Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 61 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 5

PageID #: 801

RICHARD L HOLCOMB (HI Bar No. 9177) BRIAN BRAZIER (HI Bar No. 9343) (Of Counsel) Holcomb Law, A Limited Liability Law Corporation 1136 Union Mall, Suite 808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4040 Facsimile: (808) 356-1954 Email: rholcomblaw@live.com ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145) Attorney at Law 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: (619) 971-0414 Email: ngord2000@yahoo.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Hawaii Defense Foundation, Christopher Baker, and Derek Scammon

) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) City and County of Honolulu; ) Andrew Lum, in his personal and ) official capacity; ) John Does 1-10 in their personal and ) official capacities. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ________________________________ )

CASE NO. CV 12-00469JMS-RLP LOCAL RULE 54.3(b) STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEARING: Non-Hearing Motion Judge: Honorable Richard L. Puglisi

Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 61 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 5

PageID #: 802

LOCAL RULE 54.3(b) STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION COME NOW Attorneys Richard L. Holcomb, Brian Brazier, and Alan Beck, who have moved this Court for an award of attorneys fees on February 4, 2014 [Doc. 56], and provide the following Statement of Consultation pursuant to Rule 54.3(b) of the Local Rules of this Court: 1. Very early in the settlement negotiations and because the amount of

attorneys fees that had accumulated exceeded the Department of Corporation Counsels authority to pay, the parties agreed that counsel should file a motion for attorneys fees in order to have the Court award the fees. 2. This agreement is included in the Stipulation for Dismissal entered on

January 21, 2014. [Doc. 55] 3. Nevertheless, on January 23, 2014, Attorney Holcomb e-mailed

opposing counsel, Curtis Sherwood. Mr. Holcomb informed Mr. Sherwood that the Motion for Attorneys fees would be filed in a couple of weeks. And, despite recognizing that Mr. Sherwood would have to obtain approval from City Council, Mr. Holcomb offered to settle the attorneys fees for an amount of $30,000 before the filing of the Motion for Attorneys Fees. 4. Counsel received no response from the City. Accordingly, on January

29, 2014, Mr. Holcomb again e-mailed Mr. Sherwood and included Attorney

Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 61 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 5

PageID #: 803

Matt Pyun, who attended the last two Settlement Conferences in this case on behalf of Mr. Sherwood. This e-mail restated the above offer to settle, informed the recipients that counsel had received no response to the prior email, requested a post-filing conference in order to comply with the Local Rules of this Court, and informed opposing counsel that the Motion for Attorneys Fees would be substantially completed on the upcoming Friday. 5. Later that day, counsel received an e-mail from Mr. Sherwood stating

that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Pyun and that the City could not agree to settle for that amount. Mr. Sherwood stated that the City felt that it was best to have the Court decide the matter first. 6. On February 6, 2014, after the filing of the Motion for Attorneys In this e-mail Mr.

Fees, Mr. Holcomb again e-mailed Mr. Sherwood.

Holcomb informed Mr. Sherwood that counsel could no longer accept $30,000 as settlement but that counsel would be willing to settle the matter if counsel was also adequately compensated for the work related to the Motion for Attorneys Fees. Mr. Holcomb informed Mr. Sherwood that counsel must file the instant Statement and asked if it would be at all beneficial to meet. Counsel also expressed a willingness to appeal the award if aggrieved by the amount.

Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 61 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 5

PageID #: 804

7.

That same day, Mr. Holcomb received an automatic e-mail response

from Mr. Sherwoods e-mail account stating that Mr. Sherwood was out of the office on military duty. Accordingly, later that day, Mr. Holcomb resent the e-mail to Mr. Pyun, again informing Mr. Pyun that counsel was attempting to comply with Local Rule 54.3. Mr. Holcomb solicited Mr. Pyuns response as to Mr. Pyuns thoughts regarding the meeting and whether it would be beneficial. 8. 9. Counsel has received no response to the e-mails of February 6, 2014. The moving attorneys have, therefore, made a good faith effort to

arrange the required consultation. However, for the reasons stated above and because the parties agreed all along to have the Court award the fees, counsel has been unable to arrange the conference. Despite this good faith effort, the parties are unable to reach an agreement with regard to the fee award. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 14, 2014.

s/Richard Holcomb Richard Holcomb Brian Brazier Alan Beck Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 61 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 5

PageID #: 805

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this, the 14th of February, 2014, I served the foregoing document by electronically filing it with the Courts CM/ECF system, which generated a Notice of Filing and effects service upon counsel for all parties in the case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this the 14th day of February, 2014.

s/Richard L. Holcomb Richard L. Holcomb 9177