Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al
Filing
550
ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 545 Administrative Motion ; striking 549 Motion for Attorney Fees. (mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2023)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.,
et al.,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR ATTORNEY FEE MOTIONS AND
STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: ECF No. 545, 549
12
13
Case No. 17-cv-02824-JST
Defendants Daniel Brindis, Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Amy Moas, and
14
Rolf Skar (collectively “Greenpeace”) filed an administrative motion regarding a briefing schedule
15
on attorney’s fees motions. ECF No. 545. Greenpeace requests that “the Court to maintain
16
jurisdiction over this case for the limited purpose of adjudicating forthcoming attorney fee[s]
17
motions ordered by Magistrate Judge Westmore in her November 2, 2022 Order.” Id. at 2.
18
Plaintiffs Fibrek General Partnership, Fibrek International, Inc., Fibrek U.S., Inc., Resolute FP
19
Augusta, LLC, Resolute FP Canada, Inc., Resolute FP US, Inc., and Resolute Forest Products, Inc.
20
(collectively “Resolute”) oppose the administrative motion and argue that motions for attorney’s
21
fees are untimely because Judge Westmore set a December 1, 2022 deadline for such motions.
22
ECF No. 546 at 2-3.
23
On June 1, 2023, before the Court ruled on its administrative motion, Greenpeace filed a
24
motion for attorney’s fees, in which it argued that its motion is timely for two reasons. First, the
25
deadline for its fees motion could not have been December 1, 2022 because the “Court in its order
26
denying the Sanctions Appeal on April 10, 2023 found that Plaintiffs’ discovery misconduct
27
identified by Magistrate Judge Westmore ‘warrants . . . requiring Plaintiffs to pay certain
28
attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants,’ and Plaintiffs have yet to pay those fees.” ECF No. 549
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
at 11–12 (quoting ECF No. 537 at 5). Additionally, because the Court’s order denying the motion
2
for relief did not set a deadline to move for attorney’s fees, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)
3
controls. Id. at 12. Second, Resolute’s “timeliness argument ignores the full scope of” Judge
4
Westmore’s order because it “awards fees to both parties” and then “instructs the parties to meet
5
and confer as to the amount of fees, and to file motions if they are unable to agree.” Id. at 13. The
6
parties’ failure to meet and confer or to move forward with fees motions “was wholly reasonable
7
and appropriate” because “undertaking the costly process of briefing the amount of fees owed
8
while the Sanctions Appeal was pending would have been entirely insufficient” for the parties. Id.
9
Greenpeace also argues that Resolute’s “citation to cases standing for the general
10
proposition that an appeal does not stay a Magistrate Judge’s order . . . are inapposite” because
11
they do not “involve the settling of a fee award, let alone a situation where the District Court after
12
the appeal reaffirmed that the non-appealing party was entitled to fees that party had not yet
13
moved for,” id. at 12 n.2; Resolute has “not been prejudiced at all by [Greenpeace’s] decision to
14
wait to bring this Fee Motion until after the Sanctions Appeal was decided,” id.; and they “placed
15
significant obligations on the party that filed the objections, which that party sought to avoid by
16
appealing,” and here, the “order held that both parties must pay fees, and the meeting of the parties
17
and further motion practice was intended to facilitate the determination of the specific amount,” id.
18
at 13.
19
The Court finds that Greenpeace’s motion is untimely. The caselaw is clear that “the filing
20
of objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter does not stay the order’s
21
operation.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. C-10-03561-WHA DMR, 2011 WL 3794892, at
22
*5 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011); see also In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan on Oct. 31, 2000, No.
23
MDL1394-GAF(RCX), 2002 WL 32155477, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2002) (“[A]llowing the
24
automatic stay of [a] magistrate [judge]’s orders would not only encourage the filing of frivolous
25
appeals, but would grind the magistrate [judge] system to [a] halt.” (quoting Litton Industs., Inc. v.
26
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc., 124 F.R.D. 75, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). Here, the parties were
27
required to follow the deadlines Judge Westmore’s order, i.e., they were required to meet and
28
confer as to the amount of attorney’s fees before December 1, 2022, and if they could not reach an
2
1
agreement as to the amount of fees, they were required to file motions for attorney’s fees by
2
December 1, 2022. As both parties concede, they failed to do so and did not request to extend the
3
deadlines in Judge Westmore’s order. Therefore, Greenpeace’s motion for fees is untimely.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
Greenpeace’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, although Judge Westmore
5
awarded Greenpeace attorney’s fees, and the Court concluded that awarding fees was proper in its
6
April 2023 order, to obtain those fees, Greenpeace was required to meet and confer as to the
7
amount of fees, and then file a motion if it could not come to an agreement with Resolute as to the
8
amount of fees by December 1, 2022. ECF No. 486 at 30–31. Thus, because Greenpeace failed to
9
comply with those requirements, it is not entitled to the fees it was awarded. Second, Greenpeace
10
cites to no authority supporting that the type of non-dipositive order, the obligations placed upon
11
by the parties by the order, or the lack of prejudice to one party for the other’s non-compliance
12
with the order are relevant considerations in the Court’s analysis of the timeliness of Greenpeace’s
13
motion. Instead, the authority the Court has found suggests the opposite. See, e.g., Hanni v. Am.
14
Airlines, Inc., No. C-08-00732 CW(EDL), 2009 WL 1505286, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2009)
15
(finding that a magistrate order was not stayed pending resolution of a motion for relief from that
16
order without considering the type of order at issue, the obligations placed upon the parties by the
17
order, or the prejudice of delayed compliance with the order); accord Oracle Am., Inc., 2011 WL
18
3794892, at *5 n.7 ; In re Air Crash, 2002 WL 32155477, at *5.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Accordingly, the Court denies Greenpeace’s administrative motion, ECF No. 545, and
strikes its motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 549.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3
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?