Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00288/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00288-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MP NEXLEVEL, of California, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CVIN, LLC, d/b/a VAST NETWORKS, 

CALAVERAS COMMUNICATIONS 

COMPANY, SEBASTIAN 

ENTERPRISES, INC., VOLCANO 

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, 

STAGELINE COMMUNICATIONS, 

INC., THE PONDEROSA TELEPHONE 

COMPANY, SIERRA TEL 

COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, 

VARNET INC., CAL-ORE TELEPHONE 

COMPANY, THE CORPORATION OF 

EDUCATION NETWORK INITIATIVES

IN CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 to 500,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG 

ORDER RE: MP NEXLEVEL’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CVIN, LLC

(ECF No. 370)

On July 22, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff MP Nexlevel’s (“MPN”) Motion to 

Compel and for Sanctions (ECF No. 370) pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 385.) The Court further directed MPN to submit supplemental 

briefing describing the costs associated with CVIN’s intransigence in discovery. MPN 

submitted a detailed memorandum of costs and CVIN has submitted objections to that 

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 9
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

memorandum. (ECF Nos. 387, 390.) After a review of the memorandum and objections, the 

Court awards sanctions to MPN as described below.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2016, the Court heard argument on MPN’s Motion to Compel and for 

Sanctions and granted the Motion. At the hearing, the Court declined to award terminating 

sanctions, but agreed that monetary sanctions were appropriate. In particular, the Court 

awarded sanctions for fees and costs incurred in:

 Drafting and arguing the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions;

 The June 7, 2016 informal discovery conference and preparation for that 

conference (including the letters submitted for that conference); and,

 Meet and confer communications (in May 2016 and otherwise) regarding 

CVIN’s non-compliance with the Court’s discovery order at issue in the Motion.

In its memorandum of costs, MPN divides its expenses into the following categories:

 May 2016 correspondence /meet and confer expenses: $6,646.25

 June 7, 2016 informal discovery expenses: $1,997.50

 Drafting the joint statement for the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (and 

associated page and date extension pleadings): $13,983.75

 Preparation and argument at the hearing for the Motion to Compel and for 

Sanctions: $10,040.59

 Drafting and filing the memorandum of costs: $5,662.50

For a total of $38,330.59 in requested sanction against CVIN. CVIN objects to several 

categories of MPN’s claimed expenses and argues that MPN is entitled to only $15,648.81 in 

sanctions. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “must order the 

disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, 

including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” to comply with a court order. The Court has 

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 9
3

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

already determined that MPN is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees under Rule 

37(b)(2). The reasonability of attorneys’ fees is calculated using the “lodestar” method. 

Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). “The ‘lodestar’ is 

calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the 

litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id., quoting Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 

1145, 1149 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2001). “Although in most cases, the lodestar figure is presumptively a 

reasonable fee award, the district court may, if circumstances warrant, adjust the lodestar to 

account for other factors which are not subsumed within it.” Id.

B. MPN’s Hourly Rates are Reasonable

To determine “a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be guided by the rate 

prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, 

experience, and reputation.” Webb v. Ada Cnty., 285 F.3d 829, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). In the 

Fresno area, hourly rates for attorneys of at least $300/hour have routinely been found 

reasonable. See, e.g., Verduzco v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM, 2015 

WL 4131384, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (approving rates of $300/hour and $380/hour); 

Silvester v. Harris, Case No. 1:11-cv-2137-AWI-SAB, 2014 WL 7239371, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 17, 2014) (“the current reasonable hourly rates in the Fresno Division are between $175 

and $380 . . . [t]he current reasonable hourly rate for paralegal work in the Fresno Division 

ranges from $75 to $150”); Dolarian Capital, Inc. v. SOC, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-00031-LJOSAB, 2013 WL 1006071, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 13, 2013) (approving rates of $300/hour for 

lead counsel and $225/hour for associates).

MPN states that it is compensating its counsel at a rate of $250/hour for partners (Holly 

J. Newman, James D. Kremer, J. Benjamin Patrick, and Matthew L. Hawk), $225/hour for 

associates (Olivia M. Kelley), and $110/hour for paralegals. CVIN does not object to the 

hourly rates charged by MPN’s counsel. The Court finds that MPN’s hourly rates are 

reasonable.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 9
4

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

C. May 2016 Meet and Confer Expenses

MPN claims attorneys’ fees for 24.65 hours of associate time and 4.4 hours of partner 

time. CVIN objects that 22.55 of MPN’s claimed associate hours were actually incurred 

analyzing CVIN’s document production, rather than preparing for any meet and confer, and 

would thus have been incurred regardless of CVIN’s violation of the Court’s discovery order. 

The Court agrees with respect to Ms. Kelley’s time entries from March 14, 2016 to May 4, 

2016; these time entries refer only to analyzing incoming document productions and preparing 

them for review (uploading documents to Relativity, for example). (Supplemental Declaration 

of James D. Kremer in Support of MP Nexlevel’s Fee Request (“Kremer Decl.”) Exh. C, ECF 

No. 388.) MPN would have had to review the document production even if CVIN had not 

committed any discovery violation. Thus, those expenses should not be included in the 

sanctions award. True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., Case No. 13-cv-02219-

HSG (DMR), 2015 WL 3453459, at *3, (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2015), citing Logtale, Ltd. v. 

IKOR, Inc., Case No. C-11-5452 EDL (DMR), 2015 WL 581513, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 

2015). 

Ms. Kelley’s time entries from May 10 and 11, however, refer specifically to analyzing 

the document productions in preparation for the meet and confer efforts. (Kremer Decl. Exh. 

C, ECF No. 388.) These expenses are thus recoverable. One other time entry from May 5, 

2016 for 1.2 hours reflects time Ms. Kelley spent preparing a meet and confer letter and is not 

challenged by CVIN. The Court will thus discount MPN’s claimed fees by 13.25 associate 

hours and finds that MPN should be compensated for 11.4 associate hours and 4.4 partner 

hours, or $3,665.00, for the meet and confer.

D. June 7, 2016 Informal Discovery Conference

MPN requests $1,997.50 for preparing for and participating in the informal discovery 

conference on June 7, 2016. CVIN does not object to the hours Mr. Kremer or Ms. Kelley 

billed for this conference. The Court finds the hours spent on this conference reasonable and 

awards $1,997.50.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 9
5

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

E. Drafting the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions

MPN claims attorneys’ fees for 28.15 associate hours and 30.6 partner hours for 

drafting the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, requesting an extension to the page limit for 

that motion, and for seeking a modification of the scheduling order as order by the Court. 

CVIN objects to 8.7 hours of partner time that Mr. Kremer billed for drafting a motion to 

request an extension to the page limit and editing MPN’s portion of the joint statement down to 

the page limit. CVIN also objects to 6.7 hours of associate time that Ms. Kelley billed for 

analyzing documents produced by CVIN. 

Neither of CVIN’s objections is sustainable. Before incurring the costs to draft a 

motion requesting an extension of the joint statement page limit, Mr. Kremer requested that 

CVIN agree to extend the page limit. CVIN refused. Thus, any expenses incurred in drafting 

the motion were the result of CVIN’s conduct—CVIN cannot now complain that MPN was 

running up the tab, so to speak, because Mr. Kremer was required to prepare a motion to extend 

the page limit. Nor does it make sense to discount the hours Mr. Kremer billed to edit the joint 

statement down to the page limit; editing is (or should be) a necessary part of filing any 

document in court. 

CVIN also requests that the Court discount the hours requested because a portion of the 

joint statement discussed CVIN’s pre-March 2, 2016 conduct and asked for terminating 

sanctions, which were not granted. CVIN argues that these portions of the joint statement were 

unnecessary and thus should not be compensated. But CVIN’s request is impractical and 

incorrect. First, the Court (and the parties, for that matter) is simply unable to parse through 

each sentence or paragraph of the joint statement to determine which were “necessary” and 

which were “unnecessary” to the relief that was ultimately awarded. Second, as noted on the 

record, the Court considered issuing terminating sanctions and looked to CVIN’s pre-March 2, 

2016 conduct in deciding whether and what to award in sanctions. It is thus incorrect to say 

that the request for terminating sanctions was unnecessary. Finally, the Court finds that the 6.7 

hours Ms. Kelley spent “analyzing” documents produced by CVIN were necessary in drafting 

the joint statement because the billing entries explain that the analysis was done specifically to 

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 9
6

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

determine what CVIN had failed to produce. (Kremer Decl. Exh. E, ECF No. 388.) This 

information would have been particularly important when drafting the joint statement. MPN is 

entitled to $13,983.75 for the drafting of the joint statement and other associated pleadings.

F. Preparing and Arguing the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions

MPN requests a variety of expenses for the three attorneys who appeared or assisted in 

the preparation for the hearing on the Motion:

James D. Kremer (Partner)

 15.25 hours of travel time1for a round trip from Minneapolis to Fresno

 13.75 hours to review the joint statement (and associated cases), prepare for the 

hearing, and attend the hearing

 $1,451.78 in travel expenses, including airfare, hotel, car rental, meals, and 

parking

Matthew L. Hawk (Partner)

 6 hours of travel time for a round trip from San Francisco to Fresno

 2 hours to attend the hearing

 $199.80 in mileage expenses

 $17.76 in travel expenses, including parking and a meal

Olivia M. Kelley (Associate)

 7.9 hours preparing for the hearing

CVIN objects to: (1) the amount of time spent by Mr. Kremer and Ms. Kelley to 

prepare for the hearing; (2) Mr. Kremer’s travel time and expenses; and (3) fees spent for more 

than one attorney at the hearing. In large part, CVIN simply objects that it was unnecessarily 

duplicative for both Mr. Hawk and Mr. Kremer to attend the hearing and that Mr. Kremer 

should not have traveled out from Minneapolis. In CVIN’s view, only Mr. Hawk should have 

attended and argued at the hearing.

 

1 MPN is paying for travel time at one-half of each attorney’s standard billing rate, or $125/hour for partners. 

Courts within the Eastern District of California have traditionally found that travel time can be reimbursed “at the 

attorney’s normal monthly rate.” Hall v. City of Fairfield, Case No. 2:10-cv-0508-DAD, 2014 WL 1286001, at 

*13 n. 21 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2014) (surveying cases within the Eastern District of California).

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 6 of 9
7

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

As an initial matter, the Court notes that “the attendance of more than two attorneys is 

not per se duplicative” in calculating attorneys’ fees. Oberfelder v. City of Petaluma, No. C98-1470 MHP, 2002 WL 472308, at *7–8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2002), aff'd sub nom. Oberfelder 

v. Bertoli, 67 F. App'x 408 (9th Cir. 2003) (attendance of two attorneys at depositions, case 

management conferences, settlement conferences, and case investigations not “improper or 

superfluous”); see also True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-CV-02219-

HSG-DMR, 2015 WL 3453459, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2015) (“The court agrees that Mr. 

Hara’s and Mr. Jonckheer’s attendance at the hearing was reasonable.”); Seven Signatures 

General Partnership v. Irongate Azrep BW LLC, 871 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1056 (D. Haw. 2012) 

(“Two attorneys may recover fees for their appearances at court proceedings when it is 

reasonable and necessary for a ‘second chair’ to appear with lead counsel.”). Thus, the mere 

fact that Mr. Kremer and Mr. Hawk appeared for the hearing does not make their requested fees 

unreasonable or unnecessary.

Mr. Kremer’s attendance at the hearing was also justified based on the facts of this case. 

As the billing records indicate, Mr. Kremer and Ms. Kelley were the attorneys on point for the 

bulk of the work on this Motion. (Kremer Decl. Exhs. D, E, and F, ECF No. 388.) Mr. Kremer 

was the attorney who originally entered into the stipulation of March 2, 2016 that was adopted 

as the court order CVIN violated. (ECF No. 269.) He then appeared for MPN in the informal 

discovery conference regarding the violation of that court order. (ECF No. 348.) That 

violation was the impetus for the current Motion—thus, it makes sense that Mr. Kremer (or Ms. 

Kelley, who also appears to have invested significant time on this Motion) appear to argue the 

Motion. 

Moreover, some degree of duplication “is inherent in the process of litigating over 

time.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) (“By and large the 

court should defer to the winning lawyer’s professional judgment as to how much time he was 

required to spend on the case; after all, he won, and might not have, had he been more of a 

slacker.”). The Motion at issue involved an expansive document production and was the 

culmination of a long series of discovery disputes that has stretched over many months in this 

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

litigation. The Court thus finds that Mr. Kremer’s attendance at the hearing was a necessary 

expense and that his preparation efforts were not duplicative with Ms. Kelley’s. Nor was the 

time billed for that preparation excessive, given the size of the document production and 

briefing associated with the Motion. While CVIN would no doubt prefer if it were in a position 

to dictate how MPN allocates its legal resources, it does not make sense to second guess 

MPN’s staffing decisions here.

2

 

The Court declines to trim MPN’s claimed fees and finds that MPN is entitled to 

$6,795.53 for Mr. Kremer’s time and expenses, $1,777.50 for Ms. Kelley’s time, and $1,467.56 

for Mr. Hawk’s time and expenses. This totals to $10,040.59 for preparation and attendance at 

the Motion hearing.

G. Drafting and Filing the Memorandum of Costs

MPN asks that the fee award include time spent drafting and filing the Memorandum of 

Costs and its supporting documents. In particular, MPN claims that Mr. Kremer billed 19.05 

hours and Ms. Kelley billed 4 hours for the preparation and filing of the Memorandum. CVIN 

objects to this request, saying that the legal authorities and information in the Memorandum 

should have been filed in the original Motion and that CVIN should not be required to pay 

“unnecessarily high expenses incurred as a result of [MPN’s] own failings.” (Objection to 

Supplemental Memorandum of Costs 9:26-27, ECF No. 390.) 

Parties are entitled to recoup fees incurred in “preparing, defending, and appealing” 

requests for attorney’s fees. Brown v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 492, 497 (9th Cir. 1990); Rosenfeld v. 

U.S. Dept. of Justice, 904 F.Supp.2d 988, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“In this Circuit, plaintiffs 

may recover attorney’s fees for time reasonably expended on a motion for attorney fees and 

costs.”). The Court, after determining that MPN’s motion to compel should be granted, 

specifically directed MPN to submit a memorandum of costs and described the specific 

categories for which MPN could request costs. Any fees incurred in creating such a 

 

2 The Court also observes that CVIN appeared at the hearing through William Eliopoulos and Kaveh Badiei of 

Rutan and Tucker, both of whom traveled from Palo Alto. Messrs. Eliopoulos and Badiei also brought Kyre 

Stucklin, an attorney and eDiscovery Practice Support Manager, and two client representatives, including the CEO 

of CVIN. CVIN, at least, appears to have thought it prudent to bring more than one attorney to the hearing.

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

memorandum are thus part of the Motion for Sanctions and are compensable. CVIN contends 

that MPN should not have spent time including legal authorities and argument in its 

Memorandum, but the “argument” that CVIN objects to is largely nothing more than a 

narrative describing when, how, and why specific costs were incurred.3 Had MPN not included 

this information, CVIN would likely now be arguing that MPN had not done enough to justify 

its fees request and that it should be denied on those grounds. 

CVIN’s objection is overruled. MPN is entitled to an award of $5,662.50 for the 

preparation and filing of the Memorandum of Costs and associated exhibits. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS MPN’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 

370) and SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART CVIN’s Objections to MPN’s 

Memorandum of Costs (ECF No. 390). The Court awards sanctions in the amount of 

$35,349.34 against CVIN and in favor of MPN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

For example, MPN discusses the fees associated with the Memorandum of Costs: “In response to the Court’s 

directive regarding this submission, MPN has expended time carefully reviewing the documented fees and costs 

incurred in connection with this motion to ensure that its request is within the scope of those activities which the 

Court concluded are recoverable by MPN as a Rule 37 sanction. In addition, MPN conducted legal research to 

provide the Court with authority establishing the reasonableness of its counsels’ hourly rates, as well as the 

reasonableness of the hours expended by its counsel on the activities that the Court has indicated are recoverable 

by MPN.” (Supplemental Memorandum of Costs 16:6-12, ECF No. 387.)

Case 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG Document 409 Filed 10/06/16 Page 9 of 9