Gibson Brands Inc v. John Hornby Skewes & Co. Ltd et al

Filing 110

ORDER RE ATTORNEYS FEES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court finds that Plaintiff has established the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and costs, totaling $24,202.50. However, because the Court held that Plaintiff hadcontributed to the situation that led to the filing of the disqualification motion, the Court will reduce the fees to account for Plaintiffs responsibility. Therefore, the Court finds that a reduction of one-third of the total fees is an appropriate measure of the Plaintiffs responsibility in this case. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs in the total amount of $16,135. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GIBSON BRANDS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

JOHN HORNBY SKEWES & CO.
LTD.,

16

Defendants.
___________________________

Case No. CV 14-00609 DDP (SSx)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gibson Brands, Inc.’s

19

application for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to this Court’s

20

Order re Motion for Disqualification.

21

Application, dkt. no. 107.)

22

submission, the Court adopts the following Order.

23

I.

24

(Order, dkt. no. 106;

After considering the Plaintiff’s

BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a noticed motion to

25

disqualify defense counsel Bienstock & Michael.

26

Plaintiff alleged that defense counsel had privileged attorney work

27

product in its possession for about a year before disclosing the

28

documents to Plaintiff.

(Id.)

(Dkt. No. 92.)

The alleged work product was an

email between Plaintiff’s in-house counsel and a proposed expert

1

for a different case asserting the same trademarks that are

2

asserted in this case; the same expert was later hired as an expert

3

in this case.

4

The Court heard oral argument on January 11, 2016.

5

At the hearing, the Court requested further briefing from Plaintiff

6

as to what kind of ancillary relief it sought and what it proposed

7

to do with its expert.

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed its

8

supplemental briefing.

(Dkt. No. 104.)

9

(Id.)

Defendant opposed the motion.

(Dkt. No. 99.)
(Dkt. No. 103.)

On January 22, 2016, the Court issued its Order.

(Dkt. No.

10

106).

11

product.

12

simple clawback or third party disclosure case, and responsibility

13

for the situation fell on both Plaintiff and defense counsel.

14

10-13.)

15

counsel, but did extend the expert discovery deadline so Plaintiff

16

could hire a new expert.

17

The Court held the emails at issue were attorney work
(Id. at 9.)

However, the Court noted that this was not a

(Id.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defense

(Id. at 12.)

The Court noted that “[t]here are counterbalancing concerns

18

that the Court has with the conduct of both sides to this dispute.

19

The more significant harm, the court believes, is Bienstock &

20

Michael’s failure to timely acknowledge receipt of work product

21

material.”

22

“reasonable attorneys’ fees connected to Plaintiff’s costs in

23

bringing” the motion.

24

adjustments as it deems appropriate given the counterbalancing

25

concerns” the Court noted in its Order.

26

(Id.)

Thus, the Court held that it would award

(Id.)

The Court noted it would “make

(Id. at 13 & n.3.)

Plaintiff filed its supplemental briefing regarding attorneys’

27

fees and costs in bringing the motion on February 1, 2016.

28

No. 107.)
2

(Dkt.

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks $22,595.25 in attorneys’ fees and $1,607.25 in

3

costs for bringing the disqualification motion.

(Dkt. No. 107,

4

Decl. Schuettinger ¶¶ 11-12.)

5

of the work performed and fees incurred by Plaintiff’s attorneys in

6

the disqualification motion.

7

includes information providing for the education, training, and

8

experience of the attorneys.

9

provides legal argument and evidence that the rates charged by the

Plaintiff provides a billing summary

(Id., Ex. A.)

(Id., Ex. B.)

Plaintiff also

Lastly, Plaintiff

10

attorneys are reasonable and compatible with the hourly rates

11

charged by similar attorneys across the nation, and much lower than

12

those charged by similar attorneys in the Los Angeles area.

13

¶¶ 6-10, Ex. C.)

14

(Id.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established the

15

reasonableness of its attorneys’ fees and costs, totaling

16

$24,202.50.

17

contributed to the situation that led to the filing of the

18

disqualification motion, the Court will reduce the fees to account

19

for Plaintiff’s responsibility.

20

reduction of one-third of the total fees is an appropriate measure

21

of the Plaintiff’s responsibility in this case.

22

ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the total

23

amount of $16,135.

However, because the Court held that Plaintiff had

Therefore, the Court finds that a

Defendants are

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: February 8, 2016
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

28
3