Pingree v. University of Utah et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
RITA FLORIAN PINGREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH and CAROLINE
MILNE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR EXPENSES AND FEES
INCURRED IN SANCTIONS MOTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-00724-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
On February 27, 2026, the court granted in part a motion for sanctions filed by Defendants
relating to untimely disclosures from Plaintiff. ECF No. 270. The court awarded Defendants the
reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in: (i) addressing Plaintiff’s refusal to produce
unredacted offers and related documents; (ii) preparing and filing the motion for sanctions; (iii)
preparing for and conducting the additional deposition; and (iv) expert fees incurred in updating
expert testimony and reports due to the untimely disclosed information. Id. at 5. On March 27,
Defendants filed their motion for expenses and fees. ECF No. 305. The amount of requested fees
totals $12,595.10. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff filed a response requesting that the court reduce the fees and costs sought by
Defendants. ECF No. 315. First, Plaintiff argues that the fees Defendants incurred in responding
to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should not be awarded. The court disagrees. Defendants’
work in responding to Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider fits squarely into the first bucket: work
addressing Plaintiff’s refusal to produce unredacted offers and related documents.
Plaintiff next requests that Defendants’ expert-related charges should be denied in full.
Plaintiff argues that because Dr. Cross’s substantive opinions did not change upon review of the
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 322 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
untimely filed information, the expert work was not necessary. ECF No. 315 at 3. This argument
warrants little discussion. Plaintiffs failed to provide important information to Defendants in a
timely manner, requiring Defendants to have their expert review and update his analysis and any
associated reports at the eleventh hour. While an expert is likely to review his or her work prior to
trial in any case, this specific review required the expert to incorporate new information to see
how, if at all, his or her expert opinion would change. The fact that the new information did not
ultimately change the expert’s opinion does not erase the added work the expert and Defendants
had to do to reach that conclusion.
The court finds Defendants’ requested fees and costs to be reasonable. See Prisbrey v. State
Auto Ins. Companies, No. 4:21-CV-00124-DN, 2024 WL 476654, at *1 (D. Utah Feb. 7, 2024)
(identifying factors for determining the reasonableness of the hours billed). Defendants support
their request with the appropriate documentation that identifies in an itemized manner the work,
the time spent, and the cost. All of the fees and costs reasonably relate to addressing Plaintiff’s
untimely disclosures. See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (noting, in the
context of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 fee awards, that courts should exclude hours that were not reasonably
expended).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. ECF No. 305. The
court awards $12,595.10 in fees and costs to Defendants.
DATED August 17, 2026.
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 322 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 322 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3