Farhang v. Indian institute of Technology Kharagpur et al
Filing
711
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 705 WRIT OF EXECUTION, 708 CONTEMPT, 706 SEALING. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge to oversee the execution of debtor examination. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 1/4/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2021)
Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 711 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
M.A. MOBILE LTD.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR WRIT OF
EXECUTION, CONTEMPT, SEALING
v.
9
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KHARAGPUR, et al.,
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 3:08-cv-02658-WHO
Re: Dkt. Nos. 705, 706, 708
Defendants.
12
Defendant Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (“IIT”) previously requested a writ
13
14
of execution, a debtor examination, and sanctions against plaintiff M.A. Mobile LTD for its failure
15
to pay a judgment. I denied M.A. Mobile a stay of the imposition of those costs pending appeal,
16
Dkt. No. 688, but deferred ruling on the motions until the Ninth Circuit resolved all appeals, Dkt.
17
No. 700. I granted IIT’s motion on December 3, 2020, after the appeals resolved. Dkt. No. 704.
18
In that order, I granted the writ of execution and permitted a judgment debtor examination as
19
overseen by a Magistrate Judge. I directed IIT to submit a revised proposed order that updated
20
the amount of interest to which it was entitled. I permitted IIT to submit a request for attorney’s
21
fees and costs associated with the application for writ of execution because M.A. Mobile willfully
22
failed to pay the bill of costs, despite being denied a stay. I also ordered M.A. Mobile to show
23
cause within fourteen days why it should not be held in contempt for choosing not to pay.
24
I.
25
WRIT OF EXECUTION
IIT has submitted its revised proposed order updating the amount of interest it is owed on
26
the writ of execution. The taxed cost was $39,706.51 and IIT assesses the interest owed as
27
$651.07. I previously granted the motion for a writ of execution and debtor examination. See
28
FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1). This matter will be REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to oversee the
Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 711 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 3
1
execution, including the debtor examination.
2
II.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
M.A. Mobile has not responded to the order to show cause why it should not be held in
3
4
contempt for failing to pay what it indisputably owed. Accordingly, for its willful failure to pay
5
the costs that were taxed, I hold it in CONTEMPT OF COURT. See Inst. of Cetacean Research v.
6
Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Civil contempt consists of
7
a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps
8
within the party’s power to comply.”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and formatting omitted).
Without M.A. Mobile’s contemptuous behavior, IIT would not have incurred attorney’s
9
fees to recover what was owed. In its motion, IIT details the many steps it took to recover prior to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
moving for these sanctions. See Dkt. No. 708; see also Dkt. No. 699. Accordingly, IIT’s motion
12
for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART as a compensatory contempt sanction. See Gen.
13
Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). I will reduce IIT’s requested
14
sanction of $19,522 by $4,535. Dkt. No. 708 at 2. That amount represents half of the loadstar for
15
attorneys Chatterjee and Jones, the attorneys with the highest billing rates. See id. at 3. There was
16
no need for those with such high billing rates to help draft this straightforward application. The
17
amounts billed are otherwise reasonable according to the prevailing market rate in this district
18
given the nature of this matter and the attorneys’ skill and experience. As a result, I will
19
SANCTION M.A. Mobile $14,987 in attorney’s fees.
20
III.
21
22
23
MOTION TO SEAL
IIT moves to seal the total amount of attorney fees it requests and the billing rates of its
attorneys. Dkt. No. 706. The motion is DENIED.
Courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State
24
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When a party seeks to seal
25
judicial records—like those here—connected to motions that are not related or only tangentially
26
related to the merits, it must demonstrate “good cause” to do so. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
27
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–99 (9th Cir. 2016). “When ruling on a motion to seal court
28
records, the district court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking
2
Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 711 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 3
1
to seal judicial records.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d
2
1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). This district’s local rules require that requests to seal be “narrowly
3
tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” CIV. L. R. 79-5(b).
4
IIT’s counsel argues that its timekeepers’ hourly rates are confidential and could prejudice
5
the firm in negotiations with potential clients. Dkt. No. 706-1. This conclusory argument does
6
not demonstrate sufficient good cause. Attorney billing rates are routinely and uncontroversially
7
included in motions and judicial orders. The total figure owed is integral to understanding this
8
order. That interest outweighs whatever speculative disadvantage the firm believes it will be
9
placed at from revealing billing rates for five particular timekeepers completing one particular
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
type of motion in one particular proceeding.
The only case IIT relies on redacted “rates paid for the services of contract attorneys, staff
12
attorneys, and a contract paralegal.” In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-
13
LHK, 2018 WL 3067783, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018). But rates paid to contractors implicate
14
two confidentiality concerns not present here. First, they reveal details of negotiated financial
15
arrangements between the firm and contractors for their services, a classic type of sealable
16
information. Here, again, the information sought to be redacted is garden variety hourly rates for
17
attorneys within the firm. Second, the information in Anthem shed light on individuals’ salaries in
18
a way that internal attorney billing rates do not. This aside, the movant in Anthem did not seek to
19
seal the total amounts owed as IIT seeks to do. Id.
20
21
Consequently, IIT is ORDERED to file versions of the documents it has submitted under
seal in connection with these motions with no redactions within fourteen days.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: January 4, 2021
24
25
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?