1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SILICON GENESIS CORPORATION, Case No. 22-cv-04986-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND

9 v. COSTS

10 EV GROUP E.THALLNER GMBH, Re: Dkt. Nos. 123, 124, 125 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff (SiGen) sues Defendant (EVG) for failing to pay royalties owed under a patent 14 licensing agreement. (Dkt. No. 44.)1 The Court granted SiGen’s motion for monetary contempt 15 sanctions against EVG for violating the Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 122.) Before the Court are 16 the parties’ declarations as to SiGen’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkt. Nos. 123, 124, 17 125.) Having carefully considered the submissions, the Court AWARDS SiGen $51,162.58, 18 which consists of $46,400 for Mr. Poe’s prosecution of SiGen’s application for a temporary 19 restraining order and preliminary injunction and $4,762.58 for SiGen’s Austrian representation. 20 DISCUSSION 21 “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to 22 compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous 23 behavior, or both.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). In 24 civil contempt actions, “an award to an opposing party is limited by that party’s actual loss.” In re 25 Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Gen. Signal 26 Corp., 787 F.2d at 1380 (“Compensatory awards are limited to ‘actual losses sustained as a result 27 1 of the contumacy.’”). 2 The Court held EVG in contempt for violating the Protective Order by using confidential 3 emails produced in this action to initiate suit against SiGen in Austria. (Dkt. No. 122.) SiGen 4 seeks monetary sanctions consisting of attorneys’ fees and costs for representation in the Austrian 5 litigation and prosecution of SiGen’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 6 injunction. (Dkt. No. 113-2 ¶¶ 9-10.) At a rate of $1,000 an hour, SiGen requests $57,900 in 7 attorneys’ fees for 57.9 hours spent prosecuting SiGen’s application for a temporary restraining 8 order and preliminary injunction, in addition to $8,094.28 for Austrian counsel’s preparation to 9 respond to EVG’s Austrian complaint. (Dkt. No. 123 ¶ 9.) Combined with the $922.31 SiGen 10 seeks in out-of-pocket costs, the total monetary sanction SiGen requests is $66,916.59. (Id.) 11 I. Attorneys’ Fees 12 The presumptive lodestar method for calculating attorneys’ fees multiples the number of 13 hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte 14 Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). “In calculating the lodestar, district courts have a duty 15 to ensure that claims for attorneys’ fees are reasonable.” Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 16 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). 17 a. Hourly Rate 18 To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the Court considers the experience, skill, and 19 reputation of the attorneys requesting fees, as well as “the rate prevailing in the community for 20 similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Schwarz v. 21 Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). “The relevant community for 22 purposes of determining the prevailing market rate is generally the forum in which the district 23 court sits.” TPCO US Holding, LLC v. Fussell, No. 23-CV-01324-EMC, 2023 WL 5111986, at *2 24 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2023) (cleaned up). 25 SiGen requests a reasonable hourly rate of $1,000 per hour for the 57.9 hours Mr. Poe 26 spent prosecuting SiGen’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 27 injunction. AdTrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 1921774, at *8 1 comparable to the fees generally charged by attorneys with similar experience, ability, and 2 reputation for work on similar matters in this judicial district.”); In re Outlaw Lab’ys, LP Litig., 3 No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS, 2023 WL 6522383, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2023) (“[T]he Court holds 4 that $996 is a reasonable rate for Mr. Poe. . .”). 5 As to Austrian counsel’s fees, SiGen requests $8,094.28 for the 21.167 hours three Wolf 6 Theiss attorneys spent preparing a response to EVG’s Austrian complaint. (Dkt. No. 123 at 4, 11.) 7 The description of services provided yields the following totals: 8 • Eva Spiegel: 5 hours at €500.00 per hour, totaling €2,500.00. 9 • Stephan Kugler: 6.5 hours at €400.00 per hour, totaling €2,600.00. 10 • Dominik Szerencsics: 9.667 hours at €240.00 per hour, totaling €2,320.00. 11 (Id. at 11.) Because the Court lacks information on the experience, skill, and reputation of 12 Austrian counsel, the reasonable rate for Austrian counsel’s work is $300 per hour. TPCO US 13 Holding, LLC, 2023 WL 5111986, at *2. (“Here, the relevant forum for comparing reasonable 14 attorney rates is the Northern District Court of California. District courts in Northern California 15 have found that rates of $475–$975 per hour for partners and $300–490 per hour for associates are 16 reasonable.” (cleaned up)); Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, No. 17-CV-06059- 17 EMC, 2018 WL 2183295, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“As for the reasonable hourly rate, 18 district courts in Northern California have found that rates of $475-$975 per hour for partners and 19 $300-$490 per hour for associates are reasonable.”); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 20 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (finding $240 hourly 21 rate for contract and staff attorneys reasonable); Banas v. Volcano Corp., 47 F. Supp. 3d 957, 965 22 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (approving rates ranging from $355 to $1,095 per hour for partners and 23 associates). So, Austrian counsel’s billable amount is reduced to $6,350.10. 24 b. Hours Expended 25 “In determining the appropriate number of hours to be included in a lodestar calculation, 26 the district court should exclude hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” 27 McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). SiGen’s counsel 1 expended.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion 2 amended on denial of reh’g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court may reduce those hours 3 “where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and hours are 4 duplicated; if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. 5 The billable amount of Gaw | Poe hours expended is reduced by 11.5 hours because the 6 Court declines to award fees for SiGen’s counsel’s time traveling to and from this District, where 7 Gaw | Poe LLP is based. (Dkt. No. 123 at 8.) So, Mr. Poe’s billable amount is reduced to 8 $46,400. 9 As to Austrian counsel, SiGen fails to provide contemporaneous records of the 21.167 10 hours spent preparing a response to EVG’s Austrian complaint. Further, Austrian counsel’s 11 description of services fails to “segregate the fees by task or category, which makes it difficult to 12 evaluate the reasonableness of the time expended, or to calculate precise sums that should be 13 allowed or disallowed.” Davis v. Elec. Arts Inc., No. 10-CV-03328-RS (DMR), 2018 WL 14 1609289, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018), objections overruled, No. 10-CV-03328-RS, 2018 WL 15 11436294 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2018). For these reasons, Austrian counsel’s fee request warrants a 16 25% reduction. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 (1983) (“[T]he District Court properly 17 considered the reasonableness of the hours expended, and reduced the hours of one attorney by 18 thirty percent to account for his inexperience and failure to keep contemporaneous time records.”); 19 see, e.g., Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Gutierrez, No. 22-CV-05793-BLF, 2023 WL 4686018, 20 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2023) (“Because the billing records were not created contemporaneously, 21 the Court finds that they are inherently less reliable and susceptible to time inflation.”). So, 22 Austrian counsel’s billable amount is reduced to $4,762.58. 23 EVG insists the sanctions award “should not reflect the full amount of SiGen’s fees” by 24 rehashing its argument EVG believed it did not violate the Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 125 at 2.) 25 Relying on In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 26 1993), EVG requests the Court lower the sanctions award because EVG “did not disseminate 27 SiGen’s confidential or proprietary information when it initiated the Austrian lawsuit.” (Id.) The 1 misusing confidential material produced in this litigation for an improper purpose. (Dkt. No. 122 2 at 4-5.) In re Dual-Deck is inapplicable because, here, EVG purposefully revealed confidential 3 || information—SiGen’s CEO’s email correspondence—in violation of the Protective Order. In re 4 Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The 5 defendants have not accused Go—Video of revealing any secrets.”’). 6 Oe Ok 7 The total attorneys’ fee award is $51,162.58, which consists of $46,400 for Mr. Poe’s 8 || prosecution of SiGen’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 9 || and $4,762.58 for SiGen’s Austrian representation. 10 II. Costs 11 SiGen requests $922.31 in out-of-pocket costs for Mr. Poe’s airfare to and from San 12 || Francisco, in-flight Wi-Fi, hotel, car ride from the Court to the airport, airport dinner, and parking. 5 13 (Dkt. No. 123 4 8.) The Court declines to award costs related to Mr. Poe’s travel to and from this 14 || District. 15 EVG requests the Court deduct $228.38 from the sanctions award on the grounds Austrian a 16 || counsel failed to seek “reimbursement of certain legal costs incurred in connection with filing 3 17 || materials with the Vienna Court.” (Dkt. No. 125 at 2.) SiGen does not seek costs for the Vienna 18 || court’s filing fees, so the Court declines to deduct $228.38 from the sanctions award. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, the Court AWARDS SiGen $51,162.58, which consists of $46,400 for Mr. 21 Poe’s prosecution of SiGen’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 22 || injunction and $4,762.58 for SiGen’s Austrian representation. 23 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 123, 124, and 125. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: April 15, 2024 26 27 fat ath □□ 28 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge