- 35 -
printed thereon, appear to have originated from Izen’s telecopier
on the evening of April 3, 2001. Sjostrom alleges that the
pages, which contain time entries substantially similar (in
content and format) to those included in the Izen fee request,
are part of a contemporaneous invoice submitted by Izen to the
Defense Fund. As Sjostrom points out, for the period July 20,
2000 through March 20, 2001, the time entries in the alleged
invoice amount to 56.25 hours, while those included in the Izen
fee request for the same period amount to 130.93 hours.21 The
74.68-hour discrepancy is attributable to new entries as well as
additional time claimed for existing entries. In the
supplemental filing by which he submitted those documents to the
Court, respondent states:
Although respondent did not previously question the
veracity of the billing records, respondent requests
that, in light of this new information, the court
review all of Mr. Izen’s billing records and reduce the
fee award.
In his response to respondent’s supplemental filing, Izen
neither questions the authenticity of the April 2001 document nor
alleges that the discrepancies are attributable to some kind of
billing error. Rather, Izen attempts to downplay the
significance of the document, describing it as an “informational
21 Sjostrom also observes that the billing rate in the
alleged invoice is much lower than the rate claimed in the Izen
fee request. We are not troubled by that discrepancy; Izen
clearly based his request for the higher rate on his notion of
the market value of his services. See infra Part III.H.1.e.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011