Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01954/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01954-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Nelcela, Inc., an Arizona corporation, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV02-1954-PHX-MHM

ORDER

In its order dated November 22, 2005, the Court stated that it would impose

sanctions against MTSI and its counsel consisting of cost s incurred by Nelcela for the

July 18, 2005 travel of its exp ert s t o Phoenix, including time billed by such experts that was

not otherwise productive in the litigation. See Doc. #300. The Court expressly declined

to grant sanct ions for costs incurred on July 19, 2005. The Court directed Nelcela to file

a memorandum setting forth the July 18 costs.

In disregard of the Court’s Order, Nelcela has filed a memorandum seeking not only

expert costs and fees for July 18, 2005, but also expert costs and fees incurred on July 19,

2005 and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in July, August , Sep t ember, and November,

2005. Nelcela seeks sanctions in excess of $28,000. In addition to this overreaching, the

requested fees and costs include clearly unreasonable amounts, such as $400 in meal

expenses for two experts for t wo days, a total of 23.5 hours of travel time for the two

experts to fly from New Jersey to Phoenix, and $245 in car rent al expenses for one day.

Case 2:02-cv-01954-DJH Document 315 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Nelcela argues that it should recover fees and costs for July 19, 2005, because the

Court’s Judicial Assistant directed Nelcela’s lawyers and exp erts to fly to California that

day. The decision to fly to California was Nelcela’s, not the Court’s. Moreover, even if

counsel act ed in response to a comment from the Court’s staff, that action is not

attributable to MTSI or its counsel.

- 2 -

Moreover, none of the exp enses are explained in any detail and Nelcela has failed to

provide the information specifically sought by the Court – exclusion of expert fees incurred

on July 18, 2005 that were otherwise productive in this case. See Doc. #300 at 3.1

 

Nelcela’s memorandum persuades the Court not only to deny its request for more

than $28,000 in sanctions, but to reduce the sanctions actually awarded to reflect Nelcela’s

overreaching. Because the Court continues to believe t hat the conduct of MTSI and its

counsel was sanctionable, the Court will impose sanctions as follows: 

• $1,820 in airfare for Nelcela’s experts to fly from New Jersey to Phoenix and

back (twice the $910 airfare reflected in the P.G. Lewis & Associates invoice

for the one-way flights from New Jersey to Phoenix);

• $339 for one night’s lodging in Phoenix (approximately one-half the two

nights’ lodging set forth in the P.G. Lewis & Associates invoice);

• A total of ten hours of round-trip travel time for Robert DeCicco in the

amount of $2,250 (consisting of five hours assumed travel from New Jersey

to Phoenix and five hours from Phoenix to New Jersey);

• A total of ten hours of t ravel time for Kevin Faulkner in the amount of $1,850

(consisting of five hours’ travel time from New Jersey t o Phoenix and five

hours from Phoenix to New Jersey);

• A reduction in t he sanctions of $1,000 due to Nelcela’s overreaching in its

fee memorandum.

Sanct ions in the amount of $5,259.00 ($6,259.00- $1,000.00) shall be paid by MTSI

and it s counsel to Nelcela on or before January 31, 2006. MTSI and its counsel shall

determine how these sanctions are to be allocated between counsel and client, but in

making this decision the client shall be provided a copy of the Court’s previous Order

(Doc. #300).

Case 2:02-cv-01954-DJH Document 315 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

This Order concludes the undersigned judge’s involvement in this case. Further

matters should be addressed to the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-01954-DJH Document 315 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3