Finisar Corporation v. Cheetah Omni, LLC

Filing 142

ORDER Adopting 136 Report and Recommendation and Awarding Costs and Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FINISAR CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
11-cv-15625

vs.
CHEETAH OMNI, LLC,

PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 2, 2013 REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 136) AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF REASONABLE
COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,452.74
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s August 2, 2013 Report and
Recommendation regarding Defendant Cheetah Omni, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel
and awarding reasonable attorney fees to Plaintiff Finisar Corporation (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). (Dkt. 136).
Defendant’s Motion to Compel challenged the sufficiency Plaintiff’s responses to
Interrogatory No. 1, certain requests for production, and also requested that Plaintiff be ordered
to provide a privilege log. (Dkt. 109). On June 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Majzoub entered an
order denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel and finding that Defendant failed to comply with
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a). (Dkt. 126). Magistrate Judge Majzoub found that had Defendant
properly conferred with Plaintiff regarding its Motion to Compel (as required under the local
rule), the discovery issues would have been significantly narrowed with the exception of the
issues regarding Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 1. (See Dkt. 126, at 9-10). Further, Magistrate
Judge Majzoub noted that (1) Defendant sought documents that it had never requested from
Plaintiff, and (2) it filed its motion just 13 days after she had warned the parties that unnecessary

discovery disputes should be avoided. (Dkt. 126, at 9). As a result, Magistrate Judge Majzoub
awarded Plaintiff “reasonable fees incurred in responding to Defendant’s motion with the
exception of any time spent responding to Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Response to
Interrogatory No. 1.” (Dkt. 126, at 9-10).
The current Report and Recommendation determines the reasonable amount of attorney
fees and costs Plaintiff should be awarded by evaluating the Plaintiff’s bills, applying the
“lodestar method” and also considering factors such as the (1) professional standing and
experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and
the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature
and length of the professional relationship with the client. See Ellison v. Balinski, 625 F.3d 953,
960 (6th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Alldata Corp., 14 Fed. Appx. 457, 468 (6th Cir. 2001). After this
analysis Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommends awarding total fees and costs to Plaintiff in the
amount of $6,452.74. The Court finds this amount to be correct and reasonable.
Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being
no timely objections from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d),
the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 136); and
(2) AWARDS Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney fees in the amount of $6,452.74,
payable by Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 10, 2014
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 10, 2014.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

3