## Facts

- Ceaya L. Thomas, as personal representative of DeMarlon Thomas’s estate, brought a federal civil-rights wrongful-death action against Bannum Place, a residential reentry center.
- The case was consolidated with a related action for discovery purposes only.
- Thomas filed a Rule 37 motion to compel Bannum Place to fully respond to her first and second sets of discovery requests.
- The magistrate judge granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part, and initially awarded Thomas reasonable expenses under Rule 37(a)(5).
- Thomas’s counsel sought $38,409.97 for 104.85 hours allegedly spent on the motion-to-compel work.
- Bannum Place objected that the request was grossly excessive for a routine discovery dispute.
- The court found the motion “relatively simple and straightforward,” but over-briefed; the reply exceeded local page limits and was not fully considered.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 37(a)(5) required an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Thomas as a partial prevailing movant on a motion to compel.
2. Whether the requested $38,409.97 for 104.85 hours was reasonable, or whether the excessiveness made any award unjust.

## Decision

- The court vacated its earlier discretionary fee award connected to the motion to compel.
- The court denied Thomas’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in full.
- The court concluded the fee request was so exorbitant and unreasonable that awarding any amount would be unjust under Rule 37(a)(5).

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), when a motion to compel is granted (including in part), the court ordinarily awards the movant reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless an exception applies or circumstances make an award unjust.
- “Reasonable expenses” must bear a rational relationship to the work reasonably required for the discovery dispute.
- Courts may deny fees entirely, not merely reduce them, when a fee petition reflects over-litigation, inefficiency, or a grossly disproportionate time expenditure compared to the complexity of the motion.
- Noncompliance with local rules and unnecessary briefing can support a finding that the claimed fees were not reasonably incurred.

## Conclusion

Although Thomas partially prevailed on the motion to compel, the court held that the extraordinary disproportionality between the routine discovery dispute and the hours and dollars claimed made any fee award unjust, warranting vacatur of the earlier fee ruling and complete denial of costs and attorney’s fees.


Thomas v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, 421 F. Supp. 3d 494 (E.D. Mich. 2019)