The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK)
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON AWARD OF
9 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
10 GOOGLE LLC, RE: Dkt. No. 597
11 Defendant.
12 In its Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Misconduct (Dkt. 588), the
13 Court ordered, in relevant part, that, “Google must pay all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by
14 Plaintiffs in filing the Sanctions Motion, including expert consultant and witness fees.” Dkt. 588.
15 Plaintiffs then submitted a request for fees and costs (Dkt. 597); Google responded (Dkt. 625); and
16 pursuant to this Court’s request, Plaintiffs provided additional clarification (Dkt. 607) and detailed
17 billing statements for in-camera review (Dkt. 629). The Court has given careful consideration to
18 all of the submissions, and awards attorneys’ fees and costs as provided herein.
19 I. Legal Standard
In determining an appropriate award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction for misconduct “when
20
using its inherent sanctioning authority (and civil procedures),” the court must “establish a causal
21
link [] between the litigant’s misbehavior and legal fees paid by the opposing party.” Goodyear
22
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). “That kind of causal connection [] is
23
appropriately framed as a but-for test: The complaining party [] may recover only the portion of
24
his fees that he would not have paid but for the misconduct.” Id. at 1187 (internal quotation marks
25
and citations omitted). “This but-for causation standard generally demands that a district court
26
assess and allocate specific litigation expenses—yet still allows it to exercise discretion and
27
1 particular litigation task would or would not have been incurred in the absence of the sanctioned
2 conduct “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Id. (citation
3 omitted). The trial court may take into account its “overall sense of the suit, and may use
4 estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.” Id. (citation omitted); see also, e.g.,
5 Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., No. 17-cv-04977-RS (TSH), 2021 WL 411349, at *8-9
6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (as sanction under Rule 37 and court’s inherent power, awarding half of
7 requested attorneys’ fees for certain tasks because it was “reasonable to infer that [the] misconduct
8 at least doubled the amount of work” the requesting party had to perform on those tasks);
Garcia v. City of Santa Clara, No. 10-cv-02424-SI, 2017 WL 1398263, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19,
9
2017) (awarding attorneys’ fees as sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) for an “in-person document
10
review, which would not have been necessary but for defendants’ carelessness” but awarding fees
11
at lower junior associate’s hourly rate “[b]ecause the Court sees no need for a senior associate to
12
have conducted the bulk of this document review”). The “essential goal in shifting fees is to do
13
rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” Goodyear, 137 S. Ct. at 1187 (internal
14
quotation marks and citation omitted).
15
II. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
16
The Court has already determined that the appropriate measure of the monetary sanction
17
for Google’s discovery misconduct is the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the
18
sanctions motion, which is to be paid by Google to Plaintiffs. Dkt. 588. The only remaining issue
19
is whether the fees and costs identified by Plaintiffs are sufficiently linked to the sanctions motion
20
to fall within the Court’s order. A brief overview of the Plaintiffs’ submissions is helpful.
21
Plaintiffs seek the following:
22
Attorneys’ fees: $980,827.00
23
Expert fees: $29,809.50
24
Additional Costs: $57,875.43
25
Total: $1,068,511.93
26
27
Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees ($980,827.00), are summarized as follows:
1 Drafting pleadings/Review of Google pleadings: $305,930.50
2 Hearing preparation and participation: $621,276.50
3 Review of Google document productions: $53,620.00
4
5 Plaintiffs’ costs ($57,875.43) comprise computer research, printing and graphics support.
6
7 As referenced above, the Court also requested and reviewed detailed billing statements in
8 support of the requested attorneys’ fees. Following its careful review and consideration of the
evidence before it and guiding legal principles, the Court makes the following deductions:
9
Attorneys’ fees:
10
Removal of timekeepers billing 10 hours or less.
11
Deduction: $22,270.50
12
Removal of time incurred for review of document productions.
13
Deduction: $53,620.00
14
Plaintiffs would have reviewed Google document productions even without bringing the sanctions
15
motion. Accordingly, that attorney time does not survive the “but for” test. In its discretion, the
16
Court deducts all timekeepers who billed less than 10 hours on this motion, several of whom are
17
partners with negligible amounts of time. The Court recognizes that to the extent timekeepers
18
who billed less than 10 hours were involved in reviewing Google document productions, their
19
time is subtracted twice. However, it does not appear from the Court’s review that there is
20
significant overlap in these categories and to the extent there is, the amounts are negligible in light
21
of the overall award. The Court also makes the following deductions:
22
Costs:
23
Removal of computer research. In this instance where the dispute was largely
24
factual in nature and relevant legal research is highly likely to be applicable in multiple
25
areas of the Parties’ dispute, not exclusively for the benefit of the sanctions motion, it is
26
properly excluded.
27
Deduction: $20,906.34
1 Deducting the amounts identified above from the total amount Plaintiffs are seeking
2 ($1,068,511.93) leaves an award of attorneys’ fees of $904,936.50 and costs, including experts, of
3 $66,778.59 for a total award of $971,715.09 to be paid by Google to Plaintiffs as a monetary
4 || sanction for the discovery misconduct identified in this Court’s previous Order at Dkt. 588.
5 SO ORDERED.
6 || Dated: July 15, 2022
7
Swesten vot
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
9 United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28