Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00528/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00528-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

3COM, INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PALMONE, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-00-2255 DLJ (EDL)

 C-03-4747 DLJ (EDL)

 C-04-528 DLJ (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

JUDGMENT CREDITOR ACCESS

SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC.’S MOTION

FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES

On May 5, 2008, the Court granted in part Judgment Creditor Access Systems Americas’

motion to compel discovery from Plaintiff. See Declaration of Andrew Oliver Ex. 24. Access

Systems now seeks payment of its expenses incurred in bringing that motion against Plaintiff and its

counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) in the amount of $24,597.94. 

Case 4:04-cv-00528-DLJ Document 627 Filed 07/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Plaintiff opposed Access Systems’ motion, arguing primarily that the objections to Access Systems’

discovery was substantially justified. Because the Court granted Access Systems’ motion only in

part, albeit in large part, Rule 37(a)(5)(A) does not appear to apply to the award of expenses. 

Instead, the Court applies Rule 37(a)(5)(C): “If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the

court may issue any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and may, after giving an

opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” 

Although the Court need not make any findings on the issue of substantial justification under

Rule 37(a)(5)(C), Plaintiff’s objections to discovery based on Civil Local Rule 26-2 and 28 U.S.C. §

1963 were particularly meritless as discussed at the hearings on this motion and on the motion to

compel. Moreover, Plaintiff made initial objections to discovery, based on issues such as ripeness

and harassment, that it did not defend in its opposition to the motion to compel. Further, Plaintiff

prevailed on only a small number of points, notably vagueness and overbreadth, in connection with

the motion to compel. Accordingly, the Court will apportion the expenses by shifting the majority

to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff argues that the hourly rates charged by Access Systems’ counsel are unreasonable

based on the average rates in the 2007 Report of the Economic Survey of the American Intellectual

Property Association. See Declaration of Kelly Cunningham ¶ 18, Ex. 10. Although Access

Systems’ rates are on the high end of the scale, they are the rates actually charged to the client and

are not unreasonable in light of the market in the Bay Area, counsel’s expertise in intellectual

property matters, and Judge Jensen’s approval in November 2007 of fees based on rates previously

in effect for the same firm. Although the firm’s rates have risen since that time, as is customary,

counsel represented at the hearing that the increases were annualized and not excessive. Further,

Plaintiff’s former counsel charged similar rates. See Oliver Decl. Ex. 36. Accordingly, the Court

approves Access Systems’ counsel’s rates. 

Plaintiff also objects to Access Systems’ billing records on the grounds that almost all of

counsel’s billing entries are in increments of 0.5 hours, that the total number of hours (51) worked is

unreasonable, and that there was improper “block billing.” However, Plaintiff has failed to point to

specific billing entries to establish any impropriety in the records. Moreover, the Court has

Case 4:04-cv-00528-DLJ Document 627 Filed 07/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

reviewed the records and finds that, in general, the hours worked were not unreasonable given the

number of objections made by Plaintiff that required Access Systems to respond. 

Access Systems argues that any fee award should be assessed against counsel as well as the

client. See Rockwell Int’l, Inc. v. Pos-A-Transaction Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 1324, 1326 (9th Cir.

1983) (where an attorney’s advice is not justified, an award of expenses against him or her is

proper); U.S. v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir. 1980)

(approving sanctions against attorneys for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery). These

cases, however, involve more serious misconduct such as flagrant disregard of court orders. 

Because there has been no similarly egregious conduct here, the Court declines to award fees against

counsel. Plaintiff’s current counsel was hired in December 2007, and there is no reason to impute

any prior conduct to new counsel. 

Accordingly, Access Systems’ motion for payment of expenses is granted in part. The Court

reduces the requested fee award by 10% to account for the small number of points on which Plaintiff

prevailed on the motion to compel. Therefore, Access Systems’ motion is granted in the amount of

$22,138.15 against Plaintiff only. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00528-DLJ Document 627 Filed 07/22/08 Page 3 of 3