Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

AFFIDAVIT OF J. STEVEN SPARKS
STATE OF ARIZONA )
County of Maricopa )
J. STEVEN SPARKS, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and
says:
1. I am a Shareholder and Director in the law firm of Sanders & Parks,
P.C. and have been admitted to practice law in the State of Arizona since l994. In
addition, I am admitted to practice in the State of California and before the District
Court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For approximately the
last I3 years, my practice has been devoted primarily to litigation. ln that regard, I
have been involved in insurance defense, education law, employment litigation,
insurance coverage matters, toxic tort, product liability, and civil rights litigation. I
am a member ofthe Maricopa County Bar Association, the Arizona Association of
Defense Counsel, and the American Bar Association.
2. The law firm of Sanders & Parks represented Defendants, who are
the successful parties in this contested action entitled Ramirez v. Glendale Union
High School District, et al.
3. I am familiar with and have knowledge of the facts relative to the
attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, the qualifications and experience of the
attorneys and other legal professionals who were involved in the defense of the
ctaims, and make this affidavit based upon my own personal knowledge.
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO60-ROS Document 134-2 Filed O9/27/2006 Page 1 of 3

4. Defendants have incurred attomeys’ fees from the law firm of
Sanders & Parks in the total amount of $107,-482.00, as more particularly shown in
the attached billings, which have been redacted only to protect against disclosure
of privileged infomation.
5. Attached as Exhibit “`A" hereto are true copies of the time records for
this case which specify date, attorney’s initials, time expended, hourly rate, and
exact nature of services rendered by the law firm of Sanders & Parks in this case.
These time records include both time that has been billed to the Defendants and
time that has not yet been billed. All privileged matters have been redacted from
the bills, but unredacted copies of the invoices will be provided to the Court for in
camera inspection, if requested.
6. The time expended in legal services rendered by the law firm of
Sanders & Parks was reasonably necessary to properly represent Defendants in this
action. This was a contested and, at times, contentious piece of litigation with
many witnesses (many of whom were seriously mentally impaired). Plaintiffs’
litigation theories changed dramatically over time and Defendants were forced to
react to and address such theories. ln addition, there was significant motion work
involved and a substantial amount of discovery and investigation was undertaken
on behalf of the District and the individual employees ofthe District.
7. For most of the litigation, the hourly rate being charged to the client
for the legal services provided by Owners (such as myself) was $145.00, which is
well below the rate commonly charged by attorneys with similar experience,
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO60-ROS Document 134-2 Filed O9/27/2006 Page 2 of 3

education and competency. As will be seen from the attached billing statements,
toward the end of the litigation, the client agreed to an increase to $165.00 per
hour. which still represents a significant discount from the customary and normal
charges in Maricopa County.
8. I have personal knowledge that the sums being sought through the
accompanying Application constitute fair and reasonable compensation in
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona, given the experience and competency
of the attorneys involved and for the nature ofthe service and the skill required in
this action.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27*]] day of September,
2006.
(Notary Seal) @2lj AQQMJ
ymmwgq _ 4 Notary Public

Case 2:O3—cv—OOO60-ROS Document 134-2 Filed O9/27/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 134-2

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 134-2

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 134-2

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 3 of 3