Judges Press State on Redacted Fee Records and Active Supervision

A judge raised concerns about the ability of a trial court to perform active supervision over fee awards when many time entries are redacted. "If a litigant submits a declaration and says, I was generally working on the merits of the litigation... and they're all blacked out, can the trial court award those fees?" the judge asked. The question centered on whether courts must demand more detailed disclosure or conduct in‑camera review.

Assistant Attorney General Paula Pera acknowledged the concern but said only 66 entries out of 25,000 were fully redacted and that the claimed value of those redactions was about $20,000, or roughly 0.001% of the award. She told the court the trial judge had sufficient context from surrounding entries and declarations and that an in‑camera review is discretionary. The panel discussed precedents (224 Westlake was cited in argument) and whether the state’s approach gave the opposing party a meaningful opportunity to challenge entries.