Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: Plaintiffs, Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x MARK A. FAVORS, HOWARD LIEB, LILLIE H. GALAN, EDWARD A. MULRAINE, WARREN SCHREIBER, and WEYMAN A. CAREY, Plaintiffs, DONNA KAYE DRAYTON, EDWIN ELLIS, AIDA FORREST, GENE A. JOHNSON, JOY WOLLEY, SHEILA WRIGHT, LINDA LEE, SHING CHOR CHUNG, JULIA YANG, JUNG HO HONG, JUAN RAMOS, NICK CHAVARRIA, GRACIELA HEYMANN, SANDRA MARTINEZ, EDWIN ROLDAN, MANOLIN TIRADO, LINDA ROSE, EVERET MILLS, ANTHONY HOFFMAN, KIM THOMPSON-WEREKOH, CARLOTTA BISHOP, CAROL RINZLER, GEORGE STAMATIADES, JOSEPHINE RODRIGUEZ, SCOTT AUSTER, EDWIN FIGUEROA, and SANTIAGO DIAZ, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, -against- ANDREW CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, DEAN G. SKELOS, as Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore of the Senate of the State of New York, SHELDON SILVER, as Speaker of the Assembly of the State of New York, ANDREA STUART-COUSINS, as Minority Leader of the Senate of the State of New York, BRIAN M. KOLB, as Minority Leader of the Assembly of the State of New York, the NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND APPORTIONMENT ( LATFOR ), JOHN J. McENENY, as Member of LATFOR, ROBERT OAKS, as Member of LATFOR, ROMAN HEDGES, as Member of LATFOR, MICHAEL F. NOZZOLIO, as Member of LATFOR, MARTIN MALAVÉ DILAN, as Member of LATFOR, and WELQUIS R. LOPEZ, as Member of LATFOR, Case No. 11-cv-5632 RR-GEL-DLI-RLM REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RAMOS INTERVENORS Defendants. 1

2 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: Ramos Intervenors submit this Reply Memorandum of Law in response to the Defendant New York State Attorney General s (herein Defendant ) Opposition to Ramos Plaintiffs Intervenors Petition for Reasonable Attorney s Fees and Costs, DE 666. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT As a result of the Defendant(s) acts, i.e., the New York legislature's complete abdication of its congressional redistricting duty, this court [was] obliged not only to recognize a violation of law but also to create a new redistricting plan to ensure [and protect] against the disenfranchisement of state voters in the 2012 congressional elections.. Favors v. Cuomo, No. 11-CV-5632, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36910, at *66 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012), also herein, Favors I. Ramos Plaintiff Intervenors, Latino residents of malapportioned Congressional districts filed their complaint-in-intervention on December 27, 2011 to protect their rights as New York voters. Subsequently, a complex, demanding and expedited litigation process with the court commenced, including the district s Chief Judge convening a three judge panel on February 14, 2012, and the panel s appointment of Federal Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann on February 28, 2012 to act as Special Master. Magistrate Judge Mann then appointed Columbia Law Professor Nathan Persily as the court s own voting rights expert to assist the court in addressing the complex issues presented; the court imposed various deadlines on all parties to expedite the litigation. Favors I redistricting litigation was multifaceted and complex. The three judge panel s final opinion and order which adopted much of the Magistrate s final report and recommendation described the dense thicket of legal principles governing this complex voting rights and redistricting proceeding which the parties were required to know in presenting cogent Congressional plans for consideration. Favors at * Given the urgency in fashioning expedited redistricting relief to comply with election deadlines, the Magistrate's March 12, 2012 detailed report and plan recommendation, which was prepared in two weeks time, and, ultimately adopted by the three judge panel. 2

3 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: Defendant, on the other hand, instead threads a facile theme that describes this litigation as "simple" which has led us to a "straightforward result" only to result in a simple judgment. Defendant s Brief at 1, 8, and 15. Defendant additionally contends that the [i]ntervenors achieved a simple outcome over such a straightforward issue, id. at 8, in light of the straightforward nature of the sole issue on which they succeeded, id. at 13, such that Intervenors presence in this litigation accomplished nothing. Id. at 15. Perhaps said in a more colloquial fashion, What s the big deal? No one got bent out of shape over it. You did zip. Move along! Ramos Intervenors strongly disagree with Defendant s cheeky premise and meritless contentions about Plaintiff-Intervenors role. Relying on Gerena-Valentin v. Koch, Defendant likens the role of Intervenors in Favors I litigation as contribut[ing[ virtually nothing to the ultimate result. Defendant s Brief at 4. Linked to multiple litigations, one set of plaintiffs was held successful, under the then-catalyst theory, in obtaining an injunction which barred New York City officials from proceeding with a primary election on the basis of an electoral reapportionment plan for which "preclearance" had not been given by the United States Attorney General. Andrews v. Koch, 554 F. Supp. 1099, (E.D.N.Y 1983). But, Defendant fails to establish that Ramos Intervenors role in the instant case was limited to bringing repetitive action and making inconsequential arguments which may justify the denial of attorney s fees. Gerena-Valentin v. Koch, 39 F.2d 755, 759 (2d Cir. 1984). Nor does Defendant contend that Intervenors sought to file a copycat suit in order to generate legal fees. Davis v. City of New Rochelle, 156 F.R.D. 549, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Rather, Ramos Plaintiff-Intervenors actions in the case at bar facilitated a judicially sanctioned result vindicating the constitutional rights of Plaintiff-Intervenors, which further benefited all the voters in New York State. This constitutional victory for New York s voters was a far cry from the technical or de minimis benefit that Defendant importunes. Defendant s Brief at 4. 3

4 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: Redistricting litigation, especially when operating under an expedited and compressed time frame, as in the case at bar, was neither simple, duplicative nor straightforward. Ramos Plaintiff- Intervemors efforts greatly contributed to the creation of the final Congressional redistricting map proposed by the Magistrate, and were not duplicative of the efforts of the underlying plaintiffs. Wilder v. Bernstein, 965 F.2d 1196, (2d Cir. 1992). In fact, the Favors Plaintiffs did not even file a proposed Congressional map plan. Ramos Intervenors filed a non-partisan partial plan which focused on the Congressional districts involving five counties in New York City and where the greatest core of the state s population lay. DE 142 and 173. Three of these counties (The Bronx, Kings and New York) were then covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act s non-retrogression rule. Ramos Intervenors, along with the other non-partisan minority voting rights groups, the Lee and Drayton Intervenors, exercised limited but practical degrees of collaboration while negotiating at arm s length in developing the Unity Congressional Plan submission. Each group of intervenors worked on preserving distinct majority minority Congressional districts and sought to balance their various geographic bases and constituencies. Separate distinct revisions to the Unity Plan were later submitted to this court by several groups of intervenors. This court reviewed and considered the submissions of maps and data of Ramos Intervenor, DE 173 and 181, and other parties plans. Favors v. Cuomo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS *17. The court invited comments and objections to the Proposed Plan. [O]nly the Senate Majority Defendants, the Rose Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Drayton Intervenors submitted substantive responses to the Court s Order to Show Cause. Id at *21. Ramos Intervenors submitted their objections and comments. DE 228 and 235. The Court stated that [a]fter considering each of those objections [and those from the public], and balancing the need for each proposed modification against competing considerations, the Court modified its Proposed plan where it deemed warranted. Id at *22. In sum, Ramos Intervenors counsel were able to vindicate their clients voting rights as a result of their submission resulting in the Court issuing an order directing the State Defendants to 4

5 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: implement the Court's new 2012 Congressional Plan, which took into account their recommendations and objection, in time for the political calendar and Congressional elections. AS PREVAILING PARTIES IN THE INSTANT ACTION, RAMOS INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS The touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiffs' lawsuit caused a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992). The high court has consistently held that a party prevails "if [it] succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Further, the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff is all that is required. Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 761 (1987). It cannot be disputed that Ramos Intervenors are prevailing parties in this action as they obtained the desired results set forth in their complaint-in-intervention. The Court s Final Order adopting the Magistrate s final plan provided the direct redress and benefits sought by Ramos Intervenors. Defendant's assertion that obtaining a declaratory judgment cannot sustain a Section 1988 prevailing party status is without merit. Defendant s Brief at 4. "[It] is no different from any other judgment. It will constitute relief for purposes of Section 1988, if and only if, it affects the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff. Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 4 (1988). Moreover, the three judge panel issued declaratory relief for the plaintiffs and also made an injunctive order directing Defendants to adopt and implement the Court s Plan. Favors v. Cuomo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS *68 Defendants did not appeal it. RAMOS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS DID NOT ENGAGE IN DUPLICATIVE EFFORTS Ramos Intervenors petition for attorney s fees consisted of hours primarily billed for Jackson Chin, as their lead attorney, and, to a far lesser amount for two LatinoJustice in-house counsel supervisors, Juan Cartagena and Jose Perez. They did not engage in duplicative or redundant 5

6 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: activities. [T]he mere fact that two attorneys assisted on a certain case with respect to similar matters does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the tasks performed were duplicative. Weather v. City of Mount Vernon, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. 2011). [A]ttorneys working on the same case must confer with one another from time to time to discuss case developments and strategy and to allocate tasks. Grievson v. Rochester Psychiatric Ctr., 746 F. Supp. 2d 454, 468 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010), Cruceta v. City of New York, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97740, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012). Many tasks may require or benefit from the attention of more than one attorney. Bridges v Eastman Kodak Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 809 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 1996). Here, the legal issues in redistricting are palpably complex and not as straightforward as Defendant claims. In fact, Defendant must be aware that all plaintiffs, intervenors and other defendants that actively participated in Favors I litigation had engaged multiple attorneys in the representation of their respective clients. Each set of plaintiffs and intervenors represented distinct clients in this litigation. Certainly, a common goal among plaintiffs was to ensure that a fair Congressional map be timely redrawn. However, Defendant is greatly mistaken if he contends that all plaintiffs and intervenors were required to coordinate rather than make separate submissions when doing so would reduce the total time required so as to avoid the type of duplicative work which Defendant argues cannot be compensated for. Defendant s Brief at 9. This position denies the historical reality of redistricting battles wherein various parties and ethnic communities have distinct legal issues and concerns, and, their respective counsel's ethical duties are paramount to their clients. In the same vein, it should be noted Defendants New York Majority and Minority Leaders for the State Senate and the State Assembly have not succeeded in such collaboration for the past three decades of reapportionment and redistricting. As this Court well knows, any court-drawn redistricting plan is an "unwelcome obligation" which is necessary only when the governmental body is unable or unwilling to fulfill its legislative duties. Johnson v. Mortham, 915 F. Supp. 6

7 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: , 1543 (N.D. Fla. 1995), quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 (1977) and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 586 (1964). All of the parties, except for the Favors Plaintiffs, the Senate Minority and the Assembly Minority, ultimately submitted their own Congressional plans and data to the court. Soon after, the Favors lead plaintiffs, plaintiff intervenors and defendants each submitted their own comments and / or objections to the Magistrate s proposed plan. The Lee, Drayton and Ramos Intervenors each submitted a Congressional Unity map and specific data sets which incorporated and reflected their respective clients needs in limited collaboration. Each group of Intervenors submitted separate comments and data analyses to the Magistrate Judge based on their respective Voting Rights Act Section 2 and 5 concerns, tied to the geography of neighborhoods and the desire to preserve ethnic communities of interests. Ramos Intervenors addressed concerns for Latinos in specific Congressional districts in the magistrate s proposed plan, as was the case for the Lee and Drayton Intervenors that were concerned on behalf of the Asian American and African American communities. In contra-distinction to the partisan gerrymandered map plans that were submitted to the Magistrate by Defendants Senate and Assembly Majority Leaders and the Rose plaintiffs, and other public submissions, we respectfully submit that the Unity Congressional plan recommended for certain New York City districts came closest to the mapping reforms adopted in the final map. Defendant reluctantly acknowledges this and admits that some resemblance could be seen in [Intervenors Unity Plan] districts. Defendant Brief at 6 7. RAMOS ATTORNEY FEES ARE REASONABLE RATES FOR THIS DISTRICT Redistricting litigation is not a simple straightforward affair. It requires critical legal expertise and experienced legal counsel. Congress has recognized the fact that attorney s fees awards are critical. "In the large majority of cases the party or parties seeking to enforce [civil] rights will be the plaintiffs and/or plaintiff-intervenors. For many would-be intervenors, the availability of 7

8 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: such a remedy would be a hollow one were the recovery of attorneys' fees not to exist as an incentive. See Senate Report at 3, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 5910.[m]any potential parties would never intervene in civil rights actions because they, and the constituencies they represent, are economically disadvantaged. Without the valuable perspective of those who might properly intervene but for their financial inability a reconciliation of the diverse community interests of those affected is frustrated. See, United States v. Bd. of Ed. of Waterbury Conn., 605 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1979); and, Wilder v. Bernstein, 965 F.2d 1196, 1202 (2d Cir. 1992). "Because implicated interests or common legal or factual questions involved violations of civil rights protected by the Constitution or federal statutes enumerated under Section 1988, and because the efforts of the intervenors contributed importantly to the creation of remedies, Congress sought to advance in the fee statute, [the Circuit held that] intervenors [could] properly be held as prevailing parties entitled to an award of attorneys' fees." Wilder at Ramos Intervenors' petition for attorney fees for one lead attorney and two supporting attorneys was a cost-efficient use of co-counsel, Sullivan v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., No. 89-CV-1205, 1993 U.S. Dist LEXIS 6343 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), that was appropriate for the scope and complexity of the litigation in light of its expedited nature. Green v Torres, 361 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 2004). Duplication or redundancy in billing work has been explicitly avoided in the underlying petition, See, DE THE FORUM RATE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE CASE SPECIFIC NEEDS AND EXPERTISE OF COUNSEL Ramos Intervenors were represented by attorneys who had special expertise in redistricting and voting rights litigation, a unique area of constitutional civil rights law practice. Defendant contests the hourly rate for LatinoJustice s President and General Counsel Juan Cartagena. But, his proffered rate of $550 is reasonable given his many years of experience. In a review of the past three decades of redistricting litigation filed in the courts of the Eastern District of New York, we 8

9 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: observe that a very few lawyers were based in the Eastern District, including, the reputable and experienced counsel for the Drayton Intervenors. The out-of-district lawyers retained by Defendants Senate Majority for this litigation are compensated at a much higher rate than those being proffered by the Ramos Intervenors. This court can take judicial notice that another comparative objective factor exists in Favors litigation. It should be noted that a contract for attorney s fee rates at $ to $ per hour for partners at Jones Day and $ to $ for its Associates was executed by Defendant State Senate Republicans for redistricting litigation which demonstrates the cost and level of expertise required. See, Reply Declaration of Jackson Chin and Exhibits A, B, and C, attached, certain records obtained from the Office of the NY State Comptroller, between the Law Offices of Jones Day and the N.Y. State Senate on the $3 million contract C150024, and, attorney rates schedule, for redistricting legal services by Jones Day. The Second Circuit held in Simmons v. New York City Transit Authority, 575 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 2009) that a district court must first apply a presumption in favor of applying the standard hourly rates employed in the district, and in order to overcome that presumption, a litigant must show that a reasonable client would have selected out-of-district counsel because doing so would likely [to] produce a substantially better net result. The forum rule which presumes district attorney hourly rates is not absolute. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany & Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 121, n.8 (2d Cir. 2008). A court must consider experience-based, objective factors including counsel s special expertise in litigating the particular type of case, if the case is of such a nature to benefit from special expertise. Simmons at Moreover, this Circuit has stated that district courts should award fees just high enough to attract competent counsel. Arbor Hill at 193. A court looks for similar services by lawyers of reasonable comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Farbotko v. Clinton County, 433 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2005). 9

10 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: The presumptively reasonable fee is based on the approximate market rate for an attorney s services. Arbor Hill at 120 (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283 (1989). The district court is required in addition to taking notice of rates awarded in prior cases, to also consider [ ] evidence [from] the parties, and determine the prevailing rate within the relative community for attorneys of comparable skill and experience performing work on comparable cases. Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). No district court has held that the billing rate for partners in the Eastern District can never exceed $450 even though $300-$450 is the typical range in recent reported cases which did not involve redistricting litigation. Struthers v. City of New York, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *23 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). But, a court in this forum found $550 an hour was an appropriate rate for partner level attorneys while also acknowledging the complexity, effort and skill required for the case. U.S. v. City of New York, 2013 WL (E.D.N.Y. 2013) Therefore, this district court can justify setting rates above typical district rates citing case-specific factors, e.g. time and labor required, novelty and difficulty of the case, the attorneys customary hourly rate, etc. To clarify, the Second Circuit did not find the attorney s fees hourly rate of $600 unnecessarily unreasonable, but had remanded to the district court to apply the new standard if attorney s fees were to be set outside district forum rates. Vilkhu v. City of New York, 372 F. App'x 222, 223 (2d Cir. 2010). See, Defendant s Brief at 12. NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION APPLIES TO DENY RAMOS INTERVENOR OF REASONABLE FEES Defendant contends that grounds exist to deny attorney fees even if the Ramos Intervenors are found to be prevailing. However, Defendant has not met its burden to show that the special circumstances exception applies in the case at bar. Once prevailing party status is determined, a district court s discretion to preclude an award due to special circumstances is narrow. New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S (1980). No special circumstances exist here in which would render an award of fees unjust. S. Rep. 925, 94 th Cong., 1 st Sess. 40 (1975)(relating to Sec. 1973e, S. Rep. 1011, 94 th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1976)( addressing Sec. 1988) 10

11 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: Accordingly, the State Defendants' contention that they should not be held liable because the Favors Court created a Congressional map is without basis in fact or law. Johnson v. Mortham, 950 F. Supp. 1117, 1122 (N.D. Fla. 1996). If the New York Legislature had fulfilled it constitutional duty and obligations to create a Congressional redistricting plan, the parties would not have had to resort to the courts. And, to permit the State Defendant to avoid liability for attorney's fees under these circumstances, would doubly reward them for abdicating their legislative responsibilities. Defendant's all or nothing direct benefit dichotomy demands that this court require that an adopted map be identical to the proponent's submission. Defendant s Brief at 5. This view was rejected under Hastert v. Ill. State Bd. of Election Comm rs, 28 F.3d 1430 (7 th Cir. 1993). This type of rule is neither necessary nor imposed elsewhere in civil litigation where attorney s fees awards are available. Although Defendant relies on the Hastert lower court's decision, it is, in fact, inapposite to Favors I. The Hastert district court ruled that certain plaintiffs and intervenors, consolidated from several cases, were prevailing parties and that other intervenors were not. However, the district court also summarily denied attorney s fees to all the prevailing parties. When their motions to reconsider went unheeded, the parties appealed. On appeal, the circuit court stated," "The winner, at least from a lay person's perspective, is the litigant whose map the district court adopted..." [W]e are quite certain that the language of the district court, if intended to deal with attorney's fees (in addition to routine court costs) was ill-advised. Indeed, it would not be irrational to conclude that the district court's order had nothing to do with attorney's fees." Hastert at The court, therefore, found the district court erred in denying prevailing party status to several plaintiff intervenors because the district court had "exclusively used" the Hensley 'central issue' test "where a party is deemed to have prevailed only if he 'prevailed on the central issue by acquiring the primary relief sought." Hastert at The Hastert circuit roundly rejected the lower court's narrow finding of a prevailing party as it had ignored or contravened standards which held that plaintiffs may be considered prevailing parties for attorney s fees purposes if 11

12 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit Hensley v. Eckergart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) and that a plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which materially alters the parties' legal relationship in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 783 (1989). To date, no other federal courts have followed the Hastert district court's narrow ruling. One court addressing state redistricting litigation has declined to follow Hastert concluding that success on the threshold question of unconstitutional malapportionment suffices to confer prevailing party status, regardless of the ultimate remedy. Perrin v. Kitzhaber, 191 Or. App. 439, , 83 P.3d 368, 376 (2004) (state appellate court awarded attorney s fees to a party whose redistricting plan was not ultimately adopted). Lastly, Defendant New York State also contends that since the services of the Magistrate s voting rights expert Nathaniel Persily has already been compensated by the State, Defendant Brief at 11, it is a factor to be considered. However, this is not a special circumstance that should preclude recovery of attorney s fees by the Ramos Intervenors. This transaction, instead, further underscores Ramos Intervenors contention that no successful redistricting litigation is sustainable in the absence of experts whose technical skills set are shown to be ever more necessary for demographic analysis and mapping. AN AWARD FOR REASONABLE COSTS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO RAMOS INTERVENORS EXPERT Ramos Intervenors seek recovery of a reasonable cost of $ 4,270 for their expert s time and services. The civil rights statute 42 U.S.C does not prohibit the recoupment of expert fees as this matter squarely rests within the district court's discretion. 12

13 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: Ramos Intervenors are entitled to recover taxable costs pursuant to all reasonable out of pocket expenses that are normally charged to clients. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens v. County of Albany, No. 03-CV-502, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4362, at *35 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2005). Favors I devolved from a landscape of complex federal and state redistricting principles. Favors at * Ramos Intervenors would have been severely handicapped in their ability to advance the voting rights of their minority clients without the use of a demographic and mapping expert for Congressional redistricting, a process which, in particular, requires the drawing of equipopulous districts with no deviation rates. A party s proffered maps, data and plans, created without the technical support of experts, without a command of specialized data, would be in ab initio infirm and given little or no credibility. Undoubtedly, technical precision, complex and detailed assessments of U.S. Census data, and, the use of mapping technology are sin qua non to how one must draw boundaries of districts. The cost of an expert is a reasonable expense that a client would normally expect to incur. Without access to specialized experts, most parties cannot become prevailing ones in redistricting claims. The coverage for expert fees is not an advantage that even Defendants and their counsel will forebear. See, Exhibit B, which shows Defendants State Senate accept costs for third party consultants in redistricting under Jones Day contract. 13

14 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Ramos Intervenors have successfully demonstrated that they are prevailing parties in this action. And for the reasons set forth above and in our previous submission, DE 657, we urge this Court to approve our petition for reasonable attorney s fees and costs. Dated: New York, New York February 14, 2014 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Jackson Chin Juan Cartagena Jose Perez Jackson Chin LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF 99 Hudson Street, 14 th Floor New York, New York (212) ext jchin@latinojustice.org Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors Juan Ramos, et. al. Cc: ALL COUNSEL BY ECF 14

15 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 671 Filed 02/14/14 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 14 th day of February, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing submission with the Clerk of the Eastern District of New York using the CM/ECF system, and all counsel,. I further certify that I mailed a courtesy copy of the above, by First Class Mail on this same day, to each of the judges on the three judge panel and to the Magistrate Judge. /s/ Jackson Chin 15