The following excerpt is from Hiken v. Dep't of Def., 836 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016):
We have articulated the burden for each side in a fee application: [T]he burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence ... that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community. Camacho , 523 F.3d at 980. Conversely, [t]he party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits. Gates v. Deukmejian , 987 F.2d 1392, 139798 (9th Cir. 1992). The Government asks us to impose an additional limitation on fee applicants: namely, that they are foreclosed from pointing out a misapplication of a historical rate calculation if they only requested current rates in an initial application. We do not believe that such an additional burden would be warranted. From time to time, fee applicants request awards higher than
[836 F.3d 1046]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.