Igt

This Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case is before us for the third time. On the first appeal, we reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in International Game Technology’s (“IGT”) favor because material facts were in dispute. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir.2009) (“Van Asdale I”). On remand, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Shawn and Lena Van Asdale on each of their Sar-banes-Oxley claims, and the district court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict. The district court then denied IGT’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted the Van As-dales’ motion for fees, costs, and prejudgment interest “in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 20.58 (a), at the rate specified in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6621 .” Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 2118637 , at *18 (D.Nev. May 24, 2011).

On the second appeal, we affirmed the denial of IGT’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 549 Fed.Appx. 611 , 613-14 (9th Cir.2013) (“Van Asdale II”). We also observed that the applicable prejudgment interest rate was a novel issue but chose not to address the issue…