Graham-Sult et al v. Clainos et al

Filing 322

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON BGA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/3/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ALEXANDER GRAHAM-SULT and DAVID
GRAHAM,

v.

10

NICHOLAS P. CLAINOS, RICHARD L.
GREENE, LINDA McCALL, GREENE
RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE & HENNIGH
LLP, BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES LLC,
d/b/a WOLFGANG’S VAULT, NORTON
LLC and WILLIAM E. SAGAN,

11

Defendants.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER FOR FURTHER
BRIEFING ON BGA
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiffs,

6
7

No. CV 10-4877 CW

12

________________________________/

13
14

Defendants Bill Graham Archives LLC, Norton LLC and William

15

E. Sagan (collectively, BGA Defendants) have filed a motion for

16

attorneys’ fees and costs under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.

17

§ 505.

18

In support of their motion, BGA Defendants have filed

redacted billing statements, completely eliminating any

19
description of the work performed.

BGA Defendants state that

20
21

these redactions are necessary to protect attorney-client

22

privilege and that they will submit unredacted statements for in

23

camera review upon request of the Court.

24
25
26

As noted by Plaintiffs, “the fee applicant bears the burden
of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the
appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.”

Hensley v.

27
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1982).
28

While the Court appreciates

1

counsel’s duty not to breach the attorney-client privilege, it is

2

implausible that every entry contains privileged information.

3

Moreover, Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to respond to

4

those entries that are not privileged.1

5

Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this

6
order, BGA Defendants shall file their billing statements
7
8
9

including the description of the work performed.

They may redact

only information that is protected by the attorney-client

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

privilege.

11

file under seal any portions of their billing statements that they

12

believe are sealable.

13

filing, Plaintiffs shall file a response of no more than five

14

BGA Defendants shall file an administrative motion to

Within fourteen days of BGA Defendants’

pages to the fee request.

BGA Defendants may file a reply of no

15
more than three pages within one week thereafter.
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 3, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court recognizes that it granted BGA Defendants’
previous motion for attorneys’ fees even though the records filed
in support of that motion attached fully redacted records.
However, that motion sought just over $130,000 in fees, while the
instant motion seeks nearly ten times that amount for work
performed over the course of more than fifteen years.
2