Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
2123
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR FED. R. CIV. P. 37 SANCTIONS re 1213 Order, 880 Order. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 7, 2012. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
APPLE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR
FED. R. CIV. P. 37 SANCTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 880, 1213)
In this patent infringement suit, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd,
19
20
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
21
(collectively “Samsung”) both request – and object to – their respective attorneys’ fees previously
22
awarded by this court as sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.1
23
24
Unfortunately, despite two opportunities to submit detailed and accurate supporting
invoices, 2 the parties have left the court to parse through bare descriptions of their attorneys’
25
26
activities. As a result, and as described in more detail below, the court must reduce each party’s
27
1
See Docket Nos. 880, 1213.
28
2
See Docket Nos. 1275, 1957.
1
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
award according to its best estimate of the potential inflation in fees resulting from the incomplete
submissions.
I.
3
4
5
6
BACKGROUND
The court has already adequately detailed the motions leading to the respective sanctions in
its orders granting the awards. 3 The court provides here only a brief outline of the events for
context.
7
8
A.
Samsung’s Award
Despite the immense discovery produced in this case, Apple failed to turn over to Samsung
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
certain deposition testimony by its employees, leading Samsung to bring a motion to compel.
11
Samsung prevailed on its motion in an order from this court on December 22, 2011 (“December 22
12
order”) requiring Apple to provide the requested depositions. 4
13
14
Apple, however, interpreted the court’s order as requiring it to furnish only some of the
depositions Samsung sought. Samsung responded by moving to enforce the December 22 order
15
16
17
and again prevailed when this court issued an order on April 12, 2012 (“April 12 order”) again
requiring Apple to supply the requested depositions. 5
18
This court’s two orders apparently were not enough to convince Apple that it indeed needed
19
to give Samsung the deposition testimony. After discovering Apple continued to withhold some of
20
the requested depositions it had been ordered to produce, Samsung moved a third time – this time
21
for Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions – and Apple moved for clarification of the court’s April 12 order.
22
Samsung once again prevailed. Persuaded that Apple’s recalcitrance justified sanctions, in an
23
24
order dated July 11, 2012 (“July 11 order”) this court awarded Samsung its attorneys’ fees and
25
26
3
See Docket Nos. 880, 1213.
27
4
See Docket No. 536.
28
5
See Docket No. 867.
2
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
costs for the three motions and for Samsung’s review of Apple’s discovery to ensure the
2
production was complete. 6
3
B.
Apple’s Award
4
5
6
On April 23, 2012, the court awarded Apple attorneys’ fees as a sanction for Samsung’s
dilatory production of documents responsive to two of Apple’s discovery requests during the
preliminary injunction phase of this case (“April 23 order”). Samsung eventually produced the
7
8
9
documents evincing its employees’ consideration of Apple’s products, but not until after Apple
brought a motion to compel, resulting in an order from this court on December 22, 2011 to produce
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the necessary documents. 7 Even after this court’s order, Samsung continued to drag its feet to meet
11
its obligation, which is why the court found it appropriate in its April 23 order to award Apple its
12
attorneys’ fees for the motion to compel. 8
13
14
The order notably excluded several of Apple’s fee requests and limited its recovery to only
that portion of the motion to compel regarding the discovery Samsung repeatedly failed to turn
15
16
over. 9 The court denied Apple’s requests for meet-and-confer fees and its request for fees for its
17
analysis of Samsung’s compliance with an earlier order compelling responses. 10
18
C.
19
20
21
Supporting Documents
On July 22, 2012, pursuant to the July 11 order, Samsung requested $258,200.50 for fees
associated with the three motions. To support its request, Samsung included a declaration with
vague descriptions of the roles that numerous attorneys played in pursuing the three motions and
22
23
24
6
See Docket No. 1213.
25
7
See Docket No. 537.
26
8
See Docket No. 880.
27
9
See id.
28
10
See id.
3
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
some of those attorneys’ qualifications. 11 Accompanying the declaration was a table with the
2
names of attorneys who worked on each motion, the number of hours they worked, and whether
3
they were partners, associates, or of counsel. 12 Apple objected to Samsung’s request as
4
unreasonable. 13
5
6
Finding that the documents Samsung provided were inadequate for evaluating the
appropriateness of its request, the court ordered Samsung to supply the billing rates for each of the
7
8
9
attorneys, including the contract attorneys, and “a description or breakdown of the hours each
attorney billed by task.” 14 On August 30, 2012, Samsung filed a new declaration and a new table.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
This time, Samsung added a rates column to its table and added language to the declaration
11
allegedly providing the detail the court found lacking in the first request, but it still failed to break
12
down its request according to the tasks performed by each attorney. 15
13
14
On May 7, 2012, Apple submitted support for its attorneys’ fees request for $29,167.
According to Apple, that amount represents the number of hours devoted to the dispute underlying
15
16
the motion to compel for which it was awarded fees. Because the motion included four issues and
17
the court awarded fees for only one of the disputes, Apple arrived at its request by dividing its total
18
fees for the motion, $116,669, by four.
19
In the declaration, Apple’s counsel described the amount of work required to file the
20
motion to compel and provided highlights of the qualifications of the attorneys who worked on the
21
motion, but provided little more than vague references to their roles in drafting and filing the
22
23
11
See Docket No. 1275.
12
See Docket No. 1275-1.
13
See Docket No. 1348.
14
See Docket No. 1924.
15
See Docket Nos. 1951, 1951-1.
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
motion. 16 Like Samsung, Apple also produced merely a name/rank/hours chart that failed to
2
demonstrate for the court how the hours were allocated or even at what rates each attorney billed. 17
3
And as it did for Samsung, the court gave Apple another opportunity to supplement its request with
4
both the hourly rates for each attorney and “a description or breakdown of the hours each attorney
5
billed by task.” 18 Although Apple’s subsequent request has more detail than its first effort, it again
6
failed to carefully segregate the fees for which it is not entitled to an award.
7
Having already given both parties an additional opportunity to supply the necessary support
8
9
for their requests, the court finds no good reason to permit them to try again to comply with the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
requirements for fee requests. The court will simply consider the deficient documents Apple and
11
Samsung have provided as best it can, and count any ambiguities against the party who created
12
them.
13
II.
14
LEGAL STANDARDS
The touchstone of the attorneys’ fee award is the reasonableness of the fees. As such, to
15
16
determine the award, the court begins with the lodestar: reasonable rates multiplied by reasonable
17
hours expended. 19 The resulting figure is presumptively reasonable. 20 Attorneys’ fees awards may
18
only include hours “reasonably expended” on the litigation. 21 Hours that are “excessive,
19
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” must be excluded. 22 The court “must base its determination
20
21
16
See Docket No. 906.
17
See id. Ex. 1.
18
See Docket No. 1349.
22
23
24
19
25
See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Kraszewski v. State Farm General Ins. Co.,
Case No. C 79-1261 TEH, 1984 WL 1027, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 1984).
26
20
See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.
27
21
See id. at 433.
28
22
Id.
5
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
whether to award fees for counsel’s work on its judgment as to whether the work product . . . was
both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the . . . litigation.” 23
3
To determine a reasonable hourly rate, the court must consider “certain factors, including
4
the novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skill required to try the case, whether or not the fee is
5
contingent, [and] the experience held by counsel and fee awards in similar cases.” 24 The court also
6
looks to “the forum in which the district court sits” 25 and to “the fees that private attorneys of an
7
8
9
ability and reputation comparable to that of prevailing counsel charge their paying clients for legal
work of similar complexity.” 26 “[T]he burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
evidence – in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits – that the requested rates are in line with
11
those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,
12
experience and reputation.” 27
13
14
Although parties seeking attorneys’ fees are required only to provide affidavits “sufficient
to enable the court to consider all the factors necessary to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee
15
16
award,” parties are subject to a reduction in the hours awarded when they fail to provide adequate
17
documentation, notably contemporaneous time records. 28 The court also has the “authority to
18
reduce hours that are billed in block format.” 29 Block-billing is “the time-keeping method by
19
20
21
23
Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2003).
22
24
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008).
23
25
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008).
24
26
Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2007).
25
27
Camacho, 523 F.3d at 980 (citation omitted).
26
28
27
See Ackerman v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 836, 863 (N.D. Cal. 1986) (citing Williams v.
Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 1980)).
29
28
See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.
6
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
which each lawyer and legal assistant enters the total daily time spent working on a case, rather
than itemizing the time expended on specific tasks.” 30
Finally, the court recognizes that because “awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties . . .
3
4
is a tedious business,” the court “should normally grant the award in full” if the party opposing the
5
fee request “cannot come up with specific reasons for reducing the fee request.” 31 At the same
6
7
8
time, nothing in this standard compels a court to overlook ambiguities in a requesting party’s
supporting materials that it was in a position to argue. 32
III.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
DISCUSSION
Samsung’s Request
Samsung’s fee request is best presented in the table format it submitted to the court:
Samsung’s Motion to Compel (portion relating to transcripts at issue)
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Victoria Maroulis
Marissa Ducca
Alex Hu
Joby Martin
Position
Partner
Partner
Associate
Associate
Associate
Hours Billed
Bill Rate
6
1
6
8
1
790
815
620
290
290
17
Hours:
22
Fees Incurred:
$11,885.00
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Samsung’s Motion to Enforce December 22 Order (relating to transcripts at issue)
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Marc Becker
Todd Briggs
Melissa Dalziel
Curran Walker
Kara Borden
James Ward
Alex Hu
Position
Hours Billed
Partner
Partner
Partner
Of Counsel
Associate
Associate
Associate
Associate
10.5
50.0
4.0
2.0
27.7
8.8
5.0
16.3
26
30
Id. at 945 n.2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
27
31
Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1116.
28
32
See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.
7
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Bill Rate
790
1035
735
730
555
445
480
415
1
Brad Goldberg
Associate
Hours:
3
Samsung’s Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions for Apple’s Violation of the December 22 Order
4
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Marc Becker
Curran Walker
Kara Borden
James Ward
Alex Hu
Contract Attorneys
6
7
8
Fees Incurred:
415
2
5
152.3
28.0
$104,519.00
Position
Partner
Partner
Associate
Associate
Associate
Associate
Hours Billed
Bill Rate
57.5
18.7
93.5
23.9
8.0
10.6
50.0
790
1035
555
445
480
415
125
9
Hours:
262.2
Fees Incurred:
$141,796.50
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
In total, Samsung requests $258,200.50 for the three motions.
Apple objects to Samsung’s fee request as unreasonable on three grounds: (1) the number
12
13
of hours expended on the motion to enforce and the motion for sanctions is excessive; (2) in its
14
request Samsung included fees for tasks for which it had not received an award; and (3) Samsung
15
failed to provide documentation supporting the rates charged by its attorneys. The court considers
16
each of these objections in turn.
17
1.
18
Unreasonable Number of Hours
Apple argues that the hours Samsung requests for the motion to enforce and the motion for
19
20
sanctions – 152.3 and 262.2 respectively – are excessive, especially in light of Samsung’s
21
admission that it needed only 10 hours to produce the motion to compel. 33 The real thrust of
22
Apple’s argument – and the one to which the court is most sympathetic – is the lack of detailed
23
records supporting Samsung’s request.
24
The court acknowledges that Apple filed its objection before Samsung’s second attempt to
25
26
support its fee request, but any improvement in Samsung’s second attempt was marginal. To take
33
27
28
See Docket No. 1951. Samsung requests 22 hours for the motion to compel, but indicated in its
declaration that 12 hours were for meet-and-confer activities and only 10 hours were for drafting
and filing the motion.
8
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
an example, in Samsung’s second offering, Samsung states in its table that Curran Walker
2
(“Walker”), an associate at Quinn Emanuel, worked 27.2 hours on the motion to enforce. 34
3
Samsung’s supporting declaration, however, states that Walker expended 27.2 hours on the reply
4
briefs for both the motion to enforce and the motion to compel. 35 For that matter, Walker also
5
billed 93.5 hours for “substantial assistance with all aspects of the preparation” of the motion for
6
7
8
9
sanctions, the reply brief, the response to Apple’s supplemental brief, and preparation and
attendance at the oral argument. 36 How were those hours divided among the various tasks? Is it
reasonable that Walker spent nearly two work weeks on a motion for sanctions when two partners,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
three other associates, and innumerable contract attorneys were also staffed on the motion? 37 The
11
court can only guess at the answers to those questions because Samsung offers only the barest
12
description of Walker’s activities.
13
14
Other instances abound where Samsung has come up short. Samsung requests fees for 57.5
hours worked by Diane Hutnyan (“Hutnyan”), a Quinn Emanuel partner, for “the preparation and
15
16
review” of the motion for sanctions and its reply; for writing, reviewing, and editing both
17
documents; and for managing “the work of other attorneys.” 38 Samsung does not explain what
18
hours were spent on which tasks or provide the court with any other means by which to evaluate
19
whether that number of hours is justified on a motion staffed by five other Quinn Emanuel
20
attorneys and an indeterminate number of contract attorneys. 39
21
22
34
See Docket No. 1951-1.
35
See Docket No. 1951 at & 39.
36
See id.
37
See Docket No. 1951-1.
38
See Docket No. 1951 at & 34.
39
See Docket No. 1951-1.
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Samsung also requests fees for 50 hours of work performed by Marc Becker (“Becker”),
1
2
another Quinn Emanuel partner, for writing the motion to enforce and supervising work on the
3
reply brief. 40 On that limited description, the court cannot determine the reasonableness of
4
Becker’s hours. Or, to be more accurate, the court tends to find it unreasonable that a partner with
5
almost 25 years of experience 41 needed 50 hours to draft a fourteen-page motion 42 and to review a
6
fifteen-page reply, 43 especially when 5 associates also billed 85.8 hours for the same motion.
7
8
9
Becker billed an additional 18.7 hours for “assist[ing] with preparation and review” of the motion
for sanctions. 44 In light of Walker’s and Hutnyan’s numerous hours spent on the motion, 45 the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
court cannot discern – on the barebones description by Samsung – what more Becker provided and
11
whether it was reasonable.
12
13
14
Although the court has highlighted some of the most egregious examples, block-billing is
rampant in Samsung's motion. Throughout the declaration, Samsung lumps together various tasks
by attorneys, separating the hours only by motion. 46 Perhaps all of the hours were well-spent in
15
16
efficient pursuit of investigating and drafting the motions. Or reveal inefficiencies in the work. Or
17
reflect nothing more than a best guess by Samsung's counsel at how many hours they spent
18
compiling three motions amidst the immense size and scope of this case. But the court cannot
19
20
21
40
See Docket No. 1951 at & 37.
41
See Docket No. 1275 at & 31.
42
See Docket No. 782.
43
See Docket No. 839.
44
See Docket No. 1951 at & 37.
45
See Docket No. 1951 at & 34, & 39; Docket No. 1951-1.
46
See Docket No. 1951.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
make that determination from the request as presented because of the inherent ambiguity in blockbilling, which is why block-billing is a disfavored format for fee requests. 47
Those ambiguities are also the reason the Ninth Circuit condones reducing hours when
3
4
courts are faced with the practice. 48 Because it cannot evaluate the reasonableness of the hours,
5
and in light of the evidence that block-billing inflates hours by between 10% and 30%, 49 the court
6
trims 20% from the block-billed hours in Samsung's request. 50 The court cannot, however,
7
8
9
Samsung adequately identified tasks linked to the hours requested:
11
Timekeeper
Victoria Maroulis
Todd Briggs
12
Melissa Dalziel
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
perform an across-the-board deduction, 51 and so it has identified the limited instances where
13
Alex Hu
Hours
1
4
2
16.3
14
15
Joby Martin
16
1
Description
Preparing and arguing the motion to compel
"[A]nalyzing several Apple cases and investigations and
identifying which cases" had the adequate technological nexus
"[R]esearch[ing] Apple's compliance" with the December 22
order
"[R]esearching cases thought to have a potential technological
nexus" to the case and "identifying nine such cases"
Helping draft and review the declaration supporting the motion to
compel
The court finds the remaining hours were block-billed and should be reduced by 20%. The
17
hours will be awarded as follows:
18
Motion to Compel
19
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Marissa Ducca
Alex Hu
20
21
22
23
24
Hours
4.8
4.8
6.4
47
See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948; see also Frevach Land Co. v. Multnomah Cnty., Case No. CV-991295-HU, 2001 WL 34039133, at *9 (D.Or. Dec. 18, 2001).
48
25
See id.
49
26
See id.; see also State Bar of California Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration, Arbitration
Advisory 03-01: Detecting Attorney Bill Padding, at 7 (2003).
27
50
See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.
28
51
See id.
11
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
Motion to Enforce
2
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Marc Becker
Curran Walker
Kara Borden
James Ward
Brad Goldberg
3
4
5
6
7
Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Sanctions
8
Timekeeper
Diane Hutnyan
Marc Becker
Curran Walker
Kara Borden
James Ward
Alex Hu
Contract Attorneys
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Hours
8.4
40
22.16
7.04
4.0
22.4
11
12
Hours
46
14.96
74.8
19.12
6.4
8.48
40.0
13
14
2.
Fees for Discovery Tasks
15
Apple also objects that Samsung seeks fees to which it is not entitled, specifically for
16
twelve hours for meet-and-confer obligations prior to bringing the motion to compel and for an
17
unknown number of hours to review discovery for which sanctions should not be imposed. 52
18
As to the fees for Samsung’s meet-and-confer obligations, the court disagrees. Pursuant to
19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Civ. L.R. 37-1, Samsung was obligated to confer before bringing its
20
21
motion to compel. As has been exhaustively discussed above, Apple failed to meet its obligations,
22
thereby forcing Samsung to bring the motion. Samsung should not now have to bear the price of
23
its attempts to avoid litigation of this issue in the first place. Especially in light of the complexity
24
of this case and the ongoing taxing of the court’s resources just to keep up with the myriad issues
25
that arise, the court will not penalize Samsung for trying to solve the problem instead of moving
26
27
52
28
See Docket No. 1348.
12
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
straight to litigation. Apple’s hands are not clean – its intransigence in turning over the depositions
2
was what led to Samsung having to confer and then having to bring a motion. The court will not
3
reduce the award for Samsung’s fees for its meet-and-confer obligations. 53
4
As to Apple’s second challenge to the types of fees Samsung requests, the court has already
5
accounted for the possibility that Samsung impermissibly charged for discovery. The court agrees
6
7
8
9
with Apple that Samsung should not receive fees for reviewing documents it needed to review for
discovery anyway, 54 but parsing the hours Samsung's counsel may or may not have spent in those
activities is nearly impossible given the opacity of the request. Apple notably has not pointed to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
any specific hours that it identifies as particularly troublesome; it too is shifting its burden to make
11
specific objections on to the court to identify any problematic hours. The court has already cut
12
Samsung's hours because it cannot determine their reasonableness. That cut accounts for
13
potentially inflated hours. The court will not reduce Samsung’s hours further without more
14
evidence that Samsung indeed committed the misconduct of which Apple accuses it.
15
3.
16
Reasonable Hourly Rate
Apple argues that the rates Samsung requests for its attorneys are unreasonable and
17
18
unsupported. Despite its obligation to provide evidence outside of an attorney affidavit that its
19
counsels' hourly rates are reasonable, 55 Samsung provides only a reference to the 2011 National
20
Law Journal's survey of billing rates – but not the survey itself – and claims its rates are
21
comparable to the rates Apple seeks in its fee request.
22
23
53
24
See Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., Case No. C 05-4004 PJH, 2007 WL 2070220, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
July 13, 2007) (awarding fees for meet-and-confer efforts).
25
54
26
27
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (stating sanctions are appropriate for “movant’s reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion”); see also Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V., v. Bacardi & Co., Ltd.,
248 F.R.D. 64, 69 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting Rule 37 sanctions should not be awarded for ordinary
litigation expenses).
55
28
See Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008).
13
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
As the court reads the 2011 National Law Journal’s survey, the hourly rates presented are
1
2
samples from around the nation 56 – not representations of comparable rates in this forum as
3
required to substantiate a fee request. 57 And the hourly rates requested by Samsung far exceed the
4
rates requested by Apple. Apple's hourly rates for partners are $768, $605, $582, and $559,
5
whereas Samsung's hourly rates for partners are $1035, $815, $790, and $735.
6
7
8
9
When a party fails to provide sufficient support for its hourly rate, the court may rely on
other orders awarding attorneys’ fees in cases with comparable facts 58 and on surveys of which it
may take judicial notice. 59 In several reasonably comparable patent cases, courts in this district
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
have looked to the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s (“AIPLA”) annual survey of
11
hourly rates to ascertain the reasonableness of fees, 60 a practice that the Federal Circuit condones. 61
12
In light of the dearth of information provided by Samsung and the commonality of the practice in
13
this district, the court finds it appropriate to reference the AIPLA’s survey.
14
According to the survey, the average rate for partners in San Francisco was $571, with the
15
16
17
25% Quartile at $395, the median at $585, and the 75% Quartile at $700. 62 The average rate for
associates was $361, with the 25% Quartile at $260, the median at $370, and the 75% Quartile at
18
19
56
20
See 2011 Billing Survey: A Special Report, The National Law Journal, April 2011, available at
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202535905815&interactive=true (last visited
Oct. 19, 2012).
21
57
22
58
23
See Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979.
Cf. Bell v. Clackamas Cnty., 341 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding reliance on case two
years older than litigation for which plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees was abuse of discretion).
59
24
See View Eng'g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
60
26
See, e.g., Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., Case No. 08-04567 CW, 2012
WL 161212, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012); Autodesk, Inc. v. Flores, Case No. 10-CV-01917LHK, 2011 WL 1884694, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Multimetrixs,
LLC, Case No. C 06-07372 MHP, 2009 WL 1457979, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2009).
27
61
See View Eng’g, Inc. 208 F.3d at 987-88.
28
62
Am. Intellectual Prop. L. Ass’n, 2011 Billing Survey at I-34
25
14
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
$470. 63 The average rate for of counsel was $623, with the 25% Quartile at $574, the median at
2
$613, and the 75% Quartile at $681. 64 These rates accord with the court’s experience and
3
knowledge of the market in this district.65 The court also notes that the AIPLA’s survey reveals
4
rates for partners, associates, and of counsel increase with years of experience. 66
5
6
Having looked to the AIPLA’s survey and considered its own experience and knowledge of
the area of law and counsel’s performance in this case, and in light of the lack of support Samsung
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
supplied for the rates it requests, the court finds that the AIPLA’s 75% Quartile rates for the
partners and of counsel are reasonable for Samsung’s partners and of counsel. The court increases
Becker’s hourly rate above this level by $100 in light of his greater experience.
11
12
13
The court also finds the 75% Quartile rate is appropriate for the highest paid associate –
Marissa Ducca (“Ducca”). The court will adjust the rates of the remaining associates by the same
percentage difference as the original rate request. For example, in the original request, Ducca
14
charged $620 per hour and the next highest paid associate, Walker, charged $555 per hour. The
15
16
percentage difference between those two rates is 10.5%. The court adjusts Ducca’s rate to $470
17
per hour, and subtracts 10.5% of that number ($49.35) to arrive at Walker’s new rate of $420.65.
18
Accordingly, the court finds the following rates are reasonable:
19
Attorney
790
700
Victoria Maroulis
815
700
Todd Briggs
21
New Rate
Diane Hutnyan
20
Old Rate
735
700
22
23
24
25
63
Id. at I-52.
26
64
Id. at I-70.
27
65
28
66
Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Am. Intellectual Prop. L. Ass’n, 2011 Billing Survey at 17, 20, 23.
15
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Marc Becker
Melissa Dalziel
Curran Walker
Marissa Ducca
Kara Borden
Alex Hu
Joby Martin
James Ward
Brad Goldberg
1
2
3
4
5
1035
730
555
620
445
415
290
480
415
800
681
420.65
470
337.34
314.60
219.84
363.87
314.60
6
7
8
Having determined both the reasonable hours and the reasonable rates for Samsung’s
request, the court finds that Samsung should recover $160,069.41 from Apple.
9
B.
Apple’s Request
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Apple’s request is also easiest to assess in the same table format it provided to the court:
12
Team Member
Title
Tasks (Time)
13
Michael Jacobs
Partner
14
Mia Mazza
Partner
Richard Hung
Partner
Jason Bartlett
Partner
Minn Chung
Of
Counsel
Preparing for and attending hearing
(4.80 hours)
Drafting and preparing for motion to
compel (34.40 hours)
Preparing motion for administrative
relief and motion to seal (20.80 hours)
Counsel-client communications (3.20
hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (3.10 hours)
Managing and coordinating team
efforts (2.90 hours)
Counsel-client communications (0.3
hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(10.10 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (0.3 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (2.10 hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(7.00 hours)
Assessing Samsung’s deficient
production (6.40 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (4.80 hours)
Preparing motion to seal (0.2 hours)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Total
Hours
4.80
Hourly Rate
(Discounted)
$768
58.40
$605
16.70
$582
9.10
$559
17.80
$512
1
2
Marcelo Guerra
Associate
Nathaniel Sabri
Associate
Esther Kim
Associate
Euborn Chiu
Associate
Rosamaria Barajas
Paralegal
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.40 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (60.70 hours)
Drafting motion for administrative
relief and/or motion to seal (1.4 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (18.00 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (8.00 hours)
Drafting motion to seal (0.50 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (10.20 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.10 hours)
Assessing Samsung’s deficient
production (2.80 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (1.40 hours)
Paralegal support (15.80 hours)
80.10
$498
8.50
$424
16.30
$372
4.20
$275
15.80
$191
Apple’s request reflects the fees from the entire motion to compel, a total of $116,668.50,
14
15
but it seeks recovery for 25% of that amount, or $29,167.13. Apple reasons that because the court
16
awarded it fees on one of the four issues addressed in the December 22 order, it is entitled to one
17
quarter of the fees for the motion. 67
18
Samsung objects to Apple’s request on two grounds: (1) Apple failed to sufficiently
19
substantiate its fee request with a particularized description of its tasks and (2) Apple seeks fees for
20
tasks excluded by the court’s order awarding sanctions. The court considers the second objection
21
first.
22
1.
23
Fees for Excluded Tasks
Referencing this court’s limited holding in the April 23 order, Samsung points to fees
24
25
Apple requested for administrative motions and assessments of Samsung’s production to argue
26
those fees were not part of the court’s order. The court agrees. Its April 23 order specifically
27
28
67
See Docket No. 906.
17
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
limited Apple’s sanction award to the portion of the motion to compel relating to the discovery of
2
the preliminary injunction documents that Samsung failed to provide through the beginning of
3
2012. 68 The court also explicitly excluded assessment fees because those tasks were part of
4
Apple’s ordinary litigation expenses. 69 The court will reduce from Apple’s award any fees
5
requested for assessment of Samsung’s compliance.
6
The court also will reduce fees sought for “administrative relief” and for motions to seal.
7
8
9
Neither of those types of motions fall within the court’s limited holding in the April 23 order, and
furthermore, given the problematic history of the parties in this case and their overuse of sealing
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
motions, the court refuses to incentivize more sealing actions. The court finds the hours should be
11
reduced as follows:
12
Team Member
Tasks (Time)
Michael Jacobs
Partner
Mia Mazza
Partner
Richard Hung
Partner
Jason Bartlett
Partner
Minn Chung
13
Title
Of
Counsel
Preparing for and attending hearing
(4.80 hours)
Drafting and preparing for motion to
compel (34.40 hours)
Counsel-client communications (3.20
hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (3.10 hours)
Managing and coordinating team efforts
(2.90 hours)
Counsel-client communications (0.3
hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(10.10 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (0.3 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (2.10 hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(7.00 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (4.80 hours)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
68
See Docket No. 880.
28
69
See id.
18
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Total
Hours
4.80
37.6
16.70
9.10
11.20
1
Marcelo Guerra
2
3
4
Nathaniel Sabri
5
Esther Kim
6
7
8
Euborn Chiu
9
Rosamaria Barajas
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.40 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (60.70 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (18.00 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (8.00 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (10.20 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.10 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (1.40 hours)
Paralegal Paralegal support (15.80 hours)
78.7
8.00
16.30
1.40
15.80
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
2.
11
Unsubstantiated Hours
Samsung objects to Apple’s fee request because, according to Samsung, it lacks sufficient
12
13
detail for the court to determine whether one-quarter of the hours were really spent on the activities
14
for which the court awarded sanctions. But Apple at least breaks down the hours by task. 70
15
Apple’s counsel maintains that because it bills by task, it cannot segregate the attorneys’ activities
16
17
based on each issue, which is why Apple merely divided the total hours by four – the number of
issues in the motion to compel – to arrive at the figure it requests. 71
18
Although a clean division of the fees is appealing, Apple’s first affidavit to the court
19
20
suggested that it included in its request hours “spent analyzing the production” and hours used to
21
prepare a motion to shorten time. 72 Apple did not reduce the number of requested hours in its
22
second submission to the court, 73 and so the court can only infer that hours for these tasks are still
23
24
25
70
See Docket No. 1948 Ex. 1.
26
71
See Docket No. 906.
27
72
See Docket No. 906 at & 4, & 8.
28
73
See Docket No. 1948 Ex. 1.
19
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
3
included. But as the court already noted, Apple’s sanction award for the motion to compel was
very limited and should not include analysis of production or other extraneous motions.
The descriptions of tasks in Apple’s request do not allow the court to segregate the time
4
spent on activities to which Apple is not entitled to fees. Although Apple breaks its request down
5
by task, the descriptions of those activities are not specific. For example, “[d]rafting and preparing
6
motion to compel” does not illuminate for the court whether “preparing” includes analysis of
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Samsung’s compliance or merely research. In light of the many hours devoted by several attorneys
to “[d]rafting and preparing the motion to compel” the court suspects the former.
To account for possible inflation of fees, the court applies the same 20% reduction for
11
block-billing as it applied to Samsung’s request to the hours Apple requests for “preparing” the
12
motion to compel. Applying that 20% haircut, the court finds the following hours are reasonable:
13
Team Member
Title
Tasks (Time)
Michael Jacobs
Partner
Mia Mazza
Partner
Richard Hung
Partner
Jason Bartlett
Partner
Minn Chung
Of
Counsel
Preparing for and attending hearing
(4.80 hours)
Drafting and preparing for motion to
compel (27.52 hours)
Counsel-client communications (3.20
hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (2.48 hours)
Managing and coordinating team efforts
(2.90 hours)
Counsel-client communications (0.3
hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(10.10 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (0.3 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (1.68 hours)
Preparing for and attending hearing
(7.00 hours)
Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (3.84 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.40 hours)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Total
Hours
4.80
30.72
16.08
8.68
10.24
Marcelo Guerra
1
2
Nathaniel Sabri
3
4
Esther Kim
5
6
7
Euborn Chiu
8
Rosamaria Barajas
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (48.56 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (18.00 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (6.4 hours)
66.56
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (8.16 hours)
Drafting supporting declaration and/or
proposed order (6.10 hours)
Associate Drafting and preparing motion to
compel (1.12hours)
Paralegal Paralegal support (15.80 hours)
14.26
6.4
1.12
15.80
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Samsung does not object to Apple’s rates, and so the court need not address their
11
reasonableness. 74 The court finds, however, that the requested rates are in line with the AIPLA
12
survey Apple cited to in its declaration and that the court used earlier to evaluate Samsung’s rates.
13
Because the April 23 order limited Apple to sanctions for only one of the four issues in the
14
15
December 22 order, the court adopts Apple’s method of dividing the total fees for the motion by
16
four to determine the amount to which it is entitled. Thus Apple is entitled to $21,554.14 from
17
Samsung in attorneys’ fees.
18
Accordingly,
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of this order Apple shall pay to
20
Samsung $160,069.41 as the sanction award from the court’s July 11 order.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of this order Samsung shall pay to
22
23
Apple $21,554.14 as the sanction award from the court’s April 23 order.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: November _____, 2012
7
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
74
28
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008).
21
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
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?