Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01395, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01395    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Motion to Strike or Tax Counsel’s Memorandum of Costs

Respondent: Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina

Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses

Respondent: Defendant General Motors, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Motion to Strike or Tax Counsel’s Memorandum of Costs is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina’s request for service of process costs, deposition costs, and postage fees costs and DENIED on all other grounds.

Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $43,519.50 in attorney fees and $2,876.35 in costs.

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly action. In May 2022, Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors, LLC (General Motors) by purchasing a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Subsequently, Molina-Molina alleges the vehicle contained or developed defects with its engine and electrical system.

On October 21, 2022, Molina-Molina filed a complaint against General Motors and Does 1-50, alleging (1)¿violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

On October 1, 2024, Molina-Molina filed a notice of settlement. Molina-Molina then filed a memorandum of costs on October 16, 2024.

On October 30, 2024, General Motors filed the present motion to strike or tax Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs.

On November 1, 2024, Molina-Molina filed the present motion for attorney fees.

A hearing on the present motions is set for February 25, 2025, along with an OSC Re: Dismissal.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Molina-Molina’s objections to the declaration of General Motors’s counsel are OVERRULED.

MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS

General Motors moves to strike or tax Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs with regards to $1,324.33 in costs that includes requests for $86.32 in discovery motion costs, $150.00 in jury fees, $276.04 in service of process costs, $810.00 in deposition costs, and $1.97 in postage fees. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS General Motors’s motion as to Molina-Molina’s service of process costs, deposition costs, and postage fees costs, and DENIES General Motors’s motion on all other grounds.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 3.1700, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a party may contest costs through a motion to strike or tax costs. “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (Ladas).) In addition to items allowable as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), the court has discretion to award other costs if not prohibited by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b) and “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

Discovery Motion Costs

Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs requests $61.65 in filing fees and $24.68 in e-filing fees for the filing and service of a motion to compel further responses and a reply in support of that motion. General Motors argues these costs should be stricken because the costs were optional and Molina-Molina’s motion practice was one-sided and unnecessary. But such an argument holds no merit as the court granted Molina-Molina’s motion in part. (06/29/2023 Ruling.) Thus, the court DENIES General Motors’s motion to strike or tax these costs.

Jury Fees

Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs requests $150.00 for the posting of jury fees. General Motors contends this cost should be stricken because the present case has not gone to trial. But General Motors fails to provide any authority that limits the recovery of jury fees as costs to cases where a jury trial was held. Because jury fees are recoverable as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1), the court DENIES General Motors’s motion to strike or tax this cost.

Service of Process Costs

Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs requests $276.04 in service costs for service effected against Chevrolet of Puente Hills. General Motors maintains these costs were unnecessary because they involved the service of third-party discovery and were duplicative. General Motors also maintains none of the third-party depositions were taken.

In opposition, Molina-Molina maintains General Motors has not met its burden of proving the subpoenas and depositions in question were unnecessary. But upon General Motors’s proper objection to these costs, the burden to establish their necessity falls to Molina-Molina. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Molina-Molina’s counsel maintains that the deposition of third-party dealership staff is necessary to authenticate and explain the significance of any repair orders issued by the dealership. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 6.) But Molina-Molina’s counsel failed to explain how these depositions were necessary in this case and instead appeared to reference general litigation practices. Thus, the court GRANTS General Motors’s motion to strike or tax these costs.

Deposition Costs

Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs requests $800.10 in costs for the taking of the depositions for the person most qualified and technician Ha. General Motors argues these fees were non-appearance fees that were an optional cost with no purpose other than to increase litigation costs. In opposition, Molina-Molina’s counsel maintains that the deposition of third-party dealership staff is necessary to authenticate and explain the significance of any repair orders issued by the dealership. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 6.) But as noted above, Molina-Molina’s counsel failed to explain how these depositions were necessary in this case and instead appeared to reference general litigation practices. Thus, the court GRANTS General Motors’s motion to strike or tax these costs.

Postage Fees

Molina-Molina’s memorandum of costs requests $1.97 in costs for mail service postage in relation to notices. General Motors argues this cost should be stricken because it is a business overhead cost. Although General Motors fails to provide any authority for this argument, the court notes postage charges are not allowable as costs unless they involve exhibits pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(3). Molina-Molina’s opposition also failed to address this cost or provide any justification for it. Thus, the court GRANTS General Motors’s motion to strike or tax this cost.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES’

Molina-Molina moves the court for an award of reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $68,974.00 and costs in the amount of $3,964.36. For the following reasons, the court¿GRANTS Molina-Molina’s motion in the reduced amount of $43,519.50 in attorney fees and $2,876.35 in costs.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a prevailing buyer “shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) They have “the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817.) In granting their motion, “[a] trial court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney fees, but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38 (Morris), quoting Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271.) “If the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended are not reasonable under all the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.)

Calculation of attorney fees begins with the lodestar approach in which the court fixes the lodestar at “the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004, quoting Copeland v. Marshall (D.C. Cir. 1980) 641 F.2d 880, 891.) “California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Ibid.) “The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The factors to be considered include the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.” (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774.)

“It is appropriate for a trial court to reduce a fee award based on its reasonable determination that a routine, noncomplex case was overstaffed to a degree that significant inefficiencies and inflated fees resulted.” (Morris, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 39.) It is also appropriate to reduce a fee award based on “inefficient or duplicative efforts” in the billing record. (Id., at p. 38.) But the analysis must be “reasonably specific” and cannot rely on general notions about the fairness of the fee award. (Kerkeles v. City of San Jose (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 102.) And in conducting the analysis, courts are not permitted to tie any reductions in the fee award to some proportion of the buyer’s damages recovery. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 39.)

Discussion

In this case, Molina-Molina argues Molina-Molina is entitled to a total of $68,974.00 in attorney fees and an additional $5,000 in attorney fees for the present motion. In opposition, General Motors argues Molina-Molina’s requested fees should be reduced to $17,093.00.

Prevailing Party

In September 2024, Molina-Molina accepted General Motors’s settlement offer in which General Motors agreed to pay Molina-Molina $85,000 for the subject vehicle. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) Thus, Molina-Molina qualifies as the prevailing party in this action and is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

Reasonableness of Hourly Rate

Molina-Molina’s counsel requests hourly rates of $550.00 per hour for Jessica Anvar, $530.00 per hour for Julian A. Moore, $415.00 per hour for Arbre Kornley, and $415.00 per hour for Joseph Kowalski. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 8-11.) In opposition, General Motors argues Molina-Molina failed to produce evidence showing that a court in Los Angeles County has approved these requested rates.

To determine if an hourly rate is reasonable, courts consider the rates of similar attorneys in the community as well as “the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) Here, Kowalski’s declaration provides an overview of each attorney’s qualifications and experience. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 8-11.) Based on this information and the court’s own experience, the court finds that these rates are reasonable.

Reasonableness of Hours Billed

Molina-Molina contends the 160.30 hours spent by counsel and paralegals on this matter is reasonable. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 185.) In opposition, General Motors contends that a total of 104.9 hours incurred were not actually and reasonably incurred.

Although a verified fee bill is “prima facie evidence the costs, expenses and services listed were necessarily incurred,” (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682), counsel still has the burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of charges. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247.) The court has reviewed the fee bill submitted by Molina-Molina and the proposed reductions by General Motors and addresses the parties’ contentions below.

Drafting Initial Pleading

General Motors argues the court should decline awarding fees for 2.5 hours spent reviewing case files and preparing the Complaint in the present action. General Motors claims the time spent should be reduced to 0.5 hours based on counsel’s experience and use of a templated pleading. The court agrees the Complaint appears to be a templated pleading that does not substantially differ from complaints filed in other actions (Compare Complaint, with Keshishian Decl., Ex. B, e.p. 10-48.) Nonetheless, the court finds spending 2.5 hours is not an unreasonable amount of time for counsel to spend preparing even a form pleading as this also includes time spent reviewing case files in preparation for drafting the pleading. Therefore, the court declines to adopt General Motors’s requested reduction.

Discovery

General Motors next contends the court should reduce fees awarded for Molina-Molina’s discovery requests, review of General Motors’s discovery responses, discovery motion practice, and Molina-Molina’s discovery responses.

First, Molina-Molina requests fees for 3.1 hours of drafting a PMQ deposition notice, a request for admissions, a request for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and an ESI letter on December 1, 2022. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 188.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 0.5 hours of finalizing discovery requests on December 9, 2022. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 188.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive given counsel’s use of discovery templates and requests a reduction of 2.7 hours. But while General Motors contends Molina-Molina utilized templates, General Motors failed to establish this with sufficient evidence. Although General Motors provided a sample of a request for admissions and deposition notice from Molina-Molina’s counsel in another case, General Motors fails to provide similar samples for the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and the ESI letter. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. C, e.p. 69-75 (request for admissions), 76-86 (special interrogatories), 87-103 (requests for production), and Ex. E, e.p. 113-129 (deposition notice) with Ex. D, e.p. 105-111 (request for admission) and Ex. F, e.p. 131-148 (deposition notice).) But, based on the substantial similarities between the requests for admissions and the deposition notices, the court agrees Molina-Molina appears to have utilized templates for at least two of the discovery requests. Accordingly, the court finds General Motors is entitled to a partial reduction of these fees in the amount 1.0 hour or $415.00.

Second, Molina-Molina requests fees for 3.0 hours of reviewing General Motors’s responses to Molina-Molina’s discovery requests on January 9, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 190.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 0.3 hours spent drafting meet and confer correspondence on January 16, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 190.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive and requests a reduction of 2.8 hours. But while General Motors contends it provides the same discovery responses in every action, General Motors fails to point to an exhibit where it included such responses as evidence. (Opp., p. 11:3-7.) To the extent General Motors demonstrates the meet-and-confer letter sent by Molina-Molina’s counsel was a template with minor variations from case to case, the court does not agree 0.3 hours is an excessive amount to spend drafting this letter. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. G, e.p. 150-160 with Ex. H, e.p. 162-172.) Thus, the court declines to make any reduction.

Third, Molina-Molina requests fees for 3.8 hours spent reviewing General Motors’s requests for discovery and drafting responses to General Motors’s requests for admission, requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories on March 10, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 193.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive and requests a reduction of 2.8 hours. But while Molina-Molina’s discovery responses are similar to the ones provided in another case, they are not identical and do not solely consist of boilerplate objections. For example, in response to General Motors’s request for admissions, Molina-Molina changed at least four (4) responses from general objections to a substantive denial. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. I, e.p. 184:7, 184:18, 185:1, and 185:12 with Ex. J, e.p. 276:7-8, 276:18-21, 277:3-4, and 277:15-16.) In response to General Motors’s form interrogatories, Molina-Molina changed at least ten (10) responses from general objections or vague discovery references to a specific answer. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. I, e.p. 197:8, 199:10, 199:27, 200:17, 201:5, 201:21, 202:10, 202:26, 207:7-8, and 208:14 with Ex. J, e.p. 290:11-12, 292:13-14, 293:1-2, 293:17-18, 294:5-6, 294:20-21, 295:8-9, 295:23-24, 300:5-9, and 301:19-22.)  In response to General Motors’s special interrogatories, Molina-Molina changed at least eleven (11)  responses from vague discovery references to a specific answer. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. I, e.p. 220:15-16, 221:22-23, 223:2-3, 224:9-10, 225:11-12, 226:9-10, 229:14-15, 231:11-12, 232:1-2, 232:13, and 236:7-8 with Ex. J, e.p. 335:20-25, 336:27-337:3, 338:5-9, 339:13-17, 340:19-24, 342:26-345:3, 345:15-20, 347:20-21, 348:6-7, 348:18-19, and 354:27-353:4.) Last, in response to General Motors’s request for production, Molina-Molina changed at least seven (7)  responses to include additional substantive information. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. I, e.p. 248:4-5, 250:4-6, 252:6-9, 252:22-23, 254:4-8, 256:10-13, and 258:9-13 with Ex. J, e.p. 315:3-10, 317:11-12, 319:11-12, 319:26-27, 321:10-11, 323:14-15, and 325:12-13.) Based on a review of these responses, the court finds Molina-Molina’s requested time to be reasonable and declines to make the requested reductions.

Fourth, Molina-Molina requests fees for 20.2 hours spent drafting a motion to compel further responses to Molina-Molina’s requests for production, drafting a reply in support of the motion, and preparing for the hearing on the motion. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 197-199, 201.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive and requests a reduction of 17.0 hours. Upon a review of Molina-Molina’s motion and another motion filed by counsel, the court finds they are substantially similar and agrees a significant reduction in hours is required to make this amount reasonable. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. K, e.p. 361-381 with Ex. L, e.p. 383-403.) Thus, the court reduces Molina-Molina request by 17.0 hours for a fee reduction of $7,055.00.

Fifth, Molina-Molina requests fees for 3.4 hours spent drafting deposition subpoenas for non-party Chevrolet of Puente Hills’s person most knowledgeable and their service technicians on October 26, 2022, and October 13, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 186, 206.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive as these subpoenas did nothing to further their case and should be reduced to 1.0 hour. For the reasons noted above in the court’s separate ruling on General Motors’s motion to strike or tax costs, the court agrees and declines to award any fees for the time spent on these subpoenas for a fee reduction of $1,411.00.

Sixth and last, Molina-Molina requests fees for 1.7 hours spent reviewing discovery, drafting objections to General Motors’s notice of deposition, and preparing objections for the deposition on June 3, 2024. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 229.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive and requests a reduction of 1.4 hours. Upon review, the court finds that while the objections are substantially similar, they also include substantive responses. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. O, e.p. 496-512 with Ex. P, e.p. 515-531.) Thus, the court finds Molina-Molina’s requested time to be reasonable and declines to make the requested reductions.

Motions and Stipulations

General Motors next maintains the court should reduce fees awarded for Molina-Molina’s other filings. First, Molina-Molina requests fees for 6.9 hours spent preparing four motions in limine. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 233.) General Motors contends this amount is excessive as Molina-Molina relied on templates and requests a reduction of 6.7 hours. Upon review, the court finds the motions are substantially identical to previous motions with minor changes for case-specific details. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. Q, e.p. 534-556 with Ex. R, e.p. 559-580.) Thus, the court reduces Molina-Molina’s request by 6.4 hours for a fee reduction of $3,392.00.

Second, Molina-Molina requests fees for 2.2 hours spent drafting a joint stipulation to continue trial on August 8, 2024. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 234.) General Motors maintains this amount is excessive as Molina-Molina relied on templates and requests a reduction of 2.0 hours. Upon review, the court agrees the stipulation is substantially identical to a previous stipulation with minor changes for case-specific details. (Compare Keshishian Decl., Ex. S, e.p. 583-586 with Ex. T, e.p. 589-592.) Thus, the court reduces Molina-Molina’s request by 2.0 hours for a fee reduction of $830.00.

Third and last, Molina-Molina requests fees for 8.7 hours spent drafting the present motion. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 239.) Molina-Molina also requests an additional $5,000 (12.0 hours at counsel’s hourly rate of $415.00) for drafting a reply and attending the hearing on the present motion. General Motors maintains this amount is excessive and requests a total reduction of this request to 3.0 hours on the grounds that Molina-Molina utilized a templated motion. Upon a review of Molina-Molina’s motion and another motion filed by counsel, the court finds they are substantially similar and agrees a significant reduction in hours is required to make this amount reasonable. (Keshishian Decl., Ex. U., e.p. 816-826.) Accordingly, the court reduces Molina-Molina’s request by 5.7 hours for a fee reduction of $2,365.50. Because this reduction takes into account additional fees incurred in drafting the reply and attending the hearing, the court declines to award the additional $5,000.00 requested.

Clerical Work

General Motors next argues the court should eliminate fees for work that is clerical or administrative. Specifically, on October 15, 2024, a paralegal spent 2.8 hours auditing costs and preparing the costs memo at an hourly rate of $210.00. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 238-239.) And on October 24, 2024, Kowalski spent 3.2 hours auditing billing records in preparation for the present motion. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 239.) General Motors argues these costs are inappropriate because they constitute administrative costs. The court agrees and declines to award any fees for the time spent on these items for a fee reduction of $1,916.00.

Duplicative or Unnecessary Entries

Last, General Motors contends Molina-Molina’s request includes numerous duplicative or unnecessary entries, each of which are addressed below.

First, Molina-Molina requests fees for 0.5 hours spent on prelitigation file review on August 2, 2022. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 185.) General Motors contends this entry is duplicative and serves no discernable purpose. The court disagrees and declines to make the requested reductions.

Second, Molina-Molina requests fees for 6.2 hours spent on researching technical service bulletins and reviewing the NHTSA website on October 24, 2022, and October 28, 2022. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 186-187.) General Motors contends these entries are not tied to any litigation efforts and should be stricken in their entirety. The court disagrees and declines to make the requested reductions.

Third, Molina-Molina requests fees for 0.6 hours spent reviewing and analyzing General Motors’s objections to the PMQ deposition notice on December 21, 2022. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 189.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 0.3 hours spent reviewing and analyzing General Motor’s objections to the PMQ deposition notice on February 23, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 191.) General Motors contends these entries are duplicative. The court disagrees and declines to make the requested reductions.

Fourth, Molina-Molina requests fees for 12.0 hours spent reviewing and analyzing General Motors’s document production on February 24, 2023; March 13, 2023; March 14, 2023; March 24, 2023, July 31, 2023; and August 1, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 192-195, 203.) General Motors contends this time is excessive because General Motors’s document production was “standard.” But as noted above, General Motors failed to provide copies of their document production for the court to determine so. Thus, the court declines to make the requested reductions.

Fifth, Molina-Molina requests fees for 7.3 hours spent drafting a mediation brief and preparing for mediation on July 25, 2023, and July 27, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 202-203.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 7.6 hours spent drafting a second mediation brief and preparing for a second round of mediation on August 27, 2024; September 3, 2024; and September 4, 2024. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 236-237.) General Motors contends this time is duplicative as two attorneys participated in drafting a simple mediation brief. But General Motors fails to provide a copy of these mediation briefs. Further, the court finds it is not unreasonable for two attorneys to preparing for and participate in mediation. Thus, the court declines to make the requested reductions.

Sixth, Molina-Molina requests fees for 1.3 hours spent reviewing case files on September 1, 2023; September 11, 2023; and December 8, 2023. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 204-205, 207.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 2.6 hours spent reviewing case files on August 8, 2024. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 234.) General Motors contends these entries are duplicative or excessive. The court disagrees and declines to make the requested reductions.

Seventh, Molina-Molina requests fees for 4.4 hours spent drafting a motion to compel the deposition of General Motors’s PMQ on April 4, 2024, and April 5, 2024 for a total of $1,826.00. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 219-221.) Molina-Molina also requests fees for 5.2 hours spent drafting trial documents on May 13, 2024, and August 12, 2024 for a total of $2,572.00. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 226, 235.) Last, Molina-Molina requests fees for 5.4 hours spent drafting replies in support of Molina-Molina’s motions in limine on August 9, 2024 for a total of $2,241.00. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 234-235.) General Motors contends these entries are unreasonable because Molina-Molina never filed any of these motions. The court agrees and declines to award fees for any of these entries for a total fee reduction of $6,639.00.

Eighth and last, Molina-Molina requests fees for 2.7 hours spent reviewing trial documents on May 10, 2024, for a total of $1,431.00. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 225.) Molina-Molina also requests a total of 12.1 for taking and defending depositions and making post-deposition notes. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. 22, e.p. 230-232.) General Motors contends each of these entries is excessive and requests a reduction of 2.5 hours for the review of trial documents and 7.1 hours for depositions. While the court declines to reduce the hours spent on depositions, the court will not award fees for time spent reviewing trial documents as no trial occurred. Thus, the court will reduce these fees in the amount of $1,431.00.

Conclusion

Based on the above reductions, Molina-Molina’s total requested attorney fees are reduced to $43,519.50, inclusive of fees incurred in bringing the present motion. Costs are also granted in the reduced amount of $2,876.35.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, General Motors’s motion to strike or tax costs is GRANTED as to Molina-Molina’s request for service of process costs, deposition costs, and postage fees costs and DENIED on all other grounds.

Furthermore, Molina-Molina’s motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $43,519.50 in attorney fees and $2,876.35 in costs.