Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MON L 002616-17 05/13/2019 Pg 10 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2019843985 based motion to seal, and motion for reconsideration. 3 The number of hours billed motion to dismiss are reasonable. One hundred one (101) hours were originally billed for these tasks, and counsel seeks an award of less than half of that amount. Gibbons P.C. billed nineteen (19) hours to review and finalize a consent order to release privileged information to Mr. Cohen. The Court notes that these fees were incurred because Mr. Cohen insisted on reviewing the letter suggested that his review of the letter was necessary to confirm that the APP accurately reported what they were told by Mr. Seidle. This request appeared to be unreasonable because there was never a suggestion that the article was inaccurate. However, nineteen (19) hours to draft and/or review the consent order appears excessive and the court will reduce the hours billed for Ms. Lowy by seven (7). Over seventy-five (75) hours were billed to brief the waiver issue. The court notes that the APP reported on the MCPO report in June of 2016 and it is unclear why plaintiff failed to address the issue of waiver in the original briefs. The legal bills submitted by plaintiff indicate the lawyers had the APP and it would ould have addressed this issue when he initially consulted with counsel. The court finds that the number of hours billed to address waiver is excessive. This work could have been easily performed in approximately forty-six (46) hours total, thirty-two (32) for Ms. Lowy and thirteen and four-fifths (13.8) for Mr. Cafferty. 3 that when a task included work on both the common law and OPRA, plaintiff seeks fees for only 1/3 of the total amount charged. In addition, counsel explains [an] entry did not relate to the common law issues, [it] balance was reflected for each such entry in the right- time entry was requested 8 Pa040