“Due Diligence” or “Attention to” Entries Found Too Vague.
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick faced a $158,678.51 fee request by a well-known national firm for ultimately obtaining a default judgment in a trademark infringement case against a defendant using a similar download to “Cognizant.” In Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. McAfee, Case No. 14-cv-01146-WHO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (Doc. No. 38), U.S. District Judge Orrick awarded plaintiff a total of $130,341.73 out of the requested fees. We now summarize what reductions were made, after the district court found $263.50 – $650.00 hourly rates were reasonable for the Bay Area.
First, reductions were made for insufficient time entries. Such entries as “due diligence per request of” and “attention to” a subject but no task indication were deemed way too vague for compensation as against a losing opponent.
Second, the district court reduced by one-half to 100% certain redacted time entries, finding that fee petitioners cannot hide their efforts from the public.
Third, although finding that a good result was reached, the district court observed that plaintiff obtained an unopposed TRO and undertook no discovery. Some of the time was found unreasonable, with District Judge Orrick citing a paralegal spending 2.6 hours to fill out a one page pro hac vice application form. Utilizing the Ninth Circuit’s dictate in Moreno, the court imposed an across-the-board 10% “haircut” without having to provide a detailed explanation as to why.
HAT TIP—We thank Carter “Cappy” White of UC Davis School of Law for bringing Cognizant to our attention.