- 27 -
the product of Ms. Spaid’s negligence. We do not require Ms.
Spaid to reimburse respondent for the time spent on the
supplement to the motion to continue.
On February 12, 2001, Ms. Spaid faxed respondent copies of
proposed exhibits. Ms. Zusi spent approximately 3 hours
reviewing documents relating to frivolous issues. Ms. Moe spent
1 hour discussing the documents with Ms. Zusi. We order Ms.
Spaid to reimburse respondent for 3 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and
none of Ms. Moe’s time because we believe any time Ms. Moe spent
on the frivolous issues was negligible.
On February 13-15, 2001, Ms. Zusi spent 6 hours preparing
respondent’s trial memorandum. Two of the six hours were related
to frivolous issues. Ms. Moe spent 2 hours reviewing the trial
memorandum. We order Ms. Spaid to reimburse respondent for 2
hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and none of Ms. Moe’s time because we
believe any time Ms. Moe spent on the frivolous issues was
negligible.
On February 28, 2001, Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe prepared for and
participated in a conference call with Ms. Spaid and the Court in
which Ms. Spaid raised frivolous issues. Ms. Zusi spent
approximately 1.5 hours and Ms. Moe spent approximately 0.5 hours
dealing with the frivolous issues. We order Ms. Spaid to
reimburse respondent for 1.5 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and 0.5
hour of Ms. Moe’s time.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011