalez: travel,

plaintiff interviews (lodging)

Meals: Legal: M

RO8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$122

.08

Atty C. Taylor: travel, plaintiff interview

s (meals)

Lodging: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$230

.75


(lod

ging)

Lodging: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$313

.59


(lod

ging)

Meals & Foo

d: Legal: H

DQ8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$61.79

Atty K. Loe


s (meals)

Page

1 o

f 2


United States District C

ourt

Southe

rn District o

f West V

irginia (H

untin

gton

)CA

SE #: 3:13‐cv‐240

68MCG

EE ET AL

V. COLE ET AL

Expe

nses of A

ttorne

ys C. Taylor, B. Littrell and K. Loe

wy and Paralegal G

. Gon

zalez

Meals & Foo

d: Legal: M

RO8/24

/201

3GRA

CIELA GONZA

LEZ

$21.58

Atty C. Taylor, Paralegal G

. Gon

zalez: travel, plaintiff

interviews (meals)

Meals & Foo

d: Legal: M

RO8/19

‐20/20

14AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$211

.00

Attys C

. Taylor, K. Loe

wy, Paralegal G. G

onzalez: travel,

plaintiff interviews (meals)

Meals & Foo

d: Legal: SRO

10/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$17.18

Atty B. Littell: travel, filing

(meals)

Meals & Foo

d: SRO

10

/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$149

.71


(meals)

Meals & Foo

d: SRO

10

/19/20

13AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$2.50


(meals, water)

Court F

ees: Legal: H

DQ9/18

/201

3WV STAT

E BA

R$3

50.00

Visiting attorney fe

e, K. Loe

wy

Court F

ees: Legal: M

RO8/8/20

13WV STAT

E BA

R$3

50.00


e, C.Taylor

Court F

ees: Legal: M

RO8/8/20

13US DIST COURT

S D OF WV

$50.00

Electron

ic filing fee

Court F

ees: Legal: SRO

9/18

/201

3WEST VIRG

INIA STA

TE BAR

$350

.00


e, B. Littrell

Travel: Legal: H

DQ8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$472

.70

Atty K. Loe


s (flight)

Travel: Legal: H

DQ8/19

/201

3AM

ERICAN

EXP

RESS

$200

.00

Atty K. Loe


s (flight change

fee)

TOTA

L$6

,783

.59

Page

2 o

f 2


EXHIBIT D


---,.----::-==--~--~' -~'---=oo--7':"-c_-;-_ -~~~---=----=~-=---=-=--=-=-=---=---=" -::-:--___ -_-_,-_,_-----c:--:-::-=c-c:-::c:::-c-,--:-_=-=--=---=--=---=--=-=-:::-c_ :-::----:--:-;---==: ___ =-='""---=--~~-~-~-------_ -_ _.CC'"-~-~----------~~



HUNTINGTON DIVISION

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM GLA V ARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON, individually and as next friends of A. S.M., a minor child;

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants,

and



No. 3:13-cv-24068


DECLARATION OF KAREN L. LOEWY

I, KAREN L. LOEWY, after being duly sworn, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am one of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am a

Senior Attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am

legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth

herein. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand knowledge, about which

1

I Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 146-4 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 4730

~--~---~---~ ___ --..-__ ~---~-~--~----~---~--co-~ __ -__ -c ____ ?:'"'_. -,-,--_ -.-_-___ ~-c-._-:_~_:__:.::. ____________________ -_ __ ~~-: _-_-___ - __ -: _-_::-_~----_---___ -~:...--___ -___ --__:__-__ -____ ~~~_--__ -_~ ___ ~ _ __:_~,_-_'7"_-:__'"7._. __ .....,._:.,:._.---__ ~--~----~---~--=----------=------------------~---------

I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to do so. This Declaration is

submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

2. Lambda Legal is the nation's oldest and largest legal organization committed to

achieving full recognition of the civil rights oflesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT")

people and those living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work.

Lambda Legal has been party counsel in numerous challenges to state laws banning same-sex

couples from marriage.1 Lambda Legal also was party counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620

(1996), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and amicus in United States v. Windsor,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the leading Supreme Court cases redressing discrimination against

1 See, e.g., Sevcikv. Sandoval, _F.3d_, No. 12-17668,2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (holding Nevada's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir.) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), cert denied, 190 L. Ed. 2d 142 (2014); Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.) (counsel for intervening appellee class ofVirginia same-sex couples) (holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Henry v. Hodges, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio) (invalidating Ohio's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' outof-state marriages), rev'd sub nom DeBoer v. Snyder, _F.3d_, No. 14-3464, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014), cert petition pending; Condon v. Haley, _F.Supp.3d _,No. 2:14-4010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (holding South Carolina's marriage ban unconstitutional), appeal pending; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia Padilla, _F.Supp.3d_, No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG, 2014 WL 5361987 (D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (challenging Puerto Rico's marriage ban), appeal pending; Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (holding Arizona's marriage ban unconstitutional); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014), appeal and cert petition pending; Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (holding Illinois' marriage ban unconstitutional); Gray v. Orr, No. 13 C 8449, 2013 WL 6355918 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (granting temporary restraining order to permit same-sex couple to marry); Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 82 A.3d 336 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2013) (holding New Jersey's marriage ban unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (holding Iowa's marriage ban unconstitutional); In reMarriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (holding California's marriage ban unconstitutional); Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (finding Hawaii marriage ban discriminated based on sex); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013) (challenging Illinois' marriage ban); Inniss v. Aderhold, No. 1:14-cv-01180-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 22, 2014) (challenging Georgia's marriage ban); Jorgensen v. Dalrymple, No. 3:14-cv-00058-RRE-KKK (D. N.D. filed Jun. 9, 2014) (challenging North Dakota's marriage ban).

2


lesbian and gay people. Lambda Legal is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge

its clients, but relies in part upon fees awarded by the courts in the civil rights litigation it brings.

3. Lambda Legal worked closely with West Virginia co-counsel, The Tinney Law

Firm PLLC, and Jenner & Block LLP to bring this litigation seeking a declaration that West

Virginia laws excluding lesbian and gay couples from marriage are unconstitutional, and

injunctive relief permitting same-sex couples to marry. Lambda Legal's role in this litigation was

essential given its unique and highly specialized expertise in constitutional advocacy on behalf of

lesbian and gay people, and in particular, in litigation challenging the constitutionality of

exclusions from marriage.

4. I have been a lawyer with Lambda Legal since February 2013. Prior to joining

Lambda Legal, I was a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a New

England-wide organization with a similar mission to Lambda Legal's, for eleven years. I have

spent my entire legal career working to secure the civil rights ofLGBT people. I have been

party counsel in numerous cases successfully challenging the constitutionality of marital

exclusions around the country, including Goodridge v. Dep 't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941

(Mass. 2003), and Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008), and I have

extensive expertise in briefing such cases. I have also served as party or amicus counsel in a host

of cases challenging unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children, including In re

Guardianship of Madelyn B., 98 A.3d 494 (N.H. 2014) (non-birth mother who welcomed child

into home and held out as her own presumed to be a legal parent); Hunter v. Rose, 975 N.E.2d

857 (Mass. 2012) (child born to couple in registered domestic partnership is legal child of both

partners); Elia-Warnken v. Elia, 972 N.E.2d 17 (Mass. 2012) (marriage entered by man with

undissolved civil union is void ab initio); Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951 (Vt.

3


2006) (child born into civil union is legal child of both partners). I have developed numerous

publications and presented at countless symposia and CLEs on issues affecting same-sex couples

and their children, the constitutional issues raised by their exclusion from marriage, and the

remaining discrimination encountered by couples even after they have been able to secure their

legal relationships in marriage.

5. I received my law degree from Fordham University School of Law (2000) and my

bachelor's degree from Brandeis University (1996). I have been admitted to practice law in

Massachusetts since 2001 and in New York since 2013. In recognition for my commitment to

public service, I received the Stein Scholars for Public Law and Interest Alumni Award (2006),

and I was recognized as a "Rising Star" in the Massachusetts legal community from 2005-2008.

6. I am requesting an hourly rate of$325.00 per hour for the time spent on this case.

This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights lawyer with my experience, ability, and

reputation.2 Additionally, this fee is reasonable given the time and labor expended, the novelty

and difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to perform properly the legal services

rendered, the customary fee for like work, the results obtained, the undesirability of the case

2 See, e.g., Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127890, 10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) (noting consistent case law in the district that "rates awarded to experienced civil rights attorneys over the past ten years have ranged from $250 to $600, and that rates for associates have ranged from $200 to $350, with average awards increasing over time;" setting rate of$450 for 2001law school graduates); Stiltner v. Cabell County Comm 'n, No. 3:13-cv-07513, 2014 WL 1330206 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 1, 2014) (attorney awarded hourly rate of$325 for preparing and prosecuting a "routine discovery motion" because attorney had "practiced a number of years," operated a small boutique law firm, personally performed the tasks for which reimbursement was sought, and because of lack of objection by Defendants). Legal services and other non-profit organizations are entitled to have § 1988 fee awards computed on the basis of reasonable market rates even if lower salaries are paid to the organization's attorneys. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). Accord Washington v. Seattle School Dist., 458 U.S. 457 n.37 (1982).

4


----------------- ---

within the legal community in which the suit arose, and fee awards in similar cases. See

Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir.2009).

7. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct compilation of my time records for

services performed in this case. These entries itemize the time actually spent and the tasks

performed. However, in certain instances where entries appeared inefficient or duplicative of the

work performed by other attorneys, I exercised my judgment to reduce or eliminate the fees

sought to ensure that the amount requested is appropriate for a Court-ordered fees award. It is my

opinion that the amount of billable time and expenses described represent a reasonably frugal use

of attorney time and expenses, in light of the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and

the results achieved.


knowledge and that this Declaration was prepared in New York, NY, on December 2, 2014.

5


EXHIBIT 1

6



CASE #: 3:13-cv-24068, MCGEE ET AL V. COLE ET ALKAREN L. LOEWY

Date time task pleading

7/8/13 0.3emails re: potential plaintiffs, co-counsel

7/15/13 0.2emails re: potential plaintiffs, co-counsel

7/29/13 1.6

conference with potential co-counsel (1), research re jurisdiction and venue (.4), email with potential plaintiffs (.2)

7/30/14 0.3 conf with potential plaintiffs

8/2/13 2 conf with potential plaintiffs


8/7/13 1 conf with potential plaintiffs



8/18/14 5 travel to WV

8/19/13 6.5met with potential plaintiffs, potential local counsel

8/20/13 12met with potential local counsel (2.5), potential plaintiffs (3.5), travel from WV (6)

8/23/13 0.3 revised co-counsel agreement

9/16/13 1.5reviewed, researched clerk's duties, marriage statutes

complaint9/17/13 0.7 reviewed/revised complaint9/18/13 0.5 drafted PHV motion

9/19/13 0.7conference concerning case strategy

9/24/13 0.3 reviewed/revised complaint9/25/13 1 conf about case strategy

Page 1 of 4




Date time task pleading

9/27/13 1.4

emails and conf with co-counsel to finalize co-counsel agreement, pro hac vice submissions, filing details

10/2/13 0.8 drafted notice of const question10/9/13 0.5 conf re: summary judgment

10/22/13 1.2 drafted opp to mot. to extend time to file responsive pleading

10/30/13 0.8research re: cases on gay parenting in WV, child's constitutional rights

11/1/13 1.2 reviewed draft, conf to discussmotion for summary judgment

11/22/13 0.2 reviewed M to Intervene (WV)11/26/13 0.4 reviewed M to Dismiss (McCormick)11/27/13 0.5 conf about case strategy

12/9/13 1 reviewed/revised draft Resp to M to dismiss (McCormick)

12/16/13 1.2participated in 26(f) conf (.5) and reviewed mtn to dismiss (Cole) (.2) and WV (.5)

M to Dismiss (Cole)

12/17/13 0.5reviewed/revised plaintiff declarations

12/19/132.5

reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss (2.5) Opp to M to Dismiss (Cole)

12/20/13

1

reviewed/revised plaintiff declarations (.5), reviewed/revised Opp to M to Dismiss (.5) Opp to M to Dismiss (Cole)

12/22/134

reviewed/revised/drafted MSJPlaintiffs' MSJ

12/23/13 4 reviewed/revised/drafted MSJPlaintiffs' MSJ

12/25/13 2revised opp to State's M to Dismiss Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)

12/26/13 1.5revised opp to State's M to Dismiss Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)

12/30/13 1reviewed Plaintiffs' MSJ (.8); reviewed Reply in Support of MTD (Cole) (.2) Plaintiffs' MSJ; Reply in Support of MTD (Cole)

12/31/13 1reviewed MSJ final, WV's M to Stay M to Stay

1/2/14 0.5 reviewed/revised draft ntc supplemental authority

Page 2 of 4




Date time task pleading1/3/14 0.2 reviewed M to Strike Supp Auth1/6/14 1 reviewed/revised Resp to M to Strike1/6/14 1 co-counsel discussion scheduling conf1/9/14 0.4 reviewed Reply to Opp to M to Dismiss (WV)

1/13/14 0.2 reviewed Reply to Opp to M to Strike (Cole)

1/15/14 0.5reviewed/revised draft initial disclosures

1/17/14 0.2 reviewed Order1/24/14 0.1 reviewed M to Amnd Deadline to Resp1/27/14 0.3 reviewed/revised Opp to M to Amnd Deadline for Responding to MSJ

1/29/14 1reviewed order on MTDs (.8); email with co-counsel re: responsive submission (.2)

Order

2/1/14 1.2research re: state registrar (1), email re: responsive submission (.2)

2/11/14 0.8 reviewed Resp to Court Order/ Opp M to Dismiss

2/12/14 1

reviewed Resp to Court Order/Opp to MTD (.2), both cross M for SJ (.6) and WV Answer (.2) M for SJ

2/13/14 3.5conf about case strategy (1), drafted (2.5) reply to Opp to MSJ

2/14/141.2

reviewed amicus motion (.2), drafted reply to Opp to MSJ

2/17/14 2 drafted Sect. V of reply to Opp to MSJ2/18/14 5 drafted Sect. V of reply to Opp to MSJ

2/19/14 9reviewed D's MTD briefing (1.2); drafted Sect. V of reply to Opp to MSJ

2/20/14 6 drafted/revised reply to Opp to MSj2/21/14 4.7 revised reply to Opp to MSj2/22/14 1.7 revised reply to Opp to MSj

2/24/14

5

reviewed/revised Burford reply (1); drafted and revised reply in support of MSJ (4)

Burford reply; reply to Opp to MSJ

2/28/14 0.2reviewed mtn to file ntc of supp. auth.

3/3/14 0.6reviewed WV's reply in support of MTD

3/14/14 0.2 reviewed Ds' replies to Ps' Opp to Ds' MSJ4/15/14 0.1 reviewed 5th Notice of Supp Auth

Page 3 of 4




Date time task pleading6/10/14 0.1 reviewed Order Staying decision

7/29/14 0.9

reviewed WV's motion to stay (.2); corresponded with co-counsel re: response (.2); reviewed draft cross motion to lift stay (.5)

7/30/14 0.6reviewed/revised opp/cross-motion to lift stay (.4); reviewed D's reply (.2)

opp to motion to stay/cross-motion to lift stay; WV's reply to opp to motion to stay

10/6/14 0.4 reviewed/revised Am Motion to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment10/7/14 0.2 reviewed Order lifting Stay

10/20/14 0.5 reviewedWV's Opp to amended M to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment; McCormick Opp

10/21/14 0.2 reviewed Cole Opp to amended M to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment10/23/14 2 reviewed/revised Reply in support of entry of judgment

11/7/14 0.8 reviewed OrderTOTAL 118.1 38,382.50$

Page 4 of 4


EXHIBIT E




HUNTfNGTON DIVISION

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM GLA V ARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON, individually and as next friends of A.S.M., a minor child;

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants,

and



No. 3:13-cv-24068


AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH LITTRELL

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized to administer oaths,

ELIZABETH LITTRELL, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Elizabeth Littrell. I am a member of the State Bar of Georgia, Senior

Attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("Lambda Legal"). I am legally

competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.


2. Attorney's Experience and Qualifications:

A. Schooling. I received my undergraduate degree in 1998, cum laude, from Georgia

State University prior to attending Georgia State University College of Law, where I received

my Juris Doctorate in 2001.

B. Previous Employment. From January 2001 through May 2007, I worked at the

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, first as a staff attorney and later as the Associate

Legal Director. During my tenure, I was involved in numerous significant constitutional cases. I

researched and drafted legal memoranda and briefs, as well as coordinated and presented

workshops to attorneys and school officials on emerging legal issues surrounding First

Amendment rights, constitutional litigation and constitutional claims in the public and private

school setting. From August of2001 through January 2007, I taught First Amendment law as an

adjunct professor at Georgia State University.

C. Current Employment. In May of2007, I became a staff attorney for Lambda

Legal, where I have continued to practice constitutional litigation with an expertise in issues

affecting LGBT individuals and families. Due to my extensive and ongoing research on various

constitutional issues, I also routinely give speeches and presentations to students, law students,

lawyers, teachers, non-profit organizations and at various conferences.

3. Hourly Rate. I am requesting an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour for the time spent

on this case. This fee is below the market rate for a civil rights attorney in Atlanta with my

qualifications and is in line with the hourly rate I have been awarded in fee affidavits pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1988 litigation several years ago. See Kennedy v. Avondale Estates, 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 18608 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2007) (awarding $250 hourly rate, "[g]iven the education and


experience of each of the above attorneys, as well as their positions of leadership within the legal

community, and the complex constitutional issues involved in this case, the Court finds the

above requested rates to be reasonable."). I believe this rate is reasonable in light of my

education, qualifications and experience.

4. Hours and Expenses. The document attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and

correct compilation of the contemporaneously made time records I have maintained for services

performed in this case. My time records have been edited to reduce time entries which seem to

me excessive, redundant, or inefficient, and in accordance with the exercise of my prudent

billing judgment, itemize the time actually spent and the tasks performed. They represent a

specific division oflabor with co-counsel. It is my opinion that the amounts of billable time and

expenses described represent a reasonably frugal use of attorney time and expenses, in light of

the issues presented in this case, its factual posture, and the results achieved. At the reasonable

hourly rate of $300, the cost of attorneys' fees for my participation in this litigation as of the date

of filing this fee petition is $4 7,31 0.

Sworn and subscribed ji

before me this _/ _day

of DfCb~PZ- , 2014.

FURTHER ' FlANT SAITH NOT.


Notary Public

My commission expires :

(NOTARY SEAL)


EXHIBIT 1

United States District Court Southern District of West Virginia

CASE #: 3: 13-cv-24068 MCGEE et. al. v. COLE et. al.

Attorney B. Littrell Time


Date time

7/22/13 0.3

8/8/13 0.6

8/13/13 0.8

8/21/13 0.4

8/22/13 0.8

8/22/13 0.6

9/19/13 0.3

9/20/13 0.4

10/21/13 0.3

10/21/13 0.2

10/22/13 0.2

11/22/13 0.3

11/26/13 0.4

12/2/13 0.3

12/16/13 0.2

12/16/13 0.3

12/18/13 0.3

12/2/13 0.5

12/13/13 0.5

12/9/13 0.4

12/19/13 0.6

12/23/13 0.4

12/23/13 0.3

12/31/13 0.4

1/6/14 0.9

1/22/14 1.2

1/29/14 0.4

2/6/14 0.6

2/6/14 1.2

2/7/14 0.4

2/10/14 1.2

2/12/14 0.8

2/13/14 0.8

2/13/14 0.6

2/17/14 0.5

2/19/14 0.4

2/24/14 0.7

2/24/14 1.1

2/25/14 0.3

3/3/14 0.7

3/17/14 0.2

method

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

call

emails

call

em ails

call

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

emails

United States District Court

Southern District of West Virginia (Huntington)

CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068

MCGEE ET AL V. COLE ET AL

Attorney B. Littrell Time- Communication

Communication Log

topic

co-counsel, potential plaintiffs

co-counsel, potential plaintiffs, marriage statutes, venue

notes from potential plaintiff interviews



co-counsel agreement


complaint

M to Extend Time to File a Resp

Resp to McCormick M

Order re M to extend time

M to Intervene (WV)

M to Dismiss (McCormick)

Order

M to Dismiss (Cole)

M to Dismiss (WV)

SJ M

scheduling order /burford abstention arguments

opp to M to Dismiss

opp to M to Dismiss

opp to M to Dismiss

opp to M to Dismiss

supp authority- Kitchens

responding to M to Stay

responding to M to Strike

briefing schedule (with co-counsel and opp counsel)

amending complaint

amending complaint

amending complaint/filing a memo (response to Order)

amend ing comp laint

response to court's Order

abstention memo

abstention memo

to clients updating on case

MSJ resp

deadlines and mailing rule

MSJ

adding plaintiffs

adding plaintiffs

reply to respon

supp authority- TN

Page 1 of 2


7/28/14 0.4 emails

7/29/14 0.8 emails

9/5/14 0.5 emails

10/6/14 0.4 em ails

10/7/14 0.7 emails

10/7/14 0.4 emails

10/7/14 1.3 emails

10/9/14 1.1 emails

10/20/14 0.8 emails

10/21/14 0.9 emails

11/7/14 0.5 emails

Total 29.6



CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068


Attorney B. Littrell Time - Communication


resp to M to stay

suppl authority


M for judgment on pi


settlement

settlement

response in opp to our M for judg

reply to response


Page 2 of 2


Date Filed

8/18/13

8/19/13

8/20/13

8/21/13

8/23/13

9/22/13

9/24/13

9/19/13

9/20/13

9/24/13

9/30/13

10/1/13

10/1/13

10/3/13

10/21/13

10/21/13

10/22/13

11/22/13

11/26/13

12/2/13

12/15/13

12/16/13

12/16/13

12/18/13

time task



CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068



pleading

traveled to WV {8), met with

8 potential plaintiffs, potential local

counsel

6.5 met with potential plaintiffs (6),

potential local counsel

2.5 met with potential local counsel

8 traveled from WV (8)

5.4 drafted client declarations

traveled to WV (5), met w ith

7.4 clients (2.4), filing intended but

post-poned based on unforeseen

last-minute problems

5 traveled from WV (5)

10.3 met w/ co-counsel(2.8), case

strategy

1.8 reviewed/revised complaint

0.8 drafted PHV motion

traveled to WV (5), met with

7.9 clients {1.4), finalized complaint,

prepared for press conf {1.5)

1.2 press conference

5 traveled from WV

0.7 reviewed/revised notice of canst question

0.3 Reviewed M to Extend Time to File a Resp

2.3 reviewed/revised Resp to McCormick M

0.2 reviewed Order re M to extend time

0.7 reviewed/notes M to Intervene (WV)

0.4 reviewed M to Dismiss (McCormick)

0.3 reviewed Order

2.4 researched (abstention)

0.4 reviewed M to Dismiss (Cole)

1.2 reviewed/notes M to Dismiss (WV)

4.3 reviewed/revised SJ M

Page 1 of 3


Date Filed

12/19/13

12/19/13

12/21/13

12/30/13

12/31/13

1/3/14

1/5/14

1/6/14

1/9/14

1/10/14

1/13/14

1/17/14

1/24/14

1/26/14

1/29/14

2/9/14

2/12/14

2/12/14

2/12/14

2/14/14

2/17/14

2/18/14

2/19/14

2/19/14

2/23/14

2/25/14

3/14/14

4/15/14

6/10/14

7/29/14

7/28/14

7/30/14

7/30/14

time

0.6

3.4

1.8

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.4



CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068



task pleading

co-counsel discussion Rule 26(f) Report

reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss

reviewed/revised Resp to M to Dismiss

reviewed Reply

reviewed M to Stay

reviewed M to Strike Supp Auth

reviewed/revised Resp to M to Strike

1 co-counsel discussion scheduling conf

0.7 reviewed Reply (M to Dismiss)

0.3 reviewed Order on M to Stay

0.2 reviewed Reply to Resp in Opp M to Strike 0.2 reviewed Order

0.4 reviewed M to Amnd Deadline to Resp

0.8 reviewed/revised Resp in Opp to M to Amnd

0.8 reviewed/notes Order

2.8 reviewed/revised Resp to Court Order/Opp M to Dismiss

0.8 reviewed M for SJ 0.6 reviewed WV Answer

2.2 reviewed/notes Cross M by WV for Summ and Opp to Pls

SJM and Exhibits

0.6 reviewed M of Family Policy as Amicus

4.8 drafted Sect. IV of SJ

6.3 drafted SJ M

0.8 reviewed Resp to Pls 61

0.6 reviewed M to Dismiss

2.2 reviewed/revised Replies in Opp 63,66,67

1 reviewed Reply to 63,66,67

0.8 reviewed Replies to 89

0.7 reviewed WV Notice of Supp Auth

0.4 reviewed Order Staying decision

0.4 reviewed M to Continue Merits Stay

1.9 reviewed/revised Resp in Opp to M to Stay

0.6 reviewed Resp to 127

0.4 Reviewed Resp to Pis 127

Page 2 of 3


Date Filed

9/11/14

10/5/14

10/7/14

10/20/14

10/22/14

11/7/14



CASE#: 3:13-cv-24068

time task

1.2 drafted

1.3 drafted/revised

0.4 reviewed

0.5 reviewed

1.2 revised

0.8 reviewed

128

29.6

158 $



pleading

Suppl Auth {9th)- Authority, with proposed

document attached- Baskin v. Bogan (7th

Circuit), Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Brenner v.

Scott, In re Estate of Bangor

Am Motion to Lift Stay/Enter Judgment

Order lifting Stay

Resp to Pis 132

Reply to Pis 134-137

Order

litigation

communications

47,310.00 total (at $300/hour)

Page 3 of 3


EXHIBIT F


Years Out of Law School *

YearAdjustmtFactor**

Paralegal/Law Clerk 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-19 20 +

6/01/14- 5/31/15 1.0235 $179 $328 $402 $581 $655 $789

6/01/13- 5/31/14 1.0244 $175 $320 $393 $567 $640 $771

6/01/12- 5/31/13 1.0258 $170 $312 $383 $554 $625 $753

6/01/11- 5/31/12 1.0352 $166 $305 $374 $540 $609 $734

6/01/10- 5/31/11 1.0337 $161 $294 $361 $522 $589 $709

6/01/09- 5/31/10 1.0220 $155 $285 $349 $505 $569 $686

6/01/08- 5/31/09 1.0399 $152 $279 $342 $494 $557 $671

6/01/07-5/31/08 1.0516 $146 $268 $329 $475 $536 $645

6/01/06-5/31/07 1.0256 $139 $255 $313 $452 $509 $614

6/1/05-5/31/06 1.0427 $136 $249 $305 $441 $497 $598

6/1/04-5/31/05 1.0455 $130 $239 $293 $423 $476 $574

6/1/03-6/1/04 1.0507 $124 $228 $280 $405 $456 $549

6/1/02-5/31/03 1.0727 $118 $217 $267 $385 $434 $522

6/1/01-5/31/02 1.0407 $110 $203 $249 $359 $404 $487

6/1/00-5/31/01 1.0529 $106 $195 $239 $345 $388 $468

6/1/99-5/31/00 1.0491 $101 $185 $227 $328 $369 $444

6/1/98-5/31/99 1.0439 $96 $176 $216 $312 $352 $424

6/1/97-5/31/98 1.0419 $92 $169 $207 $299 $337 $406

6/1/96-5/31/97 1.0396 $88 $162 $198 $287 $323 $389

6/1/95-5/31/96 1.032 $85 $155 $191 $276 $311 $375

6/1/94-5/31/95 1.0237 $82 $151 $185 $267 $301 $363

The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).

* “Years Out of Law School” is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students graduate. “1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from

Page 1 of 2matrix

11/25/2014http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html


date of graduation (June 1). “4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier “1-3" from June 1, 1996 until May 31, 1999, would move into tier “4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier “8-10" on June 1, 2003.

** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

Page 2 of 2matrix

11/25/2014http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html


EXHIBIT G


IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Huntington Division

CASIE JO MCGEE and SARAH ELIZABETH ADKINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 3: 13-cv-24068 Hon. Robert Chambers

KAREN S. COLE, in her official capacity as CABELL COUNTY CLERK, et al.

Defendants.

And

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,


AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL 0. CALLAGHAN

Michael 0. Callaghan, personally appearing before the undersigned officer duly

authorized to administer oaths, does hereby depose and say as follows:

I. My name is Michael 0. Callaghan. I am a resident of Charleston, Kanawha

County, West Virginia and a member in good standing of the West Virginia State Bar. I am

legally competent to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set foiih

herein.

2. Previous Employment: I was previously employed as an Assistant United States

Attorney in the Office of the United States Attomey for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Subsequently, I served as the Cabinet Secretary for the West Virginia Depmiment of


Environmental Protection. Following my tenure at DEP, I have been employed in private

practice with offices in Charleston, West Virginia.

3. Current Employment: I am a current paiiner in the law firm of Neely &

Callaghan. I have represented a diverse array of clients in matters in federal and state court and I

believe that I am familiar with the market rates for attorneys in this locale.

3. Hourly Rate: It is my understanding that John H. Tinney, Jr. is requesting an

hourly rate of $300 per hour for the time he has spent on this constitutional challenge to the

State' s ban on same sex marriage. I am also familiar with Mr. Tinney's education, experience

and qualifications. I believe this rate to be reasonable and in line or below the current market

rate for an attorney with his experience and qualifications.

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

COUNTY OF KANAWHA, TO WIT:

I,~~ir_,fljDhn.5Cy"') , Notary Public of said county, do hereby certify that Michael 0 . Callaghan, whose name is signed to the writing herein, has this day

acknowledged the same before me in my said county.

Given under my hand and notarial seal this ~ "& day of l?ec.emher , 2014.

My commission expires: tfb. I Yt 2.-o I lo

2


[SEAL]

~.. • ... ···~ ....... . ... ...-v _ _,_ ......... UFFICIAL SEAL

NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Stephanie Robin Johnson

llealy & C311aghan 159 Summers SI.

Charleston \'IV 25301 -~·« ) r fO•p•res Feb. 14. 2016

'1 w •~I ·,- .,.. 4 . ..............................

NoTARY UBL1c

3


3:13-cv-24068 #146

Documents

Transcript of 3:13-cv-24068 #146