King & Spalding Argues Feds Should Destroy, or Return, Sealed Billing Records
King & Spalding withdrew an attorney fee request after a Washington trial judge said the firm would need to reveal hourly rates and other records. The U.S. Justice Department is opposing the firm's push for an order requiring the government to destroy or return the disputed billing records.
April 18, 2020 at 01:55 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
King & Spalding and the U.S. Justice Department are locked in a dispute in Washington over whether a trial judge has the power to order the government to destroy or return copies of billing records that the law firm submitted as part of its request for attorney fees in a public records lawsuit.
King & Spalding withdrew its request for $665,000 in legal fees after a federal judge said the firm could not keep certain records sealed on the public docket showing the billing rates of partners and others who had worked on the case. The firm has urged the judge, Amit Mehta, to order the government to destroy or return its hard copies of the disputed records.
The Justice Department said it doesn't oppose keeping the billing records sealed on the trial court's docket. But the government said Mehta has no authority to order the destruction of the records. On Friday night, King & Spalding took issue with the government's assertions and argued that the Justice Department has sought the return of documents in other Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, cases.
"Tellingly, when the government's confidential information has been at stake, it has asked courts to order parties to return or destroy documents in FOIA cases," King & Spalding white-collar partner John Richter said in Friday's filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He also said the Justice Department has acknowledged in other cases that trial judges have "exercised their inherent authority to order parties (and non-parties) to return documents."
Lawyers and other advocacy groups routinely seek legal fees in Freedom of Information Act cases where a party has successfully obtained records from the U.S. government. Two elements set the King & Spalding dispute apart: the six-figure size of the fee request, which is rare, and the firm's decision to walk away from the demand after Mehta said he would unseal the hourly rates for partners and others on the matter.
King & Spalding has not commented publicly about its decision to withdraw its fee request. But the Atlanta-based firm, among the largest in the U.S. based on revenue, argued in court filings that any public disclosure of hourly rates and "other details will harm the firm's standing with respect to its competitors." The sealed material in the case showed "the attorneys, rates, tasks, time, and other costs and expenses devoted to this litigation over the course of its long history."
The law firm's FOIA complaint was filed on behalf of medical device client Abiomed Inc., and the firm obtained records showing the origin of a federal investigation involving the Massachusetts company. The Justice Department investigated claims but did not bring any action against Abiomed over the marketing of the heart pump Impella 2.5. King & Spalding said it won a "complete" victory in its push for documents, and that the government "dragged its feet, costing King & Spalding hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs."
King & Spalding said it was only willing to share its billing records with the court through its authority to seal filings. Indeed, Mehta initially did seal the billing records the firm submitted as part of its fee petition, but the judge later said his order was mistaken and announced he would unseal the records. At that point, King & Spalding withdrew its request for fees.
"What plaintiff fails to appreciate is that the public interest in disclosure is arguably at its zenith when the fee demand is made against the public fisc," Mehta wrote in his April 7 order. "Indeed, there is something untoward about plaintiff asking to conceal their hourly rates and the work done from public view, while demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public treasury as compensation."
Richter of King & Spalding, a lead partner on the records case, told Mehta on Friday that once the firm withdrew its request for fees "any need for the records to be in the public domain evaporated."
An assistant U.S. attorney, Jeremy Simon, said in a recent court filing that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia will keep the King & Spalding billing records sealed within the office. The billing records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but Simon said prosecutors "will treat them as documents in which confidential treatment has been requested by King & Spalding."
The government told King & Spalding on April 16 there is a pending FOIA request for the billing records. "This underscores the need for the court to protect King & Spalding's confidential records," Richter wrote in a court filing.
If Mehta won't order the government to destroy or return the billing records, Richter said, "the court should order a permanent seal on the withdrawn exhibits with the associated prohibition of disclosing the exhibits to anyone other than King & Spalding and counsel for the government in this case."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250