Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744-23/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN H. RASNICK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 

NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF A 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants filed a motion for relief from Judge Paul Grewal’s sanctions order which asked 

the undersigned to (1) refuse to issue Judge Grewal’s adverse inference instruction at trial and (2) 

decrease to $50,000, or eliminate altogether, the $212,320 in monetary sanctions awarded to 

Plaintiff. See ECF 209 at 3-5. On May 29, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for relief

with regard to the adverse inference sanction, but deferred ruling on the relief sought from 

monetary sanctions until Plaintiff could provide the Court with briefing. Plaintiff filed an 

opposition on June 1, 2015. ECF 217. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES 

Defendants’ motion.

Defendants set forth two grounds for relief from Judge Grewal’s order: first, that the award 

was excessive because “Plaintiff’s counsel attributed every billable hour for a period of eight 

months” to the motion for sanctions. Second, is that Defendants “incurred over $214,000 in 

separate expenses for the forensic examination of their media.” Mot. at 5. Neither argument is 

persuasive. First, Defendants provide no support for their claim that Plaintiff’s counsel sought 

compensation for every hour billed on this case for a period of eight months. A review of the 

Tilley Declaration filed in support of the motion for sanctions makes this clear: Mr. Tilley, who 

declared that he spent 277.4 hours on Plaintiff’s behalf in seeking to “secure Defendants’

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 224 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

compliance with the Federal Rules and this Court’s Orders,” stated that these hours did “not 

include tasks which I would have needed to perform in the absence of Defendants’ misconduct.”

Tilley Decl., ECF 127-1 at ¶ 46. Mr. Tilley makes similar declarations for counsel Renee Bea and 

Doug Colt, who sought compensation for 73 and 59.5 hours of work, respectively. See id. at ¶¶ 47-

48. Judge Grewal’s sanctions order found these fees, as well as fees incurred in drafting and filing 

Plaintiff’s reply, “reasonable in light of the extraordinary effort required to uncover [Defendants’] 

widespread [discovery] abuse.” Sanctions Order, ECF 196 at 16. The Court agrees with Judge 

Grewal – Defendants’ spoliation was widespread and purposeful, and Plaintiff’s counsel should be 

able to obtain reasonable fees in light of such misconduct. 

Defendants’ second argument is completely without merit. Defendants had to pay for Stroz 

Friedberg’s forensic examination as a result of Plaintiff’s successful motion to compel. It is this 

examination that confirmed Defendants’ widespread spoliation. See ECF 62, 76, 196 at 5. 

Defendants cannot avoid paying in full the monetary sanctions Judge Grewal ordered be paid to 

Plaintiff because they also had to pay for the forensic examination that confirmed their 

wrongdoing. 

The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion for relief from Judge Grewal’s monetary 

sanctions, and ORDERS Defendants to pay $212,320 – the full amount awarded by Judge Grewal 

– to Plaintiff no later than June 12, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 224 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2