Static Media LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC

Filing 77

ORDER on Sanctions. Defendant Leader Accessories LLC and its counsel must pay $1000 in sanctions to plaintiff Static Media LLC and must pay $10,000 in attorneys' fees to Static Media's attorneys not later than July 19, 2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/17/2021. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

STATIC MEDIA LLC,
v.

Plaintiff,

18-cv-330-wmc

LEADER ACCESSORIES LLC,
Defendant.

On January 5, 2021, Judge Conley entered an order (dkt. 71) upholding my December
24, 2020 order (dkt. 65) granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (dkt. 58). Plaintiff timely
submitted its proposed fine and bill of costs (dkts. 72 & 73), to which defendant timely
responded (dkts. 74 & 75), followed by a March 16, 2021 notice of supplemental authority by
defendant (dkt. 76).
Plaintiff has asked for a $1000 sanction for each of what it characterizes as two
violations, plus reimbursement of $10,586.30 in attorneys fees representing 28.2 hours of work
by three attorneys at an average rate of about $375/hr. Defendant argues against awarding any
sanction at all, characterizing any violation as inadvertent and harmless. Indeed, defendant
continues to imply that there were no genuine violations of the protective order, despite two
judges in this court finding otherwise and deeming defendant’s actions to be sanctionable
misconduct. Because this seems to be nagging at defendant, let’s be clear: scienter is not required
for the court to find a violation of the protective order and impose a sanction. Defendant’s
intent is irrelevant to finding a violation, although it could be relevant to the resulting penalty.
But we don’t need to explore this further because plaintiff has requested only $1000 per
violation. That’s an eminently reasonable number under the totality of circumstances as they
are viewed by the court. Frankly, I had a higher number in mind, but I’m going with plaintiff’s

lower request. In a patent lawsuit, a sanction of one thousand dollars could be viewed as merely
symbolic, but the message sent is important: when you sign a protective order, you had better
understand what you have agreed to and then you had better comply with the terms of your
agreement. Even unintended violations can cause the harm that the agreement was designed to
prevent.
Plaintiff alleges two violations based on two emails sent as part of one email string.
Defendant responds that this should be viewed as one violation because the emails were part of
one communication that had to be split in half due to the size of the attachment. I’m going with
defendant on this one. The violation of the protective order was one discrete act that by
technical happenstance resulted in two emails. So, the court is imposing a $1000 sanction.
As for attorneys’ fees, the amount requested by plaintiff is reasonable. The amount of
time that plaintiff’s attorneys spent on this issue was not excessive; indeed, much of it was
necessitated by defendant’s appeal of the original sanction order, and plaintiff prevailed
completely at both levels. The hourly rates charged are at or below the average in patent
lawsuits litigated in this court.

Defendant’s dissection of plaintiff’s bill is unpersuasive.

Mundane discovery disputes in commercial litigation routinely result in 20 to 30 hours of time
spent and five-figure cost-shifting under Rule 37(a)(5), so a $10,000 request in this situation is
unremarkable Having carefully considered all of defendant’s arguments in opposition to
plaintiff’s request, I conclude that plaintiff is entitled to the amount requested, although I am
rounding it down to an even $10K. Perhaps this number will go up if defendant appeals this
order and loses, but I’m not going to look for trouble.

2

ORDER
It is ORDERED that defendant Leader Accessories LLC and its counsel must pay $1000
in sanctions to plaintiff Static Media LLC and must pay $10,000 in attorneys’ fees to Static
Media’s attorneys not later than July 19, 2021.

Entered this 17th day of June 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3