Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 175

BILL OF COSTS Go Daddy's Bill of Costs re Petronas's Claims by GoDaddy.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Fiorino, Joseph) (Filed on 2/29/2012)

Exhibit A:
Declaration of
Joseph G. Fiorino in support
of Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs

1
2
3
4
5
6

JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513
DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952
HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
GODADDY.COM, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13

PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD,

14

Plaintiff,

15

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

vs.

16

GODADDY.COM, INC.,

17

Defendant.

18
19
GODADDY.COM, INC.,
20
Counterclaimant,
21
vs.
22
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD,
23
Counterclaim Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF J. FIORINO
ISO BILL OF COSTS RE PETRONAS’S CLAIMS
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH

-1-

CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH G.
FIORINO IN SUPPORT OF GO
DADDY’S BILL OF COSTS RE
PETRONAS’S CLAIMS

Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

1

I, Joseph G. Fiorino, declare and state as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this Court and employed by

3

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (“WSGR”), counsel to Defendant and Counterclaimant

4

GoDaddy.com, Inc. (“Go Daddy”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth

5

herein, and if called as a witness, could and would testify thereto.

6
7
8
9

2.

I have reviewed the invoices from WSGR to Go Daddy for costs incurred in

relation to the claims asserted by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (“Petronas”).
3.

I verify that all costs in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs re Petronas’s Claims (“Bill of

Costs”) submitted herewith were necessarily incurred in this action and recoverable under 28

10

U.S.C. §1920, Civil Local Rule 54-3, and relevant case law, and that the services for which fees

11

have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. The statement that the costs in Go

12

Daddy’s Bill of Costs are recoverable is based on relevant judicial decisions including, without

13

limitation, Parrish v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, No. C 10-03200 WHA, 2011 WL 1362112,

14

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (holding that costs incurred for “reproduction, scanning,

15

[conversion,] and imaging of client documents ‘for review and potential production’ or ‘for initial

16

production’ . . . are properly recoverable”); Service Employees Intern. Union v. Rosselli, No. C 09-

17

00404 WHA, 2010 WL 4502176 at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) (rejecting argument “that the

18

cost of trial exhibits and electronic discovery production should not be recoverable”; overruling

19

objections to reporter’s invoices listing “‘rough disk’ fees, ‘expedited’ services charges, parking

20

reimbursements, charges for court reporter ‘waiting time,’ charges for court reporter ‘before/after

21

hours,’ delivery costs, appearance and travel fees, ‘video digitizing to DVD[s],’ and ‘video

22

synchronizing’”; and awarding over $200,000 in costs); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,

23

697 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“The cost of videotaping, including video technicians

24

fees, as well as the cost of a copy of the videotape and written transcript are taxable costs”;

25

awarding over $760,000 in costs); Cargill Inc. v. Progressive Dairy Solutions, Inc., No. CV–F–

26

07–0349, 2008 WL 5135826, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2008) (where “case management was done

27

electronically because of the volume of documents, [and] scanning of documents was necessary to

28

provide an adequate defense to the several motions and trial presentation,” such costs were
DECL. OF J. FIORINO
ISO BILL OF COSTS RE PETRONAS’S CLAIMS
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH

-2-

1

recoverable); Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion

2

in district court awarding costs to defendant in the amount of $164,814.43 for converting

3

computer data into readable format in response to plaintiffs’ discovery requests); Race Tires Am.,

4

Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., No. 2:07-CV-1294, 2011 WL 1748620, at *9-12 (W.D. Pa.

5

May 6, 2011) (awarding over $370,000 in electronic discovery costs where defendants “created a

6

litigation database for the purpose of complying with the e-discovery requirements . . . engaged

7

computer experts to forensically collect and image hard drives, scan documents to create

8

electronic images, process and index electronic discovery data, extract the required metadata fields

9

from electronic records, enable documents to be OCR searchable, and convert documents to the

10

required .tif format”); Neutrino Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., No. H–01–2484, 2007 WL 998636 at

11

*4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2007) (where electronic data was produced by agreement, in lieu of paper

12

copies, the cost of production was recoverable under § 1920).

13
14
15
16
17

4.

I verify that all costs included in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs are fairly attributed to

the claims asserted by Petronas in this litigation.
5.

The invoices supporting Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs are attached as Exhibit C to Go

Daddy’s Bill of Costs.
6.

All but three of the depositions included in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs were required

18

pursuant to Petronas’s own deposition notices, including the depositions of Go Daddy employees

19

Jeff Munson, Jeff Roling, Laurie Anderson, Jessica Hanyen (for two separate depositions), Rod

20

Simonini, Linda Jett, Ronald Hertz, Matthew Bilunes, Camile Ede, and Tracy Carlson. The

21

breadth of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice served by Petronas on Go Daddy on September 21,

22

2011, seeking deposition testimony on 37 topics, made extensive deposition testimony and the

23

corresponding costs related thereto unavoidable.

24

7.

The other depositions included in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs—and the only

25

depositions noticed by Go Daddy—consist of the depositions of Petronas’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness,

26

Yeoh Suat Gaik, and Petronas’s two expert witnesses, Tina Dam and Kevin Fitzsimmons. These

27

depositions were necessary for Go Daddy to discover the merits of Petronas’s claims against it.

28
DECL. OF J. FIORINO
ISO BILL OF COSTS RE PETRONAS’S CLAIMS
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH

-3-

1

The information obtained during these depositions has been used by Go Daddy in its successful

2

motion for summary judgment as to Petronas’s claims.

3

8.

All of the costs included in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs for reproducing documents

4

for use in the case were necessary and related to disclosure or formal discovery documents and

5

exhibits to depositions. Over the course of the litigation Petronas served 4 rounds of document

6

requests on Go Daddy, including 57 individual document requests. In several instances Petronas’s

7

document requests were extremely broad (e.g., Document Request No. 20 seeks “all documents

8

that describe or concern the reason or basis for the statement ‘ICANN, the managing body of

9

internet, domain name registrars, specifically prohibits domain name registrars from becoming

10

involved in disputes over domain ownership in their Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution

11

Policy’…”; Document Request No. 52 seeks “all documents related to services provided by Go

12

Daddy to the registrant of the disputed domain names”). Go Daddy’s responses to Petronas’s

13

numerous requests and its resulting document productions necessitated the reproduction of

14

documents, many of which were also utilized in connection with depositions.

15

9.

All of the costs included in Go Daddy’s Bill of Costs for “preparing [a]

16

demonstrative diagram” were necessarily incurred to prepare a visual aid (in the form of an

17

enlarged exhibit) to assist the Court in understanding the complex litigation timeline of the case.

18

This demonstrative diagram was used during the December 7, 2011 hearing on Go Daddy’s

19

successful motion for summary judgment.

20
21
22

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed February 29, 2012, at Palo Alto, California.

23
24

By: /s/ Joseph G. Fiorino
Joseph G. Fiorino

25
26
27
28
DECL. OF J. FIORINO
ISO BILL OF COSTS RE PETRONAS’S CLAIMS
Case No. 4:09-cv-05939-PJH

-4-