Roush

MEMORANDUM **

The Berosinis appeal from a district court award of over $250,000 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction for discovery abuses. We determine that some award of fees is justified under Rule 37, but remand to permit the Berosinis to review the attorneys’ actual billing records.

The failure of the magistrate judge to specify a subsection of Rule 37 is of no moment as the award is sustainable under both Rule 37(a)(4) and (b)(2). See Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir.1994). The award encompasses all the fees “expended to trace and pursue the Cataluña investments.” Fees and costs expended on preparing the four motions to compel discovery, which were all granted by the court, is supported by Rule 37(a)(4)(A), which permits an award of “the reasonable expenses incurred in making *726 the motion [to compel], including attorney’s fees.”

Rule 37(b)(2) supports the remainder of the award, as it authorizes the court to award “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” to comply with court-ordered discovery. The findings that the Berosinis continued to be “dilatory and recalcitrant” in the face of numerous orders compelling discovery,…