Bodyguard Productions v. Does 1-25
Filing
86
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part 66 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/26/19 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART [66]
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS
DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00026-DN
Defendants.
District Judge David Nuffer
Plaintiff obtained default against Doe Defendants 3 (Mohammed Jamal –
IP 45.56.63.32), 6 (Andranek Manukyan – IP 209.181.150.142), 13 (Corbin Roper IP 45.56.3.195), 14 (Alexander Hamilton – IP 45.56.8.81), 15(Corey Adams –
IP 24.10.187.159), 16 (Reda Jamal – IP 45.56.23.56), and 20 (Josh Solt – IP 24.2.81.253)
(collectively, the “Defaulted Defendants”). 1 Plaintiff now seeks an award of its reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtaining default judgement as provided under 17
U.S.C. § 505. Plaintiff filed a Motion, 2 supported by the Declaration of counsel, 3 requesting an
award of $2,546.00 in attorneys’ fees against each Defaulted Defendant. 4 The Motion also
requested an award of $131.00 in costs against each Defaulted Defendant, except Doe Defendant
6 (Andranek Manukyan – IP 209.181.150.142) where only $51.00 is requested. 5
1
Order and Memorandum Decision at 10, docket no. 64, filed Nov. 8, 2018.
2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as to Certain Defendants (“Motion”), docket no. 66, filed Nov. 26,
2018.
3
Declaration in Support of Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as to Certain Defendants (“Declaration”), docket
no. 67, filed Nov. 26, 2018.
4
Motion at 2; Declaration ¶ 12.
5
Motion at 2; Declaration ¶ 14.
After careful review of Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting Declaration, and consideration
of the complexity of the case, the work performed and the record, under the appropriate legal
standards, Plaintiff is awarded $1,400.40 6 in attorneys’ fees against each Defaulted Defendant.
And Plaintiff is awarded $131.00 in costs against each Defaulted Defendant, except Doe
Defendant 6 (Andranek Manukyan – IP 209.181.150.142) where only $51.00 is awarded.
DISCUSSION
To determine a reasonable attorneys’ fee, a “lodestar” figure is arrived at “by multiplying
the hours . . . counsel reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” 7 Factors for
determining the reasonableness of the hours billed for a given task or to prosecute the litigation
as a whole include: the complexity of the case; the number of reasonable strategies pursued; the
responses necessitated by the maneuvering of the other side; and the potential duplication of
services. 8
The reasonable hours awarded may be reduced if “the number of compensable hours
claimed by counsel includes hours that were unnecessary, irrelevant and duplicative.” 9
Reduction is also justified “if the attorney’s time records are sloppy and imprecise and fail to
document adequately how [the attorney] utilized large blocks of time.” 10 But there is no
requirement that each disallowed hour be identified and justified. 11 Nor is there any requirement
to specify the number of hours permitted for each legal task. 12 Instead, a method of general
6
((0.19 + (4.91 / 2)) x $395) + ((1.45 + (2.79 / 2)) x $125) = $1,432.80.
7
Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, Johnson Cty., Kan., 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations
omitted).
8
Id. at 1250.
9
Id. (internal quotations and punctuation omitted).
10
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
11
Id.
12
Id.
2
reduction to the hours claimed may be implemented in order to achieve a reasonable number, “so
long as there is sufficient reason for [the method’s] use.” 13
Plaintiff requests an award of $ 2,546.19in attorneys’ fees against each Defaulted
Defendant. 14 Plaintiff reached this amount by apportioning the Defaulted Defendants a pro-rata
share of the total hours billed by Plaintiff’s counsel and his legal assistant. 15 Counsel’s
Declaration breaks down the hours billed as follows: 16
Attorney
Todd Zenger
Legal
Assistant
Total
Pro-rata
Total
Pro-rata
Hours billed for legal work attributable to
all 25 Doe Defendants (i.e., work prior to
the Defaulted Defendants’ default) 17
4.80
0.19
36.20
1.45
Hours billed for legal work attributable to
only the Defaulted Defendants (i.e., work
following the Defaulted Defendants’
default) 18
34.40
4.91
19.50
2.79
38.20
5.1
55.70
4.24
Total hours billed for case
It is unnecessary to address specific billing entries in counsel’s Declaration. “[A]n overly
particularized approach ‘is neither practical nor desirable.’” 19 “What is ‘important is the
discretionary determination by the district court of how many hours, in its experience, should
13
Id. (internal quotations and punctuation omitted).
14
Motion at 2; Declaration ¶ 12.
15
Declaration ¶¶ 10-11.
16
Id.
17
This legal work included initial preparatory work on the case; drafting the Complaint; drafting the motion for
expedited discovery; drafting subpoenas and reviewing discovery; drafting summonses and coordinating service;
and drafting a notice letter to the Doe Defendants and reviewing their responses. Id.
18
This legal work included drafting settlement letters to the Defaulted Defendants; drafting the motions for entry of
default and for default judgment; and drafting the Motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and counsel’s Declaration. Id.
19
Sheldon v. Vermonty, 107 Fed. App’x 828, 834 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Case, 157 F.3d at 1250).
3
have been expended on the specific case.’” 20 Considering the complexity of this case, the work
performed and the record, the number of hours billed by counsel and his legal assistant for work
performed following the default of the Defaulted Defendants is not reasonable. A general
reduction of the hours billed for this portion of the work is warranted.
This case involves claims of copyright infringement. 21 Plaintiff alleges that unauthorized
copies of its copyrighted work, The Hitman’s Bodyguard, were made via use of a BitTorrent
protocol at certain IP addresses. 22 The case is one of several similar cases filed by Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s counsel in the District of Utah. In total, Plaintiff’s counsel has filed 55 similar cases—
4 of which were filed on behalf of Plaintiff regarding The Hitman’s Bodyguard.
Each of these cases—including this case—follows the same general pattern. The plaintiff
files a complaint against Doe Defendants identified only by an IP address. The plaintiff then files
a motion for expedited discovery to obtain the names and addresses of the IP addresses’
subscribers from their internet service providers. Subpoenas are issued to the internet service
providers, who respond by providing the subscribers’ identifying information. The plaintiff then
serves the subscribers and attempts to negotiate a resolution. The plaintiff’s claims against the
vast majority of the subscribers are resolved through voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or
default judgment.
The amount of legal work necessary to investigate, identify, locate, and serve the
multitude of defendants in these cases is real. However, the pleading and motion practice are
formulaic, requiring little or no substantive alteration to template documents used by counsel.
For example, counsel filed at least one nearly identical motion for entry of default in 22 of the 26
20
Id. (quoting Case, 157 F.3d at 1250) (emphasis in original).
21
Complaint for Copyright Infringement ¶¶ 1, 38-49, docket no. 2, filed January 10, 2018.
22
Id. ¶¶ 4, 13, 20-21, 26, 41-43, Ex. B.
4
cases involving Plaintiff and filed at least one nearly identical motion for default judgment in 21
of the cases involving Plaintiff. The only differences between the motions in each case are the
caption, the defaulting subscriber’s identifying information, and references to docket numbers
and service and filing dates.
Counsel’s Declaration indicates that he billed 19.7 hours and his legal assistant billed
19.0 hours for legal work relating to the motions for entry of default and default judgment
regarding the Defaulted Defendants in this case. 23 This is greater than the number of hours
expected given counsel’s exhibited use of templates for these motions. The hours billed by
counsel and his legal assistant for this work are not reasonable.
This is not meant to suggest that counsel inflated the raw time it took to perform the
various legal tasks in this case. Rather, the issue is one of billing judgment in the context of an
attorneys’ fees award. “Because not all hours expended in litigation are normally billed to a
client, [counsel] should exercise billing judgment with respect to a claim of the number of hours
worked.” 24 “Billing judgment consists of winnowing the hours actually expended down to the
hours reasonably expended.” 25 Based on the complexity of this case, the work performed and the
record, a fifty percent (50%) reduction of the hours billed by Plaintiff’s counsel and his legal
assistant for legal work following the default of the Defaulted Defendants is appropriate to
achieve a reasonable attorneys’ fee award.
Counsel and his legal assistant’s billing rates—$395 per hour and $125 per hour
respectively 26—are reasonable considering the fees customarily charged in the locality for
23
Declaration ¶¶ 10-11.
24
Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1202 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted).
25
Case, 157 F.3d at 1250.
26
Declaration ¶¶ 6-7.
5
similar legal services. Additionally, Plaintiff’s requested award of $131 for costs against each
Defaulted Defendant—except Doe Defendant 6 (Andranek Manukyan – IP 209.181.150.142)
where only $51 is requested —is reasonable and properly supported. 27 Therefore, Plaintiff is
awarded $1,432.80 28 in attorneys’ fees against each Defaulted Defendant. And Plaintiff is
awarded $131 in costs against each Defaulted Defendant, except Doe Defendant 12 (Kristie
Pendleton – IP 67.177.9.147).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion 29 is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is
awarded $1,400.40 in attorneys’ fees against each Defaulted Defendant. And Plaintiff is awarded
$131.00 in costs against each Defaulted Defendant, except against Doe Defendant 6 (Andranek
Manukyan – IP 209.181.150.142) where only $51.00 is awarded. An amended judgment will
enter to reflect this award.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Signed September 26, 2019.
BY THE COURT
_______________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
27
Motion at 2; Declaration ¶ 14, Exs. B-C.
28
((0.19 + (4.91 / 2)) x $395) + ((1.45 + (2.79 / 2)) x $125) = $1,432.80.
29
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as to Certain Defendants, docket no. 66, filed Nov. 26, 2018.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?