LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. et al

Filing 383

ORDER granting with modification 348 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 9/30/2013. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-439-FDW-DCK

LENDINGTREE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ZILLOW, INC., NEXTAG, INC., and
ADCHEMY, INC.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant NexTag’s
“…Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs” (Document No. 348). This motion has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record,
the undersigned will grant the motion, with modification.
The Court issued an “Order” (Document No. 336) on August 8, 2013, granting
“Defendant NexTag, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Discovery Against Plaintiff LendingTree,
Inc., LLC” (Document No. 325). The Court’s “Order” (Document No. 336) specifically
stated that
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A) [the Court] will
require LendingTree to reimburse NexTag for its
reasonable fees and expenses associated with filing
Document Nos. 325 and 327. The parties are encouraged
to resolve the matter of reasonable fees and expenses
without further Court intervention; however, if they are
unable to do so, NexTag may file an appropriate motion for
attorney’s fees, along with a supporting affidavit, on or
before August 30, 2013.

(Document No. 336, p.7).
It appears that the parties have been unable to resolve the matter of “reasonable
fees and expenses associated with filing Document Nos. 325 and 327,” and thus
Defendant NexTag filed the pending “…Motion for Attorney’s Fees And Costs” on
August 30, 2013. Defendant’s motion indicates that it now seeks the fees and costs it
incurred “to pursue the discovery issues in the Motion,” specifically, $240,489.43.
(Document No. 348-1,pp.6-7). Defendant bases this request on what it alleges to be “its
ten-month long diligent efforts” to pursue discovery which resulted in expenses of
“approximately $24,000 per month.” (Document No. 348-1, p.2).
The undersigned finds that Defendant NexTag overestimates the relief awarded
by the Court. As noted above, the Court specifically awarded Defendant its “reasonable
fees and expenses associated with filing Document Nos. 325 and 327,” not its expenses
associated with ten (10) months of pursuing discovery.
(emphasis added).

(Document No. 336, p.7)

The award allowed by the Court was not an attempt to

comprehensively “compensate for NexTag’s efforts to pursue its discovery against
LendingTree;” rather, it was an award for NexTag’s costs and fees associated with
preparing and filing two (2) specific documents, Document Nos. 325 and 327. See
(Document No. 336; Document No. 348-1, p.7).
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments, with particular
attention to Defendant NexTag’s “Affidavit Of Attorneys’ Fees” (Document No. 348-2),
the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s proposed award of $28,044.23, is a more accurate
reflection of NexTag’s reasonable fees and expenses associated with filing Document
Nos. 325 and 327. See (Document Nos. 348-1, 379, and 382).

2

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the “…Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And
Costs” (Document No. 348) is GRANTED, with modification. Plaintiff LendingTree,
LLC shall reimburse Defendant NexTag, Inc. for its fees and expenses associated with
filing Document Nos. 325 and 327 in the amount of $28,044.23, on or before October
15, 2013.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 30, 2013

3