Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04877/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04877-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALEXANDER GRAHAM-SULT and DAVID 

GRAHAM, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

NICHOLAS P. CLAINOS, RICHARD L. 

GREENE, LINDA McCALL, GREENE 

RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE & HENNIGH 

LLP, BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES LLC, 

d/b/a WOLFGANG’S VAULT, NORTON 

LLC and WILLIAM E. SAGAN, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. CV 10-4877 CW 

ORDER FOR FURTHER 

BRIEFING ON BGA 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES AND COSTS 

Defendants Bill Graham Archives LLC, Norton LLC and William 

E. Sagan (collectively, BGA Defendants) have filed a motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 

§ 505. In support of their motion, BGA Defendants have filed 

redacted billing statements, completely eliminating any 

description of the work performed. BGA Defendants state that 

these redactions are necessary to protect attorney-client 

privilege and that they will submit unredacted statements for in 

camera review upon request of the Court. 

As noted by Plaintiffs, “the fee applicant bears the burden 

of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the 

appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1982). While the Court appreciates 

Case 4:10-cv-04877-CW Document 322 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

counsel’s duty not to breach the attorney-client privilege, it is 

implausible that every entry contains privileged information. 

Moreover, Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to respond to 

those entries that are not privileged.1

Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this 

order, BGA Defendants shall file their billing statements 

including the description of the work performed. They may redact 

only information that is protected by the attorney-client 

privilege. BGA Defendants shall file an administrative motion to 

file under seal any portions of their billing statements that they 

believe are sealable. Within fourteen days of BGA Defendants’ 

filing, Plaintiffs shall file a response of no more than five 

pages to the fee request. BGA Defendants may file a reply of no 

more than three pages within one week thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 3, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

 1 The Court recognizes that it granted BGA Defendants’ 

previous motion for attorneys’ fees even though the records filed 

in support of that motion attached fully redacted records. 

However, that motion sought just over $130,000 in fees, while the 

instant motion seeks nearly ten times that amount for work 

performed over the course of more than fifteen years. 

Case 4:10-cv-04877-CW Document 322 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 2