Balasubramaniam v. Source Consulting LLC, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
SHANMUGAM BALASUBRAMANIAM, )
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 24-10105-JCB
v. 	)
)
SOURCE CONSULTING, LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
[Docket No. 69]
November 18, 2025
Boal, M.J.
On April 16, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff Shanmugam Balasubramanian’s motion
for sanctions. Docket No. 65.1 It awarded plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and expenses associated
with the filing of the motion to compel and for sanctions, including costs for traveling to, and
attending, the hearing on the motion. Id. at 6. It also awarded plaintiff his attorneys’ fees
incurred in connection with reviewing defendants’ document productions made between
February 6, 2025 and March 14, 2025. Id. Balasubramanian has filed an application for such
1 This Court assumes familiarity with its previous order that imposed monetary sanctions. The
only remaining issue before this Court in conjunction with that decision is the amount of the
sanctions which is addressed herein.
Case 1:24-cv-10105-JCB Document 100 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 5

2
fees and expenses, totaling $86,552.65.2 	See Docket Nos. 69, 84.3 For the following reasons,
this Court orders defendants to pay $48,737.15 to Balasubramanian.
I. 	Standard Of Review
The First Circuit has summarized the principles applicable to the determination of a
reasonable attorney's fee award:
When fashioning a fee award, the district court ordinarily starts by
constructing what has come to be known as the lodestar. In general, the
lodestar is the product of the number of hours appropriately worked times a
reasonable hourly rate or rates. The party seeking the award has the burden
of producing materials that support the request. These materials should
include counsel's contemporaneous time and billing records, suitably
detailed, and information anent the law firm's standard billing rates. The
putative payor may submit countervailing evidence. The court, usually after
hearing arguments, will then calculate the time counsel spent on the case,
subtract duplicative, unproductive, or excessive hours, and apply prevailing
rates in the community (taking into account the qualifications, experience,
and specialized competence of the attorneys involved).
Hutchinson ex rel. v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
II. 	The Rates Charged Are Reasonable
The first step in calculating the lodestar amount involves determining the reasonable
hourly rate. The reasonable hourly rate is the rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Norkunas v.
HPT Cambridge, LLC, 969 F. Supp.2d 184, 197 (D. Mass. 2013) (citation omitted). “The fee-
2 Balasubramanian’s original application sought fees and expenses in the amount of $78,449.65.
After he filed a reply in support of his application, he sought additional fees in the amount of
$8,103.00 incurred in preparing the reply memorandum and supporting papers. See Docket No.
84 at 16.
3 On January 30, 2024, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all
purposes. Docket No. 11.
Case 1:24-cv-10105-JCB Document 100 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 5

3
seeker must carry the burden of establishing the prevailing hourly rate (or schedule of rates) in
the community for the performance of similar legal services by comparably credentialled
counsel.” Hutchinson, 636 F.3d at 16 (citations omitted).
Balasubramanian seeks compensation for work performed by one partner, four associates,
and two paralegals. Specifically, Balasubramanian seeks the following attorney and paralegal
hourly rates:
Attorney/Paralegal Name 	Hourly Rate Sought
John C. Allerding
Partner (> 14 years of experience)
$615.00
Karim Sabbidine
Senior Managing Associate (8 years of experience)
$515.00
Anthony J. Carl
Managing Associate (5 years of experience)
$415.00
Polina Pittell
Associate
$325.00
Ryan Patton
Senior Discovery Associate (19 years of experience)
$225.00
Dwayne A. Lunde
Paralegal
$325.00
Aisha H. Mian
Paralegal
$325.00
Docket No. 72 at 8. Except for Attorney Patton, the rates sought represent a discount from the
firm’s applicable 2023 rates.4 Docket No. 72 at 8 n.2.5 These rates are on par with rates charged
4 Thompson Hine LLP agreed to provide Balasubramanian with a discount of its applicable 2023
rates in the prosecution of his claims against the defendants. Docket No. 72 at 8 n.2. Through
an inadvertent oversight, Thompson Hine did not adjust those rates on an annual basis as is its
standard practice. Nevertheless, it has utilized those discounted 2023 rates in its application for
attorney’s fees. Id.
5 Citations to “Docket No. ___” are to documents appearing on the Court’s electronic docket.
They reference the docket number assigned by CM/ECF, and include pincites to the page
numbers appearing in the top right corner of each page within the header appended by CM/ECF.
Case 1:24-cv-10105-JCB Document 100 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 5

4
by comparable law firms in the Boston area. For example, in BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut, No. 20-
CV-10118-RGS, 2023 WL 4471971, at *1 (D. Mass. Jul. 11, 2023), the court approved a range
of rates including $741/hour for a partner with approximately 10 years of experience, $676/hour
for an associate with five years of experience, and $495/hour for a law clerk. The rates sought
here are lower than the rates approved for attorneys with similar experience in that case.
Accordingly, I find that the rates sought by Thompson Hine in this case are reasonable.
III. 	Calculation Of Attorney's Fees
“Typically, a court proceeds to compute the lodestar amount by ascertaining the time
counsel actually spent on the case and then subtracting from that figure hours which were
duplicative, unproductive, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary.” Cruz v. Bos. Litigation
Solutions, No. 13-11127-LTS, 2016 WL 11661320, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 4, 2016) (quoting
Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 8 F.Supp.2d 91, 100 (D. Mass. 1998)). The First Circuit does not
require courts to set forth an hour-by hour analysis of a fee request. Id. (quotations omitted); see
also Perez-Sosa v. Garland, 22 F.4th 312, 321-322 (1st Cir. 2022) (citation omitted) (“Although
[the lodestar] method requires arithmetical calculations, we must bear in mind that the district
court’s task in fashioning a reasonable fee . . . ‘is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing
perfection.’”). “Because district judges ‘need not, and indeed should not, become green-
eyeshade accountants,’ they ‘may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use
estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.” Perez-Sosa, 22 F.4th at 322 (citation
omitted).
Balasubramanian’s attorneys have submitted detailed contemporaneous time records. His
attorneys spent 106.9 hours preparing and arguing the sanctions motion; 44.6 hours reviewing,
analyzing, and addressing defendants’ productions; and 30.3 hours preparing the fee application.
Case 1:24-cv-10105-JCB Document 100 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 5

5
See Docket No. 72 at 11-12. In addition, they spent 17.2 hours on the reply memorandum in
support of their fee application. See Docket No. 35-1. After careful review of the time records, I
find that the time spent reviewing, analyzing, and addressing defendants’ productions is
reasonable in light of the issues described in this Court’s order on the motion to compel and for
sanctions. I find, however, that the time spent in connection with the motion and fee
applications, well over 100 hours, is excessive and duplicative. I will therefore reduce those fees
by 50%. I also find that the reply memorandum was unnecessary and decline to award any fees
incurred in that respect. As such, the amount of total fees awarded is $47,160.50.
IV. 	Costs
In addition, Balasubramanian incurred $1,050 in fees charged by his e-discovery vendor
to upload and process the defendants’ document productions. See Docket No. 70 at 7. He also
incurred costs for preparing the sanctions motion and for travel associated with the hearing on
the motion in the amount of $526.65. See id. at 8-9. This Court finds such costs reasonable.
V. 	Order
For the foregoing reasons, this Court orders defendants to pay Balasubramanian
attorney’s fees in the amount of $47,160.50 and costs in the amount of $1,576.65 for a total of
$48,737.15.
/s/ Jennifer C. Boal
JENNIFER C. BOAL
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-10105-JCB Document 100 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 5