SPECS USA Corp. v. SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH et al

Filing 148

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 134 Administrative Motion to Correct Clerical Error and Awarding Additional Sanctions. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 SPECS USA CORP, 12 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 SPECS SURFACE NANO, 15 No. C 10-04250 DMR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR AND AWARDING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 On September 18, 2012, the court granted Defendants Specs USA Corp. and Rickmer Kose’s 18 motion for sanctions for discovery violations by Plaintiffs SPECS GmbH and SPECS Inc. [Docket 19 Nos. 83 (Sanctions Mot.), 96 (Order Granting Mot. for Sanctions.] In its September 18 order, the 20 court did not set forth the amount of the sanctions award pending the receipt of additional briefing. 21 On October 30, 2012, following receipt of the briefing, the court issued an order awarding 22 Defendants a total of $39,185.44 as sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by 23 Defendants in May and July 2012. [Docket No. 121 (Order Awarding Sanctions).] Although 24 Defendants requested an award of fees and costs incurred in June 2012 in connection with the 25 discovery violations, they did not submit billing records for June 2012. As a result, the court was 26 unable to determine whether the hours claimed for June 2012 were compensable, and therefore did 27 not award Defendants any fees incurred in that month. (Order Awarding Sanctions 3.) The court 28 noted that “[a]lthough Exhibit F to [Defendants’ counsel’s] declaration [in support of the motion for 1 sanctions] purport[ed] to be billing records through June 30, 2012, it [was] actually billing records 2 through May 31, 2012. The court [was] unable to locate billing records for the month of June 2012 3 in the papers submitted by Defendants.” (Order Awarding Sanctions 3 n.2; see Decl. of Macaulay in 4 Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. for Rule 37 Sanctions, Ex. F (Docket 83-1), July 24, 2012.) 5 Now before the court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Correct E-Filing and Clarify 143.] In Defendants’ administrative motion, they seek permission to correct the erroneously e-filed 8 Exhibit F to Defendants’ counsel’s declaration in support of the motion for sanctions, and have 9 submitted the missing June 2012 billing records. (Defs.’ Mot. 1; Decl. of Macaulay in Supp. of 10 Defs.’ Administrative Mot. to Correct E-Filing, Ex. K, Nov. 2, 2012.) According to Defendants, 11 For the Northern District of California Order Awarding Sanctions, to which Plaintiffs have submitted an opposition. [Docket Nos. 134, 7 United States District Court 6 when filing their motion for sanctions and supporting documents, they inadvertently uploaded one 12 invoice twice and failed to attach the billing records for June 2012 as Exhibit F. Contrary to 13 Plaintiffs’ assertions, Defendants do not make any new arguments in support of their sanctions 14 motion, nor do they seek reconsideration of the court’s October 30, 2012 order. Instead, they seek 15 permission to correct a clerical error and ask the court to consider the omitted billing records in 16 connection with their sanctions motion. Defendants’ motion is granted. The court deems the new 17 exhibit containing the billing records for June 2012 as substituted for the erroneously-filed original 18 Exhibit F and will consider the new exhibit as part of Defendants’ original motion for sanctions. 19 Upon review of the now-complete record of Defendants’ motion for sanctions, the court 20 finds that the hours billed for work performed in June 2012 by attorneys Brendan Macaulay and Chi 21 Soo Kim and project manager Genesis Alejandro were related to the parties’ certification of their 22 document production, Defendants’ second motion to compel, work regarding Plaintiffs’ ongoing 23 document production deficiencies, and Defendants’ sanctions motion. The court finds that none of 24 the hours were unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive, and finds that the hourly rates sought by 25 Defendants’ counsel and support staff – $395 for Mr. Macaulay, $370 for Ms. Kim, and $190 for 26 Mr. Alejandro – are well within the range of reasonable hourly rates for attorneys and support staff 27 of comparable skill, experience and reputation litigating similar cases in the San Francisco Bay 28 Area. Accordingly, the court awards Defendants $23,341.50 in sanctions representing attorneys’ 2 1 fees and costs incurred in June 2012. This sum is in addition to the $39,185.44 the court previously 2 awarded Defendants on October 30, 2012, and shall be paid by Plaintiffs and/or their counsel to 3 Defendants within 30 days of this order. 6 7 ERED ORD T IS SO I Dated: December 6, 2012 . Ryu 9 United States Magistrate Judge RT 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court ER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 A H 10 LI nna M ud RYUo JM. ge D DONNA NO 8 R NIA IT IS SO ORDERED. FO S UNIT ED 5 RT U O 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?