awe GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dale L. Gronemeier — State Bar #66036 Elbie J. Hickambottom, Jr. - State Bar #119289 1490) Colorado Blvd., Eagle Rock, California 90041 G23) 254-6700; (323) 254-6722 FAX dgronemeier.com Attorneys for Applicants eee COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ‘OR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Central District PASADENA POLICE OFFICERS Case No.: BC556. ASSOCIATION (PPOA) et al, (Assigned to the fgnorable James C. : halfant, Department 85) Plaintiffs oe Notice of motion any motion CITY OF PASADENA, et al Giabstdforeces Spy ECode lemorandum of Points & Bufhonities; Declarations of Dale L. Gronemeier and Robert P. Baker Defendants. ANYA SLAUGHTER, an individuals PASADENA CHAPTER. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, an unincorporated asso- ciation; INTERDENOMINATIONAL MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE OF GREATER PASADENA, a California not-for-profit corporation; ACT, unincorporated association; KRISTIN OCKERSHAUSER, an individual Hearing Date: April 7, 2015 De 8: 5, 8:30 am. Intervener-Cross- Petitioners/Complainants vs. CITY a ee California municipal i Frgnicips ofthe City of Basedons, i Cross-Defendants/Respondents Sloughte:Pleadingsorg AtysFeesMotion pd Page Motion for Atty FeesCON AU Rw WD TABLE OF CONTENTS Memorandum of points and authorities .........0..0.00c000seceeeeceeeees 4 1 Introduction. 0... 6.60. cece cece cece eee eee ene eee ee 4 2. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys Declaration of Dale L. Gronemeier. fees under the PRA’s attorney fees provision A. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees because the judgment orders production of the redacted McDade Report. ..............¢ 7 B. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees because they succeeded on a pagnificant igsue and achieved some of the CTT 7 C. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys _ fees because they were the catalyst for the relief obtained........ 8 The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees as private attorneys general...........-...-. eae The Slaughter Interveners should be granted lodestar attorneys fees of $94,475, an enhancement of $27,158, on the fime through September 9, and statutory costs of $2235, for a total award of $133,868.....-) Declaration of Robert P. Baker in support of attorneys fees MOtION ... 1.20. scsecev en eceeeeeeceee ceeeeeneeaeneenes 20 Motion for Atty feesCon auaA wn TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App.4th 1379 «1... +. 6,71 Community Youth AthJetic Center v. City of National Cit (2013) Sean App. ne Hep eee eet iy of EEE y Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419 . . : Garcia v. Bellflower Unified Sch. Dist.(2013) 220 Cal. App. 4" 1058 Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331 .........-.. L.A. Times v. Alameda Transp. Auth. (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4"" 1381 .....- 2. 7 Long Beach Police Officers Ass‘n v. City of Long Beach A Ae Rte eH rb ere a HH Ebr 10 STAT AND REGULATIONS CCP §1021.5 . = 2,9,10,11 Government Code §6259(d) + 25,11 Government Code §6250 ........ 000. 00eceeeseeceneeeneeenereneceees +10 ii Motion for Atty feesNotice of motion and motion TO THE PARTIES HERETO AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 7, 2015, at 8:30 am in Department 85 of the above-captioned court at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, the Slaughter Interveners’ will move the Court in the above-referenced matter for an award of attorneys fees of in the lodestar amount of $94,475 with an enhancement of $27,158 and costs in the sum of $2,235.00, a total award of $123,868, or such other sum as the Court deems just, pursuant to Government Code §6259(d) and/or Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. The motion will be made on the grounds that: (a) the Slaughter Interveners satisfy the requirement for attorneys fees pursuant to Government Code §6259(d) in that (A) the judgment orders production of the redacted McDade Report, which is 80% of the relief they sought, an/or (B) they and/or they succeed on a significant issue and achieved some of the benefit sought, and/or ( C) they were the catalyst for the relief obtained, and/or (2) the Slaughter Interveners have been successful in enforcing an important right affecting the public interest that confers a significant benefit on the general public and/or a large class of persons, the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and there is no recovery in the action out of which attorneys fees could be paid. The relief sought will be based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of ‘Interveners-Cross-Petitioners/Complainants Anya Slaughter, Pasadena Chapiter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Greater Pasadena, ACT, and Kristin Ockershauser. SlaughterPleadingso19.AttysFeesMotion xpd Page 2 Motion for Atty Feespoints and authorities and declarations of Dale L. Gronemeier and Robert P. Baker, upon the pleading and papers herein, and upon such further evidence and argument as shall be adduced by the time of the hearing. DATED: March 6, 2015 SlaughterPlesdingsoxg.AttysteesMotion.wpd GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. le L. Ritorneys for Interveners-Cross- Petitioners/Complainants Anya Slaughter, Pasadena Chapiter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Greater Pasadena, ACT, and Kristin Ockershauser. Pages Motion for Atty FeesMemorandum of points and authorities 1. Introduction The Slaughter Interveners turned this lawsuit around —i.., from one in which the PPOA and the City “played games” by collusively getting a TRO in a premature reverse PRA action to an action where the City was forced to take a stand -- thereby setting the course for this Court’s eventual order that the City release 80% of the Office of Independent Review Group's Report on the Pasadena Police Department's shooting of the unarmed African-American youth Kendrie McDade (“the McDade Report”). At the time the Slaughter Interveners entered into this lawsuit, the following had occurred: Q The City* inappropriately delayed responding to Public Records Act (“PRA”) requests for the McDade Report; Q The City invited the PPOA’ to file an impermissibly premature reverse-PRA lawsuit, which the PPOA dutifully filed; a Before the City responded to the PRA request, the Court erroneously entered a TRO to prevent the City from releasing the McDade Report; and Q The City impermissibly hid behind the PPOA’s skirts and the Court’s TRO to avoid its duty to decide whether to release the McDade Report. The Slaughter Interveners quickly changed all that — i.e. in response to their intervention, the Court dismissed the impermissible PRA lawsuit, dissolved the erroneous TRO, and ordered the City to “stop playing games” and instead take a position on whether it would release the McDade Report. In response, the City stopped playing games and took the position that it would waive its privilege for the criminal investigation and would release a redacted McDade Report. Aided “Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Respondent City of Pasadena. Plaintiff Pasadena Police Officers Association. SlaughterPleadingsons.ArtysFeesMotionsxpd Page a Motion for Atty Feesv aw by the City with its changed position and by the intervention of the LA Times, the Slaughter Interveners ultimately achieved in this trial court 80% of what they sought by fending off the PPOA’s advocacy of more restrictive redactions and getting a judgment requiring release of the 20%-redacted McDade Report. Under both the PRA’s attorneys fees provision and the private attorney- general attorneys fees statute, the foregoing chain of events entitles the Slaughter Interveners to an award of attorneys fees against the City of Pasadena 2 Fis Gauahins BIEN SURS Ape Rea B a MiarneY® The PRA provides for reasonable attorneys fees to plaintiffs who prevail in PRA litigation.‘ Cutting through the party designations caused by the PPOA’s impermissibly initiating this action as a premature reverse-PRA action, the Slaughter Interveners functionally entered the action as PRA Plaintiffs seeking to compel the release of a public record. The PRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies; the Legislature has declared that such access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in California. Consistently with the public purposes of the PRA, the caselaw interpretations of a prevailing plaintiff is a liberal standard designed to encourage parties and attorneys to +The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney feesto the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed pursuant to this section. The costs and fees shall be paid by the public agency of which the public official is a member or employee and shall not become a personal liability of the public official. If the court finds that the plaintiff's case is clearly frivolous, it shall award court cosis and reasonable attorney fees to the public agency.” Gov't Code §6259(d). sGov't Code §6250; Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 425- 426. SlanghterPlendingsox3.AtseesMotion pa Pages Motion for Atty FeesCe ee ensure that the transparency and open-government policies of the PRA are effectuated;° the PRA thus provides “incentives for members of the public to seek judicial enforcement of their right to inspect public records subject to disclosure.” A PRA plaintiff is a prevailing party if the party “succeeds on any significant issue in the litigation and achieves some of the benefit sought in the lawsuit.”® Even if there is no judgment ordering the primary relief sought, PRA plaintiffs may recover attorneys under the “catalyst” theory if their “lawsuit motivated defendants to provide the primary relief sought or activated them to modify their behavior, or [because] the litigation substantially contributed or was demonstrably influential in setting in motion the process which eventually achieved the desired result.” But, where the judgment orders the government defendant to produce documents ~ as is the case here --, a PRA plaintiff need not rely upon the catalyst theory.’° To be a prevailing party, a PRA plaintiff may prevail on the ground that her efforts merely “prompt” the defendant to comply with the PRA.” Under these governing legal principles, the Slaughter Interveners are prevailing parties on multiple grounds: *Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4" 1385, 1447. "Id. 8Garcia v. Bellflower Unified Sch. Dist.(2013) 220 Cal. App. 4'" 1058, 1065, citing Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1346, and Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 173, 178. °Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393 (citation omitted). “Garcia, supra, 220 Cal. App. 4" at 1066. "Id. SaughterPieadingsorg AtysFeesNotion pd Page 6 Motion for Atty FeesA phe, Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees redacted MeDade Report On the simplest level, the judgment orders the City to produce 80% of the document that the Slaughter Interveners sought to require it to produce, while prior to the lawsuit City Manager Beck was indicating it would produce only the conclusions and at the beginning of the lawsuit the City was refusing to even indicate whether it would produce anything. Because the judgment orders the City to produce the redacted OIR McDade Report, ipso facto the Slaughter Interveners are the prevailing party.’* A PRA Plaintiff need not recover all of the relief sought; in LA Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority ,* the PRA Plaintiff was successful in getting only one of two documents it sought released — i.e., 50% of the relief sought. In Bernardi," the PRA plaintiff succeeded in obtaining only one-third of the requested documents, but was still the prevailing party. Here, the Slaughter Interveners obtained 80% of the relief sought, a percentage much higher than the plaintiffs in LA Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority or Bernardi. “[T]here is no requirement that the trial court make an award of attorneys fees in an amount that is commensurate with or in proportion to the degree of success in the CPRA litigation.”"> because they succeeded on a significant issue an B. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees achieved some of the benefit sought. The Slaughter Interveners won on the significant issues of whether the “Id. ‘SLA. Times v. Alameda Transp. Auth. (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4" 1381, 1391. “Bernardi v. County of Monterey, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1396 ‘8Td. at 1398. SlaughterPleadingso1g.AttysFeesMotion. pd Pagez Motion for Atty Feesawe PPOA could maintain the reverse PRA action, whether the Court could enjoin the release of the OIR’s McDade Shooting Report before the City indicated whether it would release the Report, and whether the City could hide behind the TRO and the PPOA lawsuit to avoid stating its position on the PRA requests. Those early successes were not minor technical successes; rather, they radically changed the entire configuration of the lawsuit and were the essential foundation for forcing the City to take a position. Those early successes were based on diligent research that should have been but was not conducted by either the PPOA attorneys nor the City’s attorneys; on September 7-8, the Slaughter interveners spent nearly 25, hours researching and preparing pleadings on issues that should have been researched by the City Attorneys’ Office before it induced the PPOA to file its ill- advised reverse PRA Action, before the City ill-advisedly tried to hide behind the PPOA’s lawsuit to duck its responsibility to determine whether it would release some or all of the Report, and before the City put itself in the position where the Court gave its iconic admonition to the City attorney on September 9 to “stop playing games.” This success achieved at the time of the September 9 hearing meets the success/some-of-the-benefit-sought standard of Garcia, supra. Cc. The Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees because they were the catalyst for the relief obtained. Because the judgment orders the City to produce the redacted OIR Report, Bernardi teaches that the Slaughter Interveners do not have to rely on the catalyst theory. But the catalyst theory does provide an alternative source for the City’s liability and addresses the issue of whether entitlement exists where the action starts out one way but where, subsequently, the Slaughter Interveners then asserted positions some positions that were successful and some that were not successful. The Slaughter Interveners mect all of the requirements in the quotation supra from Bernardi for catalyst liability which exists even when the City finally did the right thing ~ i. (2) the Slaughter Interveners’ motivated the SlaughterPleadingsoxg AtysFeesMotionwpd Page 8 Motion for Atty FeesCity to desist from its stonewalling on what it would release and instead communicate that it would release the redacted Report, (2) the lawsuit modified the City’s behavior by getting it off of City Manager’s Beck publicly articulated pre-litigation position that the City would release only the Report’s recommendation to change to its ultimate position that it would release 80% of the Report, and (3) the Slaughter Interveners’ requesting the OIR Report and then forcing the City to take a position set in motion what eventually led to the release of the redacted OIR Report. It should be noted that any one of these three catalyst theories set out in Bernardi would independently establish the Slaughter Interveners’ entitlement to recover, and the Slaughter Interveners satisfy not just one but rather all three potential grounds. In sum, at multiple levels, California law establishes that the Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys fees against the City for our representation of them against the City in this PRA lawsuit. 3. he Slaughter Interveners are entitled to attorneys ees as private attorneys general. The California private attorney general's attorney’s fees statute provides an independent statutory basis to award the Slaughter Interveners prevailing party attorneys fees against the City in PRA litigation.” California Youth Athletic Center sets out the requirements for such recovery in a PRA lawsuit: “Upon motion, a courtmay award attorneys’ fees toa successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement ofan important right affecting the publicinterestif: (a) a significantbenefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and © such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. “Community Youth Athletic Center, supra, 220 Cal. App. 4" at 1447 SlaughterPleadingsoxs atysFeesMotionsopd Pagea Motion for Atty FeesThe principles for considering an award of fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 are now well settled. ‘The statute seeks to address the problem of "inherent unaffordability of legal services for public interest cases yielding primarily nonpecuniary benefits.” Eligibility for sucl attorney fee awards is established when “C2 plaintifs' action “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest," (2) "a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary has been conferred on the general public ora large class of persons” and (3) "the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate. The Slaughter Interveners meet each of these elements. a Important right: The legislature's declaration that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in California? satisfies the first requirement. Benefiting the general public or a large class of people: As the California Supreme Court noted in the Long Beach POA case, “the public's interest in the conduct of its peace officers (in use-of-force incidents) is particularly great because such shootings often lead to severe injury or death." The particularly great interest of the Pasadena public in this case arises from the purpose of the OIR Report — ice. the lessons for the future so as to avoid recurrence of the repetitive tragedies of police shootings of unarmed blacks. The 137,122 people who make up the general public of Pasadena thus are beneficiaries of the Slaughter Interveners’ work. The community organizations who have brought this lawsuit alone constitute “a large class of people” —ie., approximately 300 members of the Pasadena NAACP, approximately 350 members of ACT, and approximately 30 ministers of predominantly African-American Churches in Northwest Pasadena - Altadena with memberships of approximately 3,000 “Id. (citations omitted). “Gov't Code §6250; Filarsky, supra, 28 Cal. 4" at 425-426. *°Long Beach Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal. 4" 59, 74 (“Long Beach POA”). SlaughterPleadingso1g.AttysFeesMotion.wpd Page 10 Motion for Atty Feespeople. Q Necessity and burden of private enforcement: The necessity of private enforcement is indisputable. At the point at which the Slaughter Interveners stepped in, the police union and the City were collusively on a path to suppress the public record; but-for the willingness of private pro bono attorneys to step forward and take on the challenge, the status quo anti of the suppression of the report would have stood. In sum, the Slaughter Interveners not only qualify for attorneys fees pursuant to Government Code §6259 but also pursuant to CCP §1021.5. © Ss RE BGAN Co dsl rowel Sete Sag tutory costs 0 Bernardi indicates that determining the amount of reasonable attorneys in PRA cases should follow the same methodology applied in other California public interest litigation — ie,, first calculating the lodestar and then determining the appropriate multiplier.” The Lodestar is “the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rates.”* The Lodestar should include all hours reasonably spent, including those on the fee application, unless there are unusual cireumstance.** The attached Declaration of Dale L. Gronemeier and the accompanying detailed time records (Exhibit 2) establish that the Slaughter Interveners’ attorneys and paralegal incurred 241.5 hours of time working on this case in the trial court and that, at their hourly rates, this time translates into a lodestar of $94,475. The Declaration of Robert P. Baker *Bernardi, supra, 167 Cal. App. 4"" 1393-1400. “Id. at 1393. 1d. at 1394. SlaughterPlondingsong AtysFeeeMotionwpa Bago ut Motion for Atty Feesprovides both comparative hourly rate date for Mr. Gronemeier’s peers and qualitative observations on the quality of the work of the Gronemeier & Associates law firm showing| that their hourly rates are low for the Los Angeles area market. Mr. Gronemeier's declaration attached as Exhibit 1 a firm resume that supports the experience and qualifications of the attorneys in the firm. ‘The Multiplier or Enhancement is designed to compensate for the risk and payment-delay that pro bono work, like contingent fee work, inherently involves. An enhancement of the lodestar amount to reflect the contingency, tisk is "[oJne of the most common fee enhancers." "The purpose of a fee enhancement, or so- multiplier, for contingent risk is to bring the financial incentives for attorneys enforcing important constitutional rights into line with incentives they have to undertake claims for which they are paid on a fee-for-services basis.” Thus... lodestar enhancements intend to approximate market level compensation for such services, which typically includes a premium for the risk of nonpayment or delay in payment of attorney fees.’ The attached declaration of Dale L. Gronemeier establishes that he does significant contingent fee employment litigation and that he uses the rule-of-thumb that he needs to recover 2-3 times his hourly rate in contingent fee litigation to account for the risk of loss and the delay in payment. It also establishes that the his law firm has had to turn down other fee-generating work in order to prosecute the claims herein. In Bernardi, the trail court’s award of $244,,287.50 was based on a multiplier of 1.25; the attomey sought a multiplier of 2.0. The Court of Appeal affirmed the use of a 1.25 multiplier in that particular case as reasonable, holding that the trial court may consider the degree of success in determining a reasonable fee but is not required to make the award of attorneys’ fees proportionate to the degree of success.* The Slaughter Interveners could reasonably request an enhancement of up to 2.0 on all their work — ie., at the low end of the reasonable calculation of a reasonable contingent fee that accounts for the risk of loss and the delay in payment. But their request is more modest. 41d. at 1399 (citations omitted). Id. StaugherPlesdingsorg AtysFeesMotion pa Page 12 Motion for Atty FeesThey request only an enhancement of 2.0 (an additional $27,158) for their attorneys’ work on the time that they were most successful — ie, on and before September 9, 2014. The Slaughter Interveners consequently request an award of attorneys fees and costs of $123,868 — a lodestar of $94,475, an enhancement of $27,158, and statutory costs of $2,035. Their request is just because it includes both the lodestar and an enhancement based on the degree of success that is very modest as compared to what an. enhancement based on the contingent nature of the representation would be. March 6, 2015, GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. G LZ ‘Attorneys for Interveners-Cross- Petitioners/ Complainants Anya Slaughter, Poston hapiter of the National tion for the Advancement of Colored People, Interdenominational Ministerial Aliane of Greater Pasadena, ACT, and Krist Ockershauser. =*See Gronemeier Declaration, 115. SlaughterPleadngsox3.AtysFesMotion wpa Page13, Motion for Atty FeesDeclaration of Dale L. Gronemeier 1. Tam an attorney at law, duly licensed and entitled to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the Courts of the State of California. My firm, Gronemeier & Associates, P.C., is pro bono publico counsel for Interveners-Cross- Petitioners/Complainants herein Anya Slaughter, the Pasadena Chapter of the NAACP, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, and Kristen Ockershauser. 2. Unless the context indicates otherwise, I have personal and firsthand knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. Qualifications and experience of Gronemeier & Associates, reasonableness of their attorneys/paralegals lodestar rates 3. Lama 1975 graduate of the University of Illinois School of Law where I was the Business Editor of the Illinois Law Review and Order of the Coif; I was admitted to practice law in California in 1975. Mr. Hickambottom is a 1985 graduate of the UCLA. School of Law where he received concurrent JD and MBA degrees; he was admitted to practice law in California in 1985 and has been employed by my firms since that time. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a Gronemeier & Associates’ firm resume that truly and accurately reflects some of the qualifications and experience of the attorneys in Gronemeier & Associates and its predecessor firms. 4. Ireceived my training as an Associate in the litigation department of the firm of Loeb & Loeb from 1975-1981. I left Loeb and Loeb in 1981 to start my own firm because 1 wanted to do more public interest litigation and more representation of less wealthy persons; although I have continued to do some of the business and commercial litigation. that I cut my teeth on at Loeb and Loeb, I have been successful in establishing a diversified practice that includes some business and commercial litigation but also much public interests litigation and representation of employees against employers. I am SlaughterPledingeoxg AtysPesMfotion pd Pagosa Motion for Atty Feesfamiliar with the hourly billing rates of many of my classmates who started practicing in 1975. My hourly rate is more than $150 per hour lower than the lowest hourly rate eared by my 1975 peers. As a business practice, I have set my rates lower than my 1975 peers at Loeb and Loeb because I have to compete in an entirely different market than they do, not because my services are any lower quality than theirs. In my experience, Mr| Hickambottom’s hourly rate of $340 is also relatively low for a 1985 graduate of UCLA. Victoria Mulligan is a certified paralegal who works on a contract basis for Gronemeier & Associates; she was certified as a paralegal in 1985 and has worked for my firms since that time both as a full-time employee and as an independent contractor. In my experience, her hourly rate of $125 is a reasonable market rate in the Los Angeles area market. Gronemeier & Associates’ billing records establishing lodestar fees 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of invoices of Gronemeier & Associates that truly and accurately record the time that the firm's attorneys have spent on this matter in the trial court; the time that the firm has spent on appellate proceedings is not reflected in Exhibit 1. The invoices in Exhibit 1 are business records prepared by Gronemeier & Associates in the ordinary course of its business contemporaneously with the events recorded therein in a manner that insures their accuracy. Attorneys from Gronemeier & Associate record their time spent together with a description of the activities on cases such as Slaughter et al v. Pasadena on daily time sheets that break up the day into 6 minute (1/10th of an hour) increments. Those daily time sheets are sent to Gronemeier & Associates’ accounting manager who transfers the entries into a billing program. At the end of the month, the accounting manager produces through the billing program a preliminary invoice that I review for accuracy and then completes the final monthly statements that are contained in Exhibit 2. The billing program automatically applies the billing rates of the attorneys to the time entered ~—ie.,in my case, $440 per hour, in Elbie J. Hickambottom’s case $340 per hour., and in SlaughterPleadingsorg.atysFeesMotion xp Pages Motion for Atty FeesVictoria Mulligan’s case, $125 per hour. The events to and through September 9, 2014, 6. As reflected by the Sane ieee bo in fee Cross Petition /Complaint herein, the City of Pasadena retained the OIR Group to conduct an independent review of the McDade shooting in order to prepare a report like the OIR Barnes shooting report to provide the City with a credible outside assessment of the McDade shooting and to make recommendations for changes to Pasadena PD policies and procedures to avoid future tragedies like the McDade shooting. At the time the OIR Group was retained, the OIR Group and Pasadena’s Police Chief promised that the OIR report would be made public and that there would be transparency concerning the OIR review of McDade’s shootings. In August, 2014, City of Pasadena City Manager Michael Beck backtracked on the City’s previous promises of transparency and full disclosure by publicly announcing that only the recommendations of the OIR Report would be publicly released. In August and early September, 2014, I as the attorney for each of the Slaughter Interveners-requested pursuant to the California Public Records Act that the City of Pasadena provide each a copy of the OIR Report. Notwithstanding those requests, the City and Beck failed and refused to release the OIR Report within the time permitted by law, failed and refused to take any position with respect to whether the OIR Report would be released, and failed and refused to state any statutorily-cognizable ground for refusing to release the OIR Report. Rather, they belatedly stated that the City would not release the OIR Report because of the trial court’s September 3, 2014, TRO. As reflected by §7 of the declaration of the PPOA’s attorney, Richard A. Shinee, filed herein in support of the September 3, 2014, PPOA ex parte application, the City of Pasadena on August 30, 2014, gave the PPOA’s attorneys a copy of the OIR Report while still failing and refusing to give it to the general public or to the Interveners-Cross- Petitioners/Cross-Complainants and had invited the PPOA to sue the City. 7. Iwas notified by the City shortly before the Labor Day weekend that the PPOA SlaughterPleadingsois.AttysFeesMotion.wpd Page 16 Motion for Atty Feeswould make an ex parte application for a TRO on September 3, 2014, but we did not receive the application papers until Mr. Hickambottom attended the September 3 hearing. Because of the short time frame, Ms. Ockershauser was the only client from whom we could obtain authorization to appear in the action by September 3, so the only relief we were prepared to seek on September 3 was Ms. Ockershauser’s intervention. Mr. Hickambottom orally requested that she be given leave to intervent, and that relief was granted. ‘The Court granted the PPOA’s request for a TRO to prevent the release of the McDade report at the September 3 hearing. 8. Between the September 3 hearing and the hearing on the Slaughter Interveners’ ex parte application on September 9, 2014, our office obtained the authorization of the other Slaughter Interveners to represent them, extensively researched PRA case law, and prepared the ex parte application to intervene in the action] and to demur to the PPOA’s reverse-PRA action on the ground that it was premature because the City had not yet stated whether or not it would release the McDade Report. At the September 9 hearing, the Court adopted the analysis of our ex parte- application/demurrer, dismissed the PPOA Complaint as premature, ordered the City to “stop playing games” and state whether or not it would release the McDade Report, and dissolved the TRO. As a result of that order, the City subsequently communicated to the attorneys for the parties herein that it would release the McDade Report but that it would) redact 17 pages of it (or approximately 20%). 9. Ihave had my assistant Marcela Sanchez tabulate the value of the time reflected on Exhibit 2 from the beginning of our representation of the Slaughter Interveners through September 9, 2014. A true and correct copy of her tabulation, showing a total of $27,158.00 for that period, is attached hereto as exhibit 3. Post-September 9 activities incurring time valued at $67.317 10. After the September 9 hearing, Gronemeier & Associates filed the pleadings intervening the Slaughter Interveners in the action, filed papers jointly with the attorneys SlaughterPleadingso1g.attyseesMotion wpa Page v7 Motion for Atty Feesw for the LA Times, and participated in all of the Court’s hearings through the time of judgment. After the judgment, Gronemeier & Associates started to prepare its motion for attorneys fees, but it then responded to an invitation from the City’s attormeys make a settlement offer. In order to accommodate settlement negotiations, the City and the Slaughter Interveners entered into a stipulation for an order extending the time to bring the motion to and through March 13, 2015., which the Court approved A true and correct copy of the “Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time for Pasadena Intervenors to File Motion for Attorney's Fees” is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The City and our office then engaged in extensive settlement discussion, but we were ultimately unable to reach agreement. 11. As reflected by Exhibit 2, the Post-September 9 activities incurred time that is valued at Gronemeier & Associates’ regular hourly rates in the amount of $67,317. This time is conservative; it does not include some time in March, 2015, finishing up this motion, nor does it include any time for reviewing the Opposition, preparing the Reply, nor attending the hearing. Other fee enhancement factors 12. The City of Pasadena maintains a website that includes statistics on its population indicating that the 2010 census established that its population was 137,122; the link to that information is: http://www.citvofpasadena.net/Pasadena Facts and Statistics/ The Court is requested to take judicial notice of that fact. [have determined from my clients the following information as to their memberships: there are approximately 300 members of the Pasadena NAACP, approximately 350 members of ACT, and approximately 30 ministers of predominantly African-American Churches in Northwest Pasadena - Altadena who are members of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, with memberships of approximately 3,000 people. 13. Gronemeier & Associates does a mix of fee arrangements — some straight SlaughterPleaingsox3.atysFeesMotion.ypd Page 8 Motion for Atty Feesw bow hourly, some partial hourly and partial contingency, and some straight contingency. In evaluating whether to take contingent fee cases, my rule of thumb is that we need to recover from 2-3 times our hourly rates in order to account for the risk of loss and the delay in payment that is involved in contingent fee cases. 14. Gronemeier & Associates has prosecuted the claims of the Slaughter Interveners vigorously and thoroughly while continuing it regular fee-generating work at a full-time level. ‘The result has been that the period from September to the present has been extremely busy for the firm’s attorneys and paralegal, and the firm has been unable to take on some new matters. I have turned down 4 requests for representation during the period from September, 2014, to the present time on the basis that we were too busy or because I thought the representation would conflict with the interests of the Slaughter Interveners. Costs 15. The Slaughter Interveners have paid statutory costs of $2,158 for initial filing fees for the five Interveners and motion or application fees of $60, for a total of $2,235.00. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Eagle Rock, California, on March 6, 2015, Dale L. Gronemeier SlaughterPleadingsorg.AttysFeesMotion xpd Page 19 Motion for Atty Feesin De tion. of Robert P. Baker ecar of attorneys fees mowon 1. Laman attorney at law, duly licensed and entitled to practice in the courts of the State of California. 2. Unless the context indicates otherwise, I have personal and firsthand knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. I practiced with Dale L. Gronemeier while I worked for Loeb and Loeb. He was among the top of his class of 1975 graduates while we worked together. Ihave subsequently maintained a professional relationship with him. Because of the excellence of his work, he has been the attorney I have retained for personal matters and for matters for my law firms. I consequently know the quality of his work and consider him one of the top lawyers Ihave known and a peer of mine in all respects. Ihave often told Mr. Gronemeier that his hourly rate of $440 per hour is substantially below what the market rate should be for his services and that his rate should be comparable to mine which is $600 per hour. Through Gronemeier & Associates’ representation of me and my firm, have become familiar with the experience and work of Elbie J. Hickambottom. In my opinion, his $340 per hour rate for his services is a reasonable, albeit low, rate in the Los Angeles area market. 4, graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975. I passed the Bar exam of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the first attempt and was admitted to practice in December 1975. I practiced with Withington, Cross, Park and Groden for two years, handling large real estate and construction cases from the second I stepped in the door as second chair to one of the great experts in the field, Philip Cronin, Esq, I also participated in the briefing that re-admitted Alger Hiss to the Bar- the first case in which the Commonwealth granted re-admittance in favor of an attorney who had not expressed remorse. (Hiss maintained his innocence.) In 1977 I moved to California. I passed the bar ‘SlaughsterPlendingsog.AttysFeesMotion.wpd Motion for Atty Feesagain on the first attempt and was admitted in December 1977. I was a litigation associate at Loeb and Loeb from 1977 until 1982. While at Loeb and Loeb I handled real estate and construction cases of all kinds. When I left Loeb, I joined the predecessor of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler and Mitchell, LLP where I became a litigation partner in January 1983. In January 1989, I left to found Baker and Jacobson which I managed and wholly owned for 13 years. I then returned to Jeffer, Mangels for three and one-half years before leaving again and founding Law Offices of Robert P. Baker. For six consecutive years I was selected a SUPERLAWYER. I have been rated AV by Martindale for at least 25 consecutive years. From time to time I publish in the areas of intellectual property and real estate/ construction. I litigated the case that established the after-acquired evidence rule in California in the area of employment litigation. I also had the Ninth Circuit Case that found the fees of a construction manager to be wages entitled to preference in bankruptcy. I had a lead article published in the Spring 2005 edition of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review entitled: The Unintended Consequence of the Miller Ayala Athlete Agents Act: Depriving Student Athletes of Effective Legal Representation. Thave also been extensively involved in pro bono litigation in the public interest including a lawsuit against the FBI for spying and dirty tricks against members of The Committee to Abolish HUAC and the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, which conduct came to light many years later after when a request for documents was made under the FOIA. I was one of the attorneys involved in what became known as the politically charged “Police spying cases” while I was at Loeb and Loeb. 1 am currently involved in several international human rights cases, including Kiobelv Royal Dutch Petroleum that was heard twice by the U.S Supreme Court and Doe v. Nesile in the Ninth Circuit. I am a member of the bars of the District of Massachusetts, the Central, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of California, and the Ninth Circuit. Ihave been admitted pro hac vice in state and federal courts throughout the country including Washington State (representing a real estate developer SlaughterPieadingsorg AtysFeesMotion wpa Page a Motion for Atty Feesawe in several cases), Illinois (in a case involving the development of a hotel/resort and its operating agreement) and New York. I have tried or arbitrated over 70 cases, many of them in the area of real estate and/or construction. I recently arbitrated a case in New York City on behalf of a California engineering firm for breach of contract. We settled a related federal action along with 2/3 of the remaining claims. In the arbitration we prevailed on every claim and the award was approximately $4,000,000. I obtained a summary judgment on behalf of Tishman Construction Company while a sole practitioner against an adversary represented by Latham & Watkins. This case involved the development of a real estate project in Orange County and a joint venture agreement. Tishman was also awarded $144,000 in attorneys’ fees, the entire amount I requested at my requested hourly rate. I recently won an arbitration over a real estate commission and obtained a fee award of approximately $60,000, again my hourly rate was not questioned. 5. In addition to real estate and construction (which I have always practiced) I presently am focusing my practice in class actions, intellectual property, privacy, first amendment, employment, and international human rights. My customary hourly rate is $600 per hour. In 2007, I was awarded attorneys’ fees totaling $44,211.50 in connection with a Special Motion to Strike by the Los Angeles Superior Court in Van Nuys computed, at the rate of $425 per hour. Judge Leon Kaplan ruled in that case that while $500 and up might be an appropriate hourly rate on the Westside, in Van Vuys, in the year 2007,$425 was a more appropriate figure. Recently, in an arbitration of a real estate commission, I was awarded my then customary hourly rate calculated at $500 per hour. Lincreased my hourly rate to $600 in early 2011 because I had not increased it since 2005, because my rate had fallen too far below comparable rates, and because my recent work justified the increase. 6. The rate of $600 per hour is still less than what Mr. Gronemeier’s and my contemporaries with comparable background and experience charge. They charge up to SlaughterPleadingsorg.AthysFeesMotion wpd Page 22 Motion for Atty Fees$750 per hour. This is known to me from recent emails exchanged with them, or the rates relate to 2011 when they were last confirmed. Contemporaries whom I have contacted and inquired of as to their current hourly rates charge the following customary rates: a) Jeffrey Riffer, Esq., former partner at Jeffer, Mangels, parmer at Elkins, Kalt, Weintraub, Reuben. Graduate of Indiana University Law School. Admitted in CA-1979 Rate- $690 Practice area- Intellectual property, appellate work, general business and civil litigation. +b) Douglas Mirell, Esq., Partner at Loch & Locb. Graduate of U. C. Davis Law School 1980. Practice area- First Amendment, intellectual property. Rate $750 per hour, ©)Paul Hoffman, Esq. Former litigation Associate at Locb and Locb. Partner in Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris, Harrison, Hoffman & Harrison, LLP. Graduate of NYU Law School. Admitted in CA-1976 Rate-$750. Practice area- Employment litigation, international law, general civil and business litigation. @ Julia Rider Esq., Associate at Manat, Phelps. Litigation partner at Jeffer Mangels. Graduate of UCLA Law School. Admitted in CA-1975. Rate-$610. Practice area- general business and civil litigation. e) Timothy Reuben, Esq, Managing partner at Reuben, Raucher & Blum. Graduate of Harvard Law School. Admitted in CA.- 1980. Rate- $600. Practice area general business and civil litigation. f) Alan Wilken, Esq. Partner at Loeb and Loeb. Graduate of UCLA Law School. Admitted in CA- 1975. Rate- $725. Practice area- General business and civil litigation with emphasis on real estate litigation. g) Robert Meyer, Esq. Partner at Loeb and Loeb. Graduate of Georgetown Law Center. Admitted in CA-1975 Rate-$750. Professional liability defense and ‘SlaughterPleadingso33.AthysFeesMotion.wpd Pago 23 Motion for Atty Feesgeneral business and civil litigation. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this, declaration was executed at Venice, California, on March ve 2015, SloughterPleadingsorg.atysFessMotion spa ROBERT P. BAKER Page 24 Motion for Atty FeesB i PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Tam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Tam over the age of 18 and am nota party to the within action; my business address is 1490. fioHe Bie Eagle Rock, California 90041. Qn March 9, 2H since feast ors) deserfped as Notice of motion'and motion for torne’ Points Fe eS Declarations de S6259(c) or CCP §1021.5; Memorandum of f Dale L. Sreneneer and Robert Ker on the interested party(s) in this action, BY MAIL OR PERSONAL SERVICE by placing a copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Javan Rad, Chief Assistant City Attorney 100 N. Garfield Ave., Room N210 Pasadena, CA 91109 Richard A. Shinee, Esq. Green & Shinee, AP. 16055 Ventura Blvd., Ste 1000 Encino, CA 91403 Kevin L. Vick Jassy Viek Carolan 6605 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 100 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Jeff Glasser, Esq. ‘Los Angeles Times Communications LLC 202 West First Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (BY PRIORITY MAIL) [sealed and placed such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary ‘business practice, Iam “readily familiar” with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing, Under that practice itis deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bagle Rock, California in the ordinary course of business. Tam aware thet on motion of the party served, a service is prestumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing stated inthis affidavit. STATE Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and. correct, Executed on March 9 2015, at Eagle Rock, California, ‘Marcela Sanchez Type or Print Name _ Sipattee