CHEMENCE MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., and CHEMENCE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES QUINN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1366-CAP United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Signed September 20, 2016 Counsel Joann Brown Williams, Robin Krystle Love, Meriwether & Tharp LLC, Alpharetta, GA, Michael Justin Wilson, Pro Hac Vice, Robert D. Wilson, Pro Hac Vice, Wilson & Wilson, Co., LPA, Chagrin Falls, OH, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Smith Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs. Amanda McCallum Cash, Benton J. Mathis, Jr., Michael P. Bruyere, Michael Wolak, III, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Derrick L. Bingham, Maurice Michael Egan, Jr., William Seaborn Jones, Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney LLP, Kelly Elisabeth Eisenlohr-Moul, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. Pannell Jr., Charles A., United States District Judge ORDER *1 This action is before the court on the Chemence Parties' motion to alter the amended judgment [Doc. No. 650] and Quinn's motion for attorney fees [Doc. No. 601]. As an initial matter, the Chemence Parties are correct regarding the clerical error in the amended judgment issued September 12, 2016 [Doc. No. 649]. The motion to alter [Doc. No. 650] is GRANTED, and the clerk is DIRECTED to issue a second amended judgment to correct the rate of post-judgment interest to 0.67 per annum. The motion for attorneys' fees by Quinn [Doc. No. 601] is for fees paid to counsel for defending the misappropriation of trade secrets claim the jury found was brought in bad faith [Doc. No. 591, Questions 9, 11]. Under Georgia law, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing party if a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith. O.C.G.A. § 10-1-764. Quinn is seeking attorneys' fees with respect to only the portion of the misappropriation claim that was tried before the jury. The Chemence Parties argue that because the court denied Quinn's motion for summary judgment as to the misappropriation claim and submitted the claim to the jury, there can be no bad faith. However, the Chemence Parties did not object to the verdict form containing the question about bad faith. Therefore, they cannot now object to the issue going before the jury. Moreover, there was overwhelming evidence at trial to support a finding that the Chemence Parties acted in bad faith asserting a misappropriation claim against Quinn. The evidence established that the misappropriation claim was nothing more than a tactic to avoid the obligations to pay Quinn his earned commissions; therefore, the jury's finding that the Chemence Parties acted in bad faith was well-supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the court will make a determination as to the proper amount of attorneys' fees. In addressing a trial court's award of attorneys' fees under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-764, the Georgia Court of Appeals held: An attorney cannot recover for professional services without proof of the value of those services. A naked assertion that the fees are “reasonable,” without any evidence of hours, rates, or other indication of the value of the professional services actually rendered is inadequate. Brandenburg v. All-Fleet Refinishing, Inc., 555 S.E.2d 508, 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Hsu's Enterprises v. Hospitality Intl., 502 S.E.2d 776 (Ga. Ct. App. (1998)). Furthermore, the Georgia Court of Appeals has held that an affidavit by counsel does not suffice to establish the reasonableness of attorneys' fees. “[A] party opposing a claim for attorney fees has a basic right to confront and challenge testimony as to the value and need for legal services.” Kwickie/Flash Foods, Inc. v. Lakeside Petroleum, Inc., 568 S.E.2d 816, 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting C.A. Gaslowitz & Assoc. v. ZML Promenade, 496 S.E.2d 470, 471 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)). Accordingly, this court will hold an evidentiary hearing to establish the proper award of attorneys' fees for defending the misappropriation claim that went before the jury. *2 In addition to the motion for attorneys' fees, there are motions for sanctions filed by both sides against the other related to alleged discovery abuses, which remain pending [Doc. Nos. 247 and 460]. With respect to Quinn's motion [Doc. No. 247], the court held hearings and issued scheduling orders needed to complete the discovery process. The court indicated that it would be awarding sanctions against the Chemence Parties for a number of discovery abuses that put Quinn to unnecessary effort and expense, but the court reserved a determination as to the amount of monetary sanctions until after trial of the case-in-chief. Also, the court has not yet addressed the Chemence Parties' motion for sanctions [Doc. No. 460]; that motion contains allegations that Quinn's counsel made misrepresentations about the discovery process to support Quinn's motion for sanctions. In an effort to move the litigation forward, the court put off addressing the Chemence Parties' motion for sanctions until after trial. Because the trial is now complete and an evidentiary hearing is necessary to ascertain the amount of attorneys' fees owed by the Chemence Parties regarding the misappropriation claim, the court will also take evidence as to both motions for sanctions. As set forth above, the court has already determined that sanctions will be imposed against the Chemence Parties for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations. However, this hearing is not merely an attorneys' fee hearing as to that motion. The court will consider Quinn's motion for sanctions in conjunction with the Chemence Parties' motion for sanctions in which it is argued that Quinn and his counsel exaggerated the discovery problems and that when their requests to redo discovery were granted, little to no new evidence was uncovered. Additionally, the parties should be prepared to prove the amount of attorneys' fees they are seeking with specificity including the reasonableness of the rates charged, the amount of time spent, and the need for the services rendered. In order to efficiently prepare for the hearing, the court will require the parties to submit a proposed consolidated pre-motion plan. The plan must include each side's estimate of time, lists of exhibits they will introduce, and witnesses they will call. Much of this hearing will focus on determining an amount of attorneys' fees—for Quinn's defense of the misappropriation claim and as a possible as a form of sanctions against both sides. The parties are admonished that detailed statements of work are required. The court cannot evaluate the reasonableness of fees sought without proof of precisely what work was undertaken. Summaries of attorney work will not be sufficient. The evidentiary hearing will begin on November 7, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The joint proposed pre-motion plan shall be filed no later than October 24, 2016. After receipt of the pre-motion plan, the court will determine whether a conference will be necessary prior to the hearing date. SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2016.