United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES
EDWARD
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
September 5, 2019, the Court granted in part Defendant Oki
Industry Co., Ltd.'s (“Defendant”) motion for
fees and costs and directed the parties to meet and confer
regarding the amount. As a result of the meet and confer
process, Plaintiffs no longer contest or request any
reduction of Defendant's claim for $136, 646.00 USD and
¥2, 414, 800 JPY fees as reflected in Exhibit GG filed on
November 11, 2019. Dkt. No. 423-3. Defendant, however, seeks
an additional $3, 457, 977.00 USD and ¥41, 970, 300 JPY
in attorney fees as reflected in Exhibit FF. Dkt. No. 423-2.
Plaintiffs assert several objections to a large portion of
these additional fees and request that the fees in Exhibit FF
be reduced by $1, 813, 051.01 USD and ¥28, 613, 836.00
JPY. Joint Statement at 1 (Dkt. No. 423). Having reviewed the
Joint Statement and related Exhibits, the Court orders as
follows.
A.
Clerical Work
Plaintiffs
object to certain billing record entries as “clerical
work” that could have been reasonably performed by a
paralegal or other non-attorney. The Court overrules nearly
all of these objections. Many of the so-called entries for
clerical work describe attorney-level legal work such as
research, review of documents, discussions of various legal
issues, revisions to briefs, draft motion, prepare
declaration, finalize briefs for filing, review and organize
recently filed documents, attend to joint case management
statement, attend to document productions, and attention to
billing issues.
Some of
the entries describe work that could have been performed by a
non-attorney such as update calendar, review and organize
documents, file exhibits under seal, circulate
correspondence, circulate filing notifications, update
electronic file, create certificate of service, update case
calendar reminder, attention to documents and create binders.
The vast majority of this work, however, was performed by a
paralegal at a lower hourly fee rate. No. reductions are
warranted.
Defendant
had attorneys translate documents. It was not unreasonable
for Defendant to have done so given the nature of this case.
See e.g. Gidding v. Anderson, No. 07-4755 JSW, 2008
WL 5068524 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008) (awarding translation
costs because translations were reasonably necessary to the
proper determination of the issues).
Paralegals
billed at $150/hour to “[b]reak down war room;
coordinate with vendors; break down Courtroom and attend jury
verdict readings” (10.5 hours on 5/8/14 and 6.0 hours
5/9/14), and for “[t]rial; document preparation; break
down war room/court room/break out rooms after trial
conclusion; coordinate with vendors” (137.5 hours on
5/30/14). Plaintiffs contend that the “break
down” could have been reasonably performed by a legal
assistant or other professional at a lower rate, and
accordingly request a 75% reduction of each of these billing
entries. The Court agrees that this type of work could have
been reasonably completed by an employee at a lower hourly
rate. Plaintiffs' requested 75% reduction of these fees
is appropriate.
B.
Associate Work
Plaintiffs
object to certain billing record entries as work that could
have been performed by a less senior attorney. The Court
overrules the objection. Although it may have been
theoretically possible for a less senior attorney to perform
certain tasks (i.e. legal research, document review, document
summaries, initial drafts of discovery responses and briefs,
search for record citations), the reality was that until the
trial preparation and trial phases of this litigation,
Defendant's litigation team consisted of only two United
States-based partners, Labgold and Hoeffner, and no
associates. Defendant was entitled to its choice of counsel
and, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, was not required
to hire a law firm with associates. The Court finds the fees
charged by partners Labgold and Hoeffner were reasonable.
C.
“Vague” Litigation Purpose
Plaintiffs
object to certain entries because the “task described
does not appear reasonably necessary to [Defendant's]
legal defense.” Joint Statement at 3. Plaintiffs point
to the following examples of tasks they contend were not
reasonably necessary to Defendant's defense:
“review trial transcripts” (5/9/14); lengthy
“meeting[s] with client” about unspecified topics
(9/24/12); “review of files” (3/15/13); and
“editing responses” to unspecified requests
(9/7/13).
The
Court agrees with Plaintiffs that many of Defendant's
billing entries are too vague. Under Ninth Circuit law,
“‘counsel is not required to record in great
detail how each minute of [their] time was
expended'” as long as “the attorneys have
satisfactorily ‘identif[ied] the general subject matter
of [the] time expenditures.'” Pollinator
Stewardship Council v. United States EPA, No. 13-72346,
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13343, at *22 (9th Cir. June 27, 2017)
(quoting Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115,
1121 (9th Cir. 2000)). Each of the tasks identified above-
reviewing transcripts, meeting with a client, reviewing
files, and editing responses-are common litigation tasks for
which Defendant is entitled to some compensation. The
entries, however, fail to identify the general subject matter
of the transcripts, meeting, files, and responses. The Ninth
Circuit has instructed that when a fee applicant's
documentation is inadequate, the district court is free to
reduce an applicant's fee award. Trustee of Directors
Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v.
Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 427 (9th Cir. 2000); see also
Robinson v. Open Top Sightseeing San Francisco, LLC, No.
14-852 PJH, 2018 WL 2088392, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2019)
(reducing hours by 10% to account for vague entries);
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No.
13-4057 BLF, 2017 WL 3007071, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017)
(applying percentage reduction to vague entries); Davis
v. Prison Health Services, No. 09-2629 SI, 2012 WL
4462520, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (applying
across-the-board 10% reduction for vague billing records).
Accordingly, this Court exercises its discretion to apply an
across-the-board 10 percent reduction to vague entries as
specified in section “J” of this Order.
D.
“Excessive” Time
Plaintiffs
object to certain entries because “[t]he amount of time
spent on the task does not appear reasonable for an
attorney/professional at this billable rate.” Joint
Statement at 4. Plaintiffs also contend that certain entries
are for work that could have reasonably been performed by
fewer timekeepers. Plaintiffs give three examples of
purportedly excessive billing by partners: (1) 99.50 hours to
research and draft a reply brief in support of
Defendant's motion for supplemental attorney fees
(5/23/19 - 5/30/19); 11 hours for a ...