Petroliam Nasional Berhad v., Inc.

Filing 175

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

Download PDF
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: (650) 493-9300 Fax: (650) 493-6811 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, 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-

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?