Code Revision Commission et al v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Filing 58

Detailed Specification and Itemization of Requested Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Askew, Anthony)

EXHIBIT 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

CODE REVISION COMMISSION on
behalf of and for the benefit of THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
GEORGIA, and THE STATE OF
GEORGIA,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

1:15-CV-2594-RWS

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Defendant.

DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE K. NODINE
I, Lawrence K. Nodine, hereby testify and state by declaration as follows:
1.

My name is Lawrence K. Nodine, and I am over the age of majority.
This Declaration is made on my own personal knowledge and
opinions, and I am competent to testify to the matters contained herein.

2.

I am a partner at the law firm of Ballard Spahr LLP, and I am resident
in the firm’s Atlanta office. I have practiced intellectual property law
for more than 35 years. For this entire time, my practice has focused
almost exclusively on intellectual property litigation. A significant
portion of my professional experience has focused on copyright

1

litigation. In addition, I have taught a variety of Intellectual Property
courses, including copyright law, at Emory University Law School
continuously since 1987.
3.

As a result of my experience, I am personally familiar with the market
for copyright litigation legal services in both Atlanta and nationally. In
addition, I am familiar with the complexity and the difficulties
presented by copyright litigation.

4.

It is my understanding that the Plaintiffs in this matter, Code Revision
Commission on behalf of and for the benefit of The General Assembly
of Georgia and The State of Georgia (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), filed an
injunctive

relief

action

for

copyright

infringement

against

Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) on July 21, 2015;
an Order was issued on March 23, 2017, granting Plaintiff’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment; Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Award of
Attorneys’ Fees and Other Costs on April 21, 2017.
5.

It is my understanding that my declaration relates to the attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred by the Plaintiff during the course of this litigation.

6.

It is my understanding that the following events occurred after filing of
the complaint:
2

a. Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 14,
2015;
b. Plaintiff

filed

an

Answer

to

Affirmative

Defenses

and

Counterclaim and an Amended Complaint on October 8, 2015;
c. Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint and
Counterclaim on October 22, 2015;
d. The Parties jointly filed a Stipulation of Facts on January 15, 2016;
e. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 17,
2016;
f. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 17,
2016;
g. Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on June 7, 2016;
h. Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on June 10, 2016;
i. Both Parties filed their Replies in support of their Motion for
Summary Judgment on July 5, 2016;
j. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing of Supplemental Authority on
March 10, 2017;

3

k. The Court issued an Order on March 23, 2017, granting Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering the Parties to propose
a briefing schedule to address injunctive relief;
l. The Parties filed a Joint Motion and Proposed Order regarding
injunctive relief on April 6, 2017;
m. The Court adopted and entered the proposed Order on April 7,
2016.
7.

I have been informed that the Plaintiff retained Anthony B. Askew,
Lisa C. Pavento and Warren J. Thomas of Meunier Carlin & Curfman
LLC to represent them in the subject litigation.

8.

It is my understanding that the below listed initially negotiated hourly
rates for attorneys and paralegals and paraprofessionals in this case
still apply:
a. Attorneys:
b. Paralegals &
Paraprofessionals:

9.

$225.00

$50.00

It is my understanding that the following chart reflects each
timekeeper’s name, experience level, and hourly rate as charged to
Plaintiff in connection with this litigation:

4

Name
Anthony B. Askew
Lisa C. Pavento
Warren J. Thomas

Experience (years)
Principal (52 years)
Principal (12 years)
Associate (5 years)

Mary M. Cogburn
Sharon Etelman

Paralegal (25 years)
Paralegal Assistant

10.

Hours Billed
312
535.4
98.5
21
13.1

Hourly Billed Rate
225.00
225.00
225.00
50.00
50.00

Based on my experience and familiarity with the market for copyright
litigation legal services, in this community and nationally, and my
understanding of the effort and expertise required for the subject
litigation, it is my opinion that the hourly billing rates for each of the
timekeepers shown in this chart for the litigation action for which
reimbursement is being sought are reasonable for intellectual property
litigators and litigation paralegals and paraprofessionals of similar
experiences in the Atlanta, Georgia community and nationally and are
well below prevailing market rates for similar services by lawyers of
comparable skill, experience and reputation. In fact, in my experience,
the rates charged reflect a discount of at least 50% below prevailing
market rates.

11.

Based on my experience and familiarity with the complexity of
copyright infringement litigation, and based on the claims at issue in
the subject litigation, the number of hours spent on the subject
litigation is reasonable for intellectual property litigators and litigation
5

paralegals and paraprofessionals of similar experiences in the Atlanta,
Georgia community and nationally. Based on my review of the
invoices, the hours billed were not excessive, redundant or
unnecessary.
12.

It is my understanding that Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of their
reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs involved in the subject
litigation in amounts as follows:
Attorneys’ fees:
Costs:

13.

$214,532.50
$3,122.59

Based on my understanding of the services provided by Plaintiff’s
counsel in this litigation, as reflected on the attorney invoices and in
the billing entries shown in exhibits to Plaintiff’s Detailed Requests for
an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Other Costs, it is my opinion that the
total attorneys’ fee of $214,532.50 is reasonable for copyright
infringement litigation in Atlanta, Georgia and nationally.

6