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)

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