POWERS

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reasonable Expenses, Including Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion”), filed January 17, 2023. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition, and the time to do so has expired. Thus, the Motion is construed as unopposed. See Local Rule 3.01(c). Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted. In the Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 38), the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion, including attorney’s fees. (Doc. 41 at 1.) The Court directed the parties to meet and confer as to the amount and stated that if the parties could not reach an agreement, Defendant could file a motion seeking reasonable expenses. (Id.) In the instant Motion, Defendant states to have attempted to confer with counsel on numerous occasions to no avail, thus prompting the filing of the Motion. (Doc. 42 at 2.) Defendant seeks $3,702.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the Motion for Sanctions “and conferrals with counsel for Plaintiff in attempting to secure a response to the outstanding discovery.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) In the Affidavit of April

Boyer, she states that the fees represent 7.1 hours billed by both attorney April Boyer and Claudia Velasquez, at an average hourly rate of $528.86 per hour. (Doc. 44-1.) April Boyer is a partner at K&L Gates LLP with approximately 26 years of experience. (Id. ¶ 3.) Claudia Velasquez has been an associate at K&L Gates LLP since 2021. (Id. ¶ 6.) April Boyer avers that both the hourly fee and time expended are reasonable. (Id.

¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the request creates the presumption that the request is unopposed. Local Rule 3.01(c); Great Am. Assur. Co. v. Sanchuk, LLC, No. 8:10-cv- 2568-T-33AEP, 2012 WL 195526, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2012). Based on Defendant’s representations and the Court’s own experience, I find

the requested hourly rate and hours expended to be reasonable in this instance, particularly in light of the fact that the Motion is unopposed. Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F. 2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988) (“The court . . . is itself an expert on the question [of attorney’s fees] and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent

judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.”) Upon consideration of the foregoing, the unopposed Motion for Reasonable Expenses, Including Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 44) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay Defendant’s fees in the amount of $3,702.00. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 13, 2023.

KIDD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE