Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 13 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 s counsel BWC position or release of the video Id. ¶ 13. However, substantive not have to prepare much documentation regarding the merits of the case beyond the initial Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause, as the main point of contention quickly became the s. Under the fifth factor, the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, at OPRA cases must be litigated in an expedited manner. Accordingly, s counsel states that this matter was tized . . . due to the short statute of limitations of 45 days, as well as the fact that the client wanted this lawsuit filed quickly so that Id. ¶ 29. Regarding the sixth factor, the type of professional relationship with the client, Plaintiff counsel states that Plaintiff is a new client and had not filed an OPRA lawsuit on her behalf before. Id. ¶ 10. Accordingly, there was time spent gathering information about Plaintiff and her request, explaining how an OPRA case proceeds and outlining the terms of legal engagement. Id. would represent her on a fee-shifting basis, and stating the court awards (or the agency agreed to pay voluntarily via settlement) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 or any other rule or statute. If there is no court award of fees and expenses, and no Id., Exh. B. 13 Pa054

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 14 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 s counsel is an experienced litigator. founded the and built it from scratch, serves on numerous legal committees, has received allocates and awards, has handled many OPRA matters that resulted in published judicial opinions and has published several OPRA-related articles. Id. ¶¶ 14, 19-27. The eighth factor addresses whether the fee charged is fixed or contingent. counsel seeks to recover $500.00 per hour spent working on this matter. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff counsel agreed to represent Plaintiff in this matter on a strict fee-shifting basis, such that the firm would -shifting provision, N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 6. Id. ¶ 12; Exh. B. Plaintiff has purportedly not paid any money to the firm regarding this OPRA case, nor is she required to do so under the terms of the retainer agreement. Ibid. The firm has also paid for all associated litigation expenses, such as filing and process server fees, and Plaintiff allegedly has no obligation to pay these fees either. Ibid. ualitative s requested $8,715.90 and litigation costs should be reduced. New Jerseyans, 185 N.J. at 155. rate of $500.00 per hour is acceptable and similar to the hourly rate charged by partners at similar firms in the region. However, the number of hours billed are in excess of those necessary for an attorney well experienced in OPRA law. This was a relatively simple OPRA case that did not involve particularly novel or challenging issues, as there were no hearings or substantive filings other than with regards to the Verified Complaint and the fee applications. For an attorney well-versed in OPRA matters, some of the more common portions of the filings submitted were likely created for other OPRA cases and, therefore, 14 Pa055

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 15 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 no additional background research was necessary. Accordingly, the Court finds that the following charges pertaining to the initial pleadings should be reduced by half: regarding Verified Complaint and make revisions accordingly; Draft Brief ISO OTSC; Draft Proposed Order; OTSC; Proof all documents and file lawsuit; Communications with client re: process; [Griffin Cert., Exh. D]. In addition, as a seasoned OPRA attorney who lists no less than thirteen (13) OPRA cases in her would be familiar with preparing and filing fee applications. Accordingly, the Court also reduces Id. Between these three charges, the Court hereby reduces the $4,350.00 that was originally billed to $2,175.00. Subtracted from the $ recover in the instant application, this amounts to a total of $6,000.90. The Court finds that $6,000.90 more accurately reflects the amount of work required for an experienced attorney in the instant matter. Although Plaintiff technically prevailed in this OPRA matter, this case did not present particularly unique or difficult issues. Plaintiff received the relief she requested contemporaneously with when she initiated the case, and the Court welcomed the parties to dismiss the matter after the Court was informed that Plaintiff had received the BWC footage. Considering this context, the Court requested fees 15 Pa056

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 16 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 the costs associated with filing and serving the fee applications. Accordingly, as the prevailing party under OPRA is granted, in part. Plaintiff counsel is entitled to recover $6,000.90 from Defendants. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff granted, in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $6,000.90. A conforming Order accompanies this Statement of Reasons. 16 Pa057

HUD-L-002103-17 04/16/2018 3:50:53 PM Pg 1 of 22 Trans ID: LCV2018661021 Pa058

HUD-L-002103-17 04/16/2018 3:50:53 PM Pg 2 of 22 Trans ID: LCV2018661021 Pa059

HUD-L-002103-17 04/16/2018 3:50:53 PM Pg 3 of 22 Trans ID: LCV2018661021 Pa060

HUD-L-002103-17 04/16/2018 3:50:53 PM Pg 21 of 22 Trans ID: LCV2018661021 Pa061

HUD-L-002103-17 04/16/2018 3:50:53 PM Pg 22 of 22 Trans ID: LCV2018661021 Pa062

HUD L 003888-18 04/29/2019 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2019776122 Pa063