Tran v. City of Elk Grove

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NHU DINH TRAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ELK GROVE,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:24-cv-03232-DAD-CSK
ORDER GRANTING RULE 37 EXPENSES
(ECF Nos. 17, 18)
On October 3, 2025, the Court granted Defendant City of Elk Grove’s motion to
compel Plaintiff Nhu Dinh Tran’s responses to Defendant’s interrogatories, requests for
admissions (“RFAs”), and requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) and denied
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for failure to respond to Defendant’s
interrogatories, RFAs, and RFPs. 10/03/2025 Order (ECF No. 17).1 Because Defendant
had not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine the amount of
expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), the Court ordered
Defendant to file and submit its reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.
10/03/2025 Order at 8-9. Defendant has now done so. 10/17/2025 Declaration of William
J. Bittner (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff was also provided with the opportunity to respond to
1 	This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1).
Case 2:24-cv-03232-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendant’s reasonable expenses. 10/03/2025 Order at 8-9. Plaintiff did not file a
response. See Docket.
I. 	DISCUSSION2
As the Court has previously ordered, under Rule 37, awarding reasonable
expenses in making the motion to compel, including attorneys’ fees, is mandatory here
as none of the exceptions are established. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii);
10/03/2025 Order.
The Ninth Circuit affords district courts broad discretion in determining the
reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992).
While the amount of a fee award is discretionary, the district court must “provide a
concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC,
757 F.3d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit utilizes the “lodestar” method for
assessing reasonable attorney's fees. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196,
1202 (9th Cir. 2013). Under the “lodestar” method, the number of hours reasonably
expended is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. Reasonable hourly rates are
determined by the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Sorenson v. Mink,
239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). “[T]he established standard when determining a
reasonable hourly rate is the ‘rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed
by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’” Camacho v. Bridgeport
Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502
(9th Cir. 1997)). Generally, “the relevant community is the forum in which the district
court sits.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (quoting Barjon, 132 F.3d at 500). Here, the
relevant community is Sacramento, California, which is where this district court is
located.
Defendant seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $245 for its counsel, attorney
William J. Bittner, in connection with its motion to compel. Bittner Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.
2 	Additional background on Defendant’s motion is provided in the Court’s order. See
10/03/2025 Order.
Case 2:24-cv-03232-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Defendant’s attorney fees are based on a $245 hourly rate for one hour of work
researching, drafting, and analyzing the motion to compel. Id. The Court finds that one
hour is a reasonable amount of time spent by counsel. Though Defendant could have
sought reimbursement for its reasonable costs, Defendant did not and only requested
reimbursement for its attorney’s fees. The Court next examines the hourly rate
requested. Mr. Bittner has six years of experience and is a senior associate at Angelo,
Kilday & Kilduff, LLP. Bittner Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant also submits case law from the
Eastern District of California to support counsel’s requested rate, citing cases where
attorneys of comparable experience have been awarded $300 to $420 per hour in this
district. See id. ¶ 6. The Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $245 for an attorney
with six years of experience is reasonable, and lower than the prevailing market rate in
Sacramento for attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.
Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the Court therefore orders Plaintiff to pay
Defendant’s reasonable expenses in the amount of $245, which represents one hour for
counsel at a $245 hourly rate.
II. 	CONCLUSION
In conclusion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Defendant is awarded its reasonable expenses in the amount of $245, which
must be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of this order; and
2. 	Plaintiff shall simultaneously file a notice once payment is made.
Dated: January 5, 2026
4, tran3232.24
Case 2:24-cv-03232-DAD-CSK Document 24 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3