Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 1897

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. See Order for Full Text. (Lara, Miguel)

Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1897 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,)
et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, )
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EPISTAR CORPORATION,
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, )
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LITE-ON INC., et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
)
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiff,

Consolidated Civil Action
No. 12-11935-PBS

Civil Action
No. 12-12326-PBS

Civil Action
No. 12-12330-PBS

ORDER
December 16, 2019
Saris, C.J.
On July 18, 2019, the Court allowed in part Defendants’
request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 285 because
this was an “exceptional case.” Specifically, the Court allowed
the Defendants their fees in connection with briefing and
1

Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1897 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 4

arguing two motions to hold Plaintiff’s counsel in contempt of
court during and after trial. In the same order, the Court also
allowed Defendants’ motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54. On August 30, 2019, Defendants filed a
declaration requesting that the Court formally enter an order
awarding them attorney’s fees totaling $44,174 and costs
totaling $87,510.18. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an
objection to Defendants’ declaration, arguing that they failed
to meet their burden for establishing a reasonable amount in
attorney’s fees and also incorrectly calculated the amount of
costs due to them under the Court’s July 2019 Order. Both
parties then filed reply briefs.
The determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys'
fees under § 285 is a matter within the Court’s discretion.
See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S.
559, 564 (2014). The parties dispute the amount of reasonable
attorney’s fees related to Defendants’ two contempt motions -Defendants seek $44,174 while Plaintiff claims $5,178.40 is
appropriate. The dispute focuses on whether Defendants have put
forward sufficient evidence to carry their burden to establish
that the requested fees are (1) related to the two contempt
motions and (2) reasonable. Plaintiff raises the legitimate
point that several of the time entries included by Defendants in
their fee request include no obvious connection to the contempt
2

Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1897 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 4

motions and several others are related only in part. The Court
will exclude these time entries. Plaintiff’s remaining points,
however, are nitpicky. A review of the time entries reveals that
they are broadly related to the contempt motions and reasonable.
To the extent Defendants’ counsel used block billing, they have
endeavored to estimate the amount of time that was in fact
related to the contempt motions. Richard Vasquez, an attorney
representing Defendants in this litigation, declared under
penalty of perjury that the records are accurate to the best of
his knowledge. This is enough. The Court ALLOWS, in the amount
of $30,934.00, Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant
to § 285.
In their reply brief, Defendants raise the new claim that
they are entitled to additional attorney’s fees for (1) briefing
their original fee motion and (2) briefing this dispute over the
reasonable fee amount. The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for
these additional fees totaling $36,065.25. First, the Court’s
July 2019 Order limited the recoverable fees to those incurred
by Defendants in pursuing their two contempt motions against
Plaintiff’s counsel. It did not include the fees incurred in
seeking the fee award. Defendants also have not provided the
Court with any persuasive reason to modify this original fee
award. Second, the Court’s July 2019 Order awarded Defendants
fees based on a narrow set of egregious conduct by Plaintiff’s
3

Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1897 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 4

counsel. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ requested fee
amount is not comparably egregious to warrant an additional
award for those fees incurred in briefing this dispute.
As for costs, Defendants double counted certain deposition
costs totaling $8,670.81. They do not dispute that they made
this error. Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Defendants their costs
totaling $78,839.37 pursuant to Rule 54.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
Hon. Patti B. Saris
Chief United States District Judge

4