The opinion of the court was delivered by: Veronica L. Duffy United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY'S FEES
Previously, this court granted plaintiff Pratthana Anspach's motion to compel discovery from defendant United of Omaha Life Insurance Company ("United"). See Docket No. 28. Pending before the court is Ms. Andpach's request for attorney's fees of $5,731.95 as sanctions in connection with that motion. See Docket No. 32 and 32-1. United objects to the requested amount and suggests that an appropriate award would be $1,500. See Docket No. 33.
A. Lodestar Method of Determining Reasonable Award of Attorney's Fees The court must evaluate Ms. Anspach's request for attorney's fees to determine whether it is reasonable. In determining a reasonable award of attorney's fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the court begins by figuring the lodestar, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rates. Finley v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 249 F.R.D. 329, 332-33 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co., Ltd., 248 F.R.D. 64, 68 (D.D.C. 2008); Creative Resources Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Creative Resources Group, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 94, 103 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); Kayhill v. Unified Gov't. of Wyandotte County, 197 F.R.D. 454, 459 (D.Kan. 2000); and Trbovich v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 166 F.R.D. 30, 32 (E.D. Mo. 1996). The burden is on the moving party to prove that the request for attorneys' fees is reasonable. Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V., 248 F.R.D. at 68; Creative Resources Group, Inc., 212 F.R.D. at 103; Kayhill, 197 F.R.D. at 459.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rate
The reasonable hourly rate is usually the ordinary rate for similar work in the community where the case is being litigated. Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V., 248 F.R.D. at 68 (citing Laffy v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4, 16 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (hourly rate must be sufficient to attract competent counsel, but not so excessive as to produce a windfall, and generally must be in line with rates charged by other attorneys of comparable skill, reputation, and ability within the community.) In this case, Ms. Anspach has submitted a request for attorney's fees based on a normal hourly rate of $200.00 per hour for both attorney Gregory Sperlich and attorney Michael Wheeler.
United does not object to this hourly rate for either of Ms. Anspach's attorneys, but does note that it is at the high end of prevailing local rates. See Docket No. 33, page 3, n.2. Neither party has submitted information about the prevailing hourly attorney rates in the District of South Dakota. The court can determine those rates based on its own knowledge of prevailing rates here. See Creative Resources Group, Inc., 212 F.R.D. at 103-104 (holding that "it is within the judge's discretion to determine reasonable fees based on his or her knowledge of prevailing community rates"). Experienced, partner-level trial counsel in this community have received awards of attorneys fees ranging from $200.00 per hour to $225.00 per hour in lawsuits requiring highly specialized knowledge. See Cottier v. City of Martin, Civ. No. 02-5021, Docket No. 469, page 6 (D.S.D. March 25, 2008); Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, Civ. No. 01-3032, Docket No. 411, page 4 (D.S.D. June 22, 2006). In other cases where the hourly rate is limited by statute, courts have awarded fees based on an hourly rate of $150 per hour. See Kahle v. , Civ. No. 04-5024, Docket No. 259 (D.S.D. July 14, 2008). In awards of attorneys fees as sanctions for motions to compel, the hourly rates of attorneys' fees have ranged from $145 per hour to $250 per hour. See Heil v. Belle Starr Saloon & Casino, Inc., Civ. No. 09-5074, Docket No. 68 (D.S.D.); Beyer v. Medco Ins. Group, Civ. No. 08-5058, Docket No. 65 (D.S.D.); Howard Johnson Internat'l, Inc. v. Inn Development, Inc., Civ. No. 07- 1024, Docket No. 73 (D.S.D.); Oyen v. Land O'Lakes Inc., Civ. 07-4112, Docket Nos. 56, 62 (D.S.D.).
The court concludes on the basis of its own knowledge of prevailing rates in the District of South Dakota and also based on recent awards of attorney's fees that $200.00 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Sperlich and Mr. Wheeler's time.
The court must also determine whether the number of hours spent by Ms. Anspach's attorneys was reasonable. United argues that 27 hours of time spent on the motion to compel is unreasonable, especially where the attorneys' time records do not break down their time on the specific issues. Other courts have held that 30 and 21 hours spent in researching and drafting a discovery motion were a disproportionate amount of time for the nature of the dispute. See Criterion 508 Solutions, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., 255 F.R.D. 489, 496 (S.D. Ia. 2008) and Foxley Cattle Co. v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 142 F.R.D. 677, 680 (S.D. Ia. 1992).
In this district, this court has approved requests for attorneys fees ranging from $1,041.45 to $1,509.97 for run-of-the-mill motions to compel. See Heil, Civ. No. 09-5074, Docket No. 68 ($1,041.45 awarded); Howard Johnson Internat'l. Inc., Civ. No. 07-1024, Docket No. 73 ($1,453.50 awarded); Oyen, Civ. No. 07-4112, Docket Nos. 56 and 62 ($!,509.97 awarded to defendant on defendant's motion to compel; $1,140.75 awarded to plaintiff on plaintiff's motion to compel).
In one extraordinary case in which the plaintiff made a detailed motion to compel involving numerous issues, the court granted that motion, and then plaintiff had to make a second motion to compel when the defendant refused to comply with the court' previous order, the court awarded $13,480 in attorneys' fees. See Beyer, Civ. No. 08-5058, Docket No. 65 (D.S.D.).
Here, Ms. Anspach presented a number of issues in her motion to compel, but the issues were not complex or difficult. In addition, the court found that United's position on two of the discovery requests did not prevent discovery, but that United's position was nevertheless substantially justified. Ms. ...