Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 921

OBJECTIONS to re #906 Declaration in Support, by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/14/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S
PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S APRIL 23
ORDER

vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4749246.4

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1
2

OBJECTIONS
Apple’s request for $29,167 in fees should be rejected because it is inadequately

3

substantiated and overbroad.

4

[was] overreach[ing] in claiming the monetary sanctions it [sought],” the Court explicitly rejected

5

most of Apple’s claims for attorneys’ fees.

6

granted Apple’s motion for an award of fees and expenses “incurred in connection with Apple’s

7

motion to compel that resulted in the December 22 Order.” (Id.) The Court expressly denied

In its April 23 Order, noting that there was “little doubt that Apple

(Dkt. 880 at 9.) More specifically, the Court

8 Apple’s motion for fees incurred (1) preparing the portions of Apple’s December motion to
9 compel that addressed issues beyond those that were the subject of the motion for sanctions;
10 (2) analyzing Samsung’s compliance with the September 28 Order and the parties’ meet and
11 confer efforts; (3) analyzing compliance with the December 22 Order; (4) reviewing and analyzing
12 documents produced from December 22, 2011 to the present; and (5) preparing and filing the
13 motion for sanctions itself. (Id.) Apple’s request for fees does not comply with the Court’s
14 Order in several respects.
15
Apple’s Fee Request is Inadequately Substantiated
16
First, Apple fails to adequately substantiate the fees it seeks. The reasonableness of
17
attorneys’ fees is evaluated by determining the lodestar figure by “‘multiplying the number of
18
hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.’” Grove v. Wells
19
Fargo Financial Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Intel Corp. v. Terabyte
20 Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993)). The party requesting fees “bears the burden of
21

submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended.” Chalmers

22 v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986); see also McCown v. City of Fontana,
23
565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing an award and remanding where the district court
24 failed to explain how the hours claimed were reasonable); Grove, 606 F.3d at 582-83 (upholding
25

award where the “district court engaged in a thorough, line-by-line analysis of” time sheets and

26 determined that hours were reasonable).
27
28
02198.51855/4749246.4

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1

Here, while the Declaration of Jason Bartlett in Support of Apple’s Petition for Attorneys’

2 Fees (Dkt. 906) (“Bartlett Declaration”) claims that Apple’s counsel uses task-based billing (Id.
3 ¶ 27), Apple fails to provide any detailed time records setting forth who did what, and when.
4 This is a necessary step because the Court specifically limited its fee award to only those fees
5 incurred in connection with a particular task – preparing certain discrete portions of Apple’s
6 December 8, 2011 motion to compel.
7 detail.

Apple’s descriptions do not provide the necessary level of

Instead, Apple provides a list of attorney names plus the corresponding number of hours

8 each attorney billed “in connection with the motion.” (Bartlett Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Apple does
9 not describe which tasks each attorney performed, how much time each of the tasks took, or when
10 those tasks were performed.

It also fails to provide the attorneys’ individual billing rates.

In a

11 separate section of the Bartlett Declaration, Apple provides a general description of the role each
12 attorney played in the motion (such as “finalized the motion”), but again fails to describe specific
13 tasks or how many hours were spent on each task, thereby giving the Court no meaningful way to
14 assess whether any time spent was excessive.

(Id. ¶¶ 13-22.) Without such detail, neither

15 Samsung nor the Court can determine whether the hours spent were “‘excessive, redundant, or
16 otherwise unnecessary.’”
17 424, 434 (1983)).

McCown, 565 F.3d at 1102 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.

Apple’s submission is impermissibly vague and unsubstantiated, and does not

18 properly support its fee request.

See Civil L.R. 37-4(b)(3) (party seeking attorneys’ fees must

19 “itemize with particularity” the fees incurred); see also, e.g., Entertainment Research Group, Inc.
20 v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1121, 1232 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district
21 court “abused its discretion by not requiring [the defendant] to submit its original time records and
22 billing statements”); Allianz Life Ins. v. Agorio, -- F.Supp. 2d --, 2012 WL 440722, at *6 (N.D.
23 Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (noting that “[d]etailed billing records—e.g., hourly invoices—are generally
24 required to assist the court in its determination of reasonable fees”).
25

Apple Seeks Fees For Tasks Specifically Excluded By the Court’s Order

26

Apple’s fee request should be rejected for the additional reason that it seeks fees for

27 specific tasks not approved in the Court’s Order.

For example, Apple appears to seek fees for

28 preparing and filing an ancillary motion for administrative relief from the lead counsel meet and
02198.51855/4749246.4

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1 confer requirement, and for preparing and filing an ancillary motion to shorten time.

(Bartlett

2 Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) The Court’s Order awarding limited fees did not identify any of those fees as
3 recoverable, nor were they necessary for, or related to, the specific issues raised in the relevant
4 portions of Apple’s December 8, 2011 motion to compel.

(Dkt. 880 at 9.)

Likewise, Apple

5 appears to seek fees for analyzing the parties’ meet and confer record, and for reviewing and
6 analyzing Samsung’s production (Bartlett Decl. ¶ 7.) The Court expressly denied Apple’s
7 motion for fees incurred in carrying out those tasks.

(Dkt. 880 at 9 (specifying that Apple may

8 not recover fees for “analysis of Samsung’s compliance with the September 28 Order [or] the
9 parties’ meet and confer efforts”).)
10

Because Apple does not provide detailed billing records, the Court cannot simply subtract

11 the overreaching entries.

Nor can the Court meaningfully evaluate Apple’s apportionment of

12 $29,167, or one-fourth of the total cost, to determine whether the amount Apple seeks represents
13 only the fees Apple incurred in drafting the sections of its motion to compel related to the two
14 categories of documents that were subject to its motion for sanctions.
15

Conclusion

16
17
18

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court decline to award
Apple the $29,167 in fees it seeks due to Apple’s failure to properly substantiate its request, and
its inclusion of fees for tasks expressly disapproved by the Court’s April 23, 2012 Order.

19
20
21

Alternatively, Samsung requests that Apple be ordered to provide the information the Court needs
to properly evaluate the fee request by filing a supplemental declaration with detailed billing

22 records identifying precisely which fees were incurred by which attorneys for which tasks, and
23 when.
24 //
25

//

26
//
27
28
02198.51855/4749246.4

//
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1 DATED: May 14, 2012
2

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

By /s/ Victoria Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4749246.4

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES