Facebook, Inc. et al v. Holper

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2022)

Case 3:20-cv-06023-WHA Document 51 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

No. C 20-06023 WHA

v.
NIKOLAY HOLPER,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

15
16

The undersigned has reviewed the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Joseph

17

Spero and agrees that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment should be GRANTED IN PART and

18

DENIED IN PART, for the reasons stated in the report, (Rep. & Rec., Dkt. No. 47). No objection

19

was received in response to the report. This order adopts the report and recommendation, except

20

that attorney’s fees will be reduced from the recommended amount of $107,221.20 to $89,351.00.

21

Plaintiffs requested $178,702.00 in attorney’s fees for work performed to obtain an entry of

22

default judgment (Mortimer Decl. ¶ 4). Judge Spero recommended a forty-percent reduction in

23

attorney’s fees “[i]n light of Facebook’s attorneys’ failure to address key issues (like website

24

translations) in their original motion, failure to achieve success on the bulk of their request for

25

statutory damages, and facially unreasonable amounts of time spent on relatively straightforward

26

phases of the case” (Rep. & Rec. 24–25). The report cited over 35 hours spent on case

27

management statements, conferences, and continuances when defendant never appeared, as well as

28

over 71 hours spent on a motion for alternative service (id. at 24–25 n.7).

Case 3:20-cv-06023-WHA Document 51 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 2

1
2

percent reduction warranted, for a total reduction of fifty percent. “Counsel for the prevailing

3

party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive,

4

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary[.]” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431 (1983). In

5

addition to the misfires and disproportionate work referenced in the report, this order points to over

6

26 hours of billing entries filed by plaintiffs’ counsel involving communications related to service

7

of process (Mortimer Exh. A). And twenty such entries — totaling 4.7 hours — involve “status”

8

updates. This reads gratuitous.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

This order agrees that a reduction in attorney’s fees is appropriate and finds a further ten-

The fee assessment herein considered billing entries supplied by plaintiffs’ counsel, which

10

did not disclose work product, privileged communications, or any other sealable material (ibid.;

11

see Nelson Decl. ¶ 3). This order therefore denies the motion to seal previously granted by minute

12

order (Dkt. No. 46; see also FRCP 54(b)).

13

For the foregoing reasons, default judgment shall be separately entered for plaintiffs in the

14

amount of $199,535.44, consisting of the following amounts: (1) $100,000.00 in statutory

15

damages for cybersquatting; (2) $89,351.00 in attorney’s fees; and (3) $10,184.44 in costs.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: November 22, 2022.

19
20
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2