U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing directed the Rodey Law Firm to pay the award within 30 days, holding that EVO's failure to comply with her June 12, 2025, discovery order was not substantially justified under Rule 37.
EVO had argued that internal turmoil — including the departure of its general counsel and a breakdown in communication with a new point of contact — excused its noncompliance. Fashing rejected that argument, noting that those events unfolded in September 2025, well after the July 14 deadline that triggered the second motion to compel. The court held that EVO provided no explanation as to why its failure to comply with the June 12, 2025, order was substantially justified.
The judge also pointed to EVO's counsel's response when plaintiffs' attorneys flagged the incomplete supplementation after the July deadline passed. Counsel replied: "We have already provided our supplemental responses. There is no more to say." Fashing held that response appeared to amount to a summary rejection of the required conferral effort, leaving the court and both parties to expend, in the court's words, "considerable time and resources resolving an issue that easily could have been resolved between the parties."
Fashing separately quashed her October 6, 2025, show-cause order tied to EVO's second missed deadline — the September 30 cutoff — finding that the company's counsel had acted in good faith once the internal communications breakdown became apparent, promptly notifying opposing counsel and the court that prior discovery responses may have been inaccurate.
The fee calculation itself drew the sharpest scrutiny. Plaintiffs' counsel — a Chicago and Boston-based firm — sought a blended rate of $650 per hour for 13.6 hours of work, representing a voluntary reduction from individual rates as high as $1,141 per hour. Fashing approved the 13.6 hours in full, rejecting EVO's argument that the 0.8 hours billed by lead counsel Douglas Werman in connection with the hearing were duplicative because he did not argue the motion. She held it reasonable for a supervising partner to attend a hearing with his associate, particularly given the case's complexity and EVO's own practice of sending two attorneys to other hearings.
On the rate, however, Fashing reduced the request from $650 to $425 per hour, following a prior decision district involving the same law firm in a similar wage-hour class action. That court had found hourly rates of $450 and $600 per hour higher than what is typically seen but recognized that a wage-hour class action is uniquely complex and demanding of specialized counsel, settling on $425 as a reasonable blended rate. Fashing held there was no reason to depart from that analysis.
The underlying suit, filed by lead plaintiff Steven Vargo and other truck drivers, alleges EVO failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The case remains pending before the district court.
EVO's counsel did not respond to the fee affidavit on the merits of the hours claimed, objecting only to Werman's hearing-related time — a concession that left 12.7 hours of the request unchallenged.