Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 Patent 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: August 19, 2014*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs, v.

GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING MONETARY 

SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 268]

In this patent infringement case, the Court previously found that Plaintiff PersonalWeb 

engaged in spoliation by failing to timely implement a litigation hold when it reasonably foresaw 

litigation, which resulted in at least one PersonalWeb employee intentionally deleting hundreds of 

potentially relevant emails that would have otherwise have been preserved. See Order Granting in

Part Def.’s Mot. Sanctions (“Order”), Dkt. No. 267. Although Google had requested harsher 

sanctions, namely dismissal, adverse inference, issue preclusion, and evidentiary sanctions, the 

Court awarded Google only “monetary sanctions sufficient to reimburse it for reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs associated with its spoliation-related discovery and motions practice.” Order at 7. 

Pursuant to the Order, counsel for Google provided a declaration with supporting documentation 

describing Google’s spoliation related expenses. See Decl. Michael A. Berta Resp. Order (“Berta 

Decl.”), Dkt. No. 268. PersonalWeb filed a response challenging the reasonableness of certain 

expenses and the detail of the supporting information on the whole. See PesronalWeb’s Resp. to 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California

Berta Decl., Dkt. No. 274-3. Google offered, and the Court subsequently ordered it, to submit 

additional information for in camera review. Considering both parties’ submissions, the Court 

awards Google monetary sanctions in the amount of $123,934.09.

LEGAL STANDARD

“District courts must calculate awards for attorneys’ fees using the ‘lodestar’ method, and 

the amount of that fee must be determined on the facts of each case.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., 

Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 982 (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. 

“In determining reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records 

justifying the hours claimed to have been expended.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 

1205, 1210. “Those hours may be reduced by the court where the documentation of the hours is 

inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; if the hours expended are deemed 

excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. “[I]n cases where a voluminous fee application is filed in 

exercising its billing judgment the district court is not required to set forth an hour-by-hour analysis 

of the fee request. Rather . . . when faced with a massive fee application the district court has the 

authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the 

final lodestar figure as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application.” Id. at 1399 

(citations omitted). 

In determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, the court should take into account the 

relevant factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975). McGrath 

v. Cnty. of Nev., 67 F.3d 248, 252 (9th Cir. 1995). The twelve Kerr factors are: 

(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions 

involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the 

preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the 

customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed 

by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, 

(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of 

the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, 

and (12) awards in similar cases.

Kerr, 526 F.2d at 252. Although the lodestar is presumptively reasonable, it may be adjusted based 

on Kerr factors not previously considered in its calculation. Id. “The district court has a great deal 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 2 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee . . . .” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 

1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). 

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, PersonalWeb objects that Google’s supporting documentation is 

insufficiently specific to comply with the order, which required Google to “describe each item with 

sufficient particularity so as to allow the Court to make a determination that it was reasonable and 

exclusive to the issue of spoliation.” Upon in camera review of the unredacted materials, which 

include a “biller’s narrative” for each entry, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of entries for 

which Google is requesting reimbursement relate exclusively to the issue of spoliation. It is 

impossible, though, through no fault of Google, to determine the reasonableness of each individual 

entry in isolation. Rather, the Court will assess the reasonableness of the hours spent on the broader 

categories of activities or stages identified by Google: (1) initial Jake Drew contact; (2) deposition 

of Jake Drew; (3) initial drafting of motion; (4) discovery follow up after Drew deposition; (5)

deposition of Joshua Jarvis; (6) discovery follow up after Jarvis deposition; (7) drafting and revising 

opening brief; (8) submission of motion; (9) preparation and submission of reply brief; and (10) 

preparation and attendance at Hearing.

A. Reasonableness of Hours

1. Initial Jake Drew Contact

Google’s pursuit of the spoliation issue began when it was initially contacted by former 

PersonalWeb employee Jake Drew, who indicated that PersonalWeb may have engaged in a mass 

destruction of discovery materials prior to trial. Google generally describes this stage as conducting 

factual and legal research related to spoliation and strategizing about how to proceed in light of 

Drew’s allegations. PersonalWeb scoffs that Google could have reasonably spent $7,594.57 in fees 

with more than a week’s worth of billing for “initial Jake Drew contact.” However, in view of the 

rather extraordinary circumstances presented by Drew’s initial contact, and having reviewed the 

narratives for the entries, the Court thinks that these hours spent were reasonable.

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2. Deposition of Jake Drew

PersonalWeb objects to the fees associated with the deposition of Jake Drew because the 

entries may relate to Google’s contemporaneous hunt for evidence to support its motion to transfer, 

in view of the fact that Google sought leave to file a supplemental brief in support of its motion to 

transfer based largely on testimony from Drew’s deposition. However, the Court is convinced that 

the entries for which Google seeks reimbursement at this stage were only incidentally related to a 

motion to transfer, if at all. In other words, the expenses were caused by the spoliation issue and 

would have occurred regardless of any subsequent motion to transfer. Accordingly, the Court finds 

these expenses reasonable.

3. Initial Drafting of Motion

PersonalWeb argues that Google should not be reimbursed for the $53,819.31 for the initial 

drafting of the motion during the fall of 2012 as it did not even file the motion until fall 2013, and it 

is not entitled to recover for efforts it strategically abandoned while this case was before the Texas 

Court. The Court agrees with PersonalWeb to some extent as much of the research and writing 

related to spoliation in Texas would not have been applicable to the motion it ultimately brought in 

California. For example, an early entry in the “drafting and revising opening brief” category a year 

later describes researching “law regarding spoliation in California.” At the same time, waiting a 

year between drafting the motions would necessarily lead to additional review and duplication of 

effort. Accordingly, the Court finds that only fifty percent of the hours spent related to “initial 

drafting of the motion” are reasonable.

4. Discovery Follow Up After Drew Deposition

PersonalWeb asserts that Google’s initial drafting of the motion indicates that its subsequent 

discovery was unnecessary. The Court disagrees and finds that these activities are generally 

reasonable.

5. Deposition of Joshua Jarvis

Google asserts that it conservatively estimated that only fifty percent of expenses associated 

with the Jarvis deposition were related to spoliation. However, PersonalWeb notes that the first 

question related to document retention does not appear in the transcript until page 163 of 207 pages; 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 4 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

thus, Google is entitled to be reimbursed for no more than one quarter of Jarvis deposition related 

expenses. Google maintains that previous questions were also relevant so spoliation; for example, 

determining his job responsibilities was relevant to determining the scope of relevance of destroyed 

documents. However, it seems likely that such a question would have been asked regardless of the 

spoliation inquiry. The Court thinks that PersonalWeb’s logic is fair and finds that only twenty-five 

percent of hours in this category are reasonable and exclusively related to spoliation.

6. Discovery Follow Up After Jarvis Deposition

PersonalWeb is “baffled” by Google’s claim that it reasonably expended $43,046.85 in fees 

related to “discovery follow up after Jarvis deposition” considering that the parties’ discovery 

activity was limited to only a few exchanges during that time. However, from reviewing the 

individual entries, the Court cannot say that the activities seem unreasonable. Thus, for purposes of 

the initial lodestar calculation, the Court deems them reasonable.

7. Motion for Sanctions

PersonalWeb does not challenge the reasonableness of the hours in categories 7-10 related to 

the drafting and submission of the motion for sanctions, the reply, and the hearing. Thus, at this 

stage, the Court deems them reasonable.

B. Reasonable Hourly Rate

“[T]he established standard when determining a reasonable hourly rate is the rate prevailing 

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

reputation.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Google seeks 

attorney’s fees for eight attorneys with different geographic locations, levels of experience, and 

hourly rates. In support of Google’s assertion that its attorneys’ rates are reasonable, it attached an 

excerpt from the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2013 Report of the Economic 

Survey, which indicates the average billing rates of partners and associates who practice intellectual 

property, broken down by geographic region. For the most part, the attorneys charge a rate within 

the reported average to seventy-fifth percentile range for their respective locations considering their 

experience, and they all charge about the average rate for San Francisco. PersonalWeb does not 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 5 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

object to the reasonableness of the rates. Accordingly, the Court finds them reasonableLodestar 

Adjustment

The lodestar may be adjusted based on Kerr factors not previously considered in its 

calculation. Here, the Court is primarily concerned with the eighth factor, “results obtained.” In its 

motion for sanctions, Google sought three tiers of sanctions/relief: (1) dismissal of the action; 

alternatively, (2) adverse inference, issue preclusion, and evidentiary sanctions; and in any case, (3) 

monetary sanctions. The Court found that dismissal was “certainly not warranted” and denied 

Google’s alternative bid for substantive sanctions because it “suffered little or no substantive 

prejudice.” Order at 7. The Court awarded only monetary sanctions to serve the dual purposes of 

punishment and compensation. However, the Court has no intention of rewarding Google for its 

dogged pursuit of dismissal where such relief was unrealistic, and it seems that much of the nearly 

$300,000 in attorney’s fees was unreasonably spent toward that end. Moreover, $300,000 in 

monetary sanctions is not commensurate with PersonalWeb’s culpability or Google’s prejudice as 

discussed in the Order. Thus, to factor in the results obtained relative to the sanctions pursued, the 

Court will adjust the lodestar downward by fifty percent.

C. Costs

Google also seeks costs incurred by Google’s counsel related to spoliation, namely

$7,666.85 for messenger services, Westlaw database research services, travel expenses, and court 

reporting services. PersonalWeb opposes certain cost entries related to bringing Drew to the 

January hearing, as well as those related to multiple issues, e.g. spoliation hearings and unrelated 

depositions of Google employees. The Court agrees and will deduct those entries from the total 

award of sanctions.

Google also seeks reimbursement, as a cost related to spoliation, of providing independent 

counsel for Drew, for a total of $36,643.75 in attorney’s fees and $347.59 in costs. Google explains 

that it “determined that to protect Mr. Drew and Google from any inadvertent breaks of privilege, 

Mr. Drew should have the option to be advised by independent counsel. Google agreed to pay for 

independent counsel . . . .” Berta Decl. at 8. PersonalWeb objects to this cost in its entirety as 

Google was under no obligation to provide Drew with counsel, nothing in the Order suggests that 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 6 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

PersonalWeb is on the hook for such costs, and Google has failed to explain any reason why it 

should be. The Court agrees. While Google may have found it ultimately beneficial to provide 

independent counsel for a third party witness, it went above and beyond what was reasonably 

necessary, and the Court will not require PersonalWeb to compensate Google for its excessive 

spending.

CONCLUSION

From a total of $269,673 in requested attorney’s fees, the Court deducts $26,909.66 from 

“initial drafting of motion” and $7,977.01 from “deposition of Joshua Jarvis” for a lodestar of 

$234,786.61. The Court further adjusts the lodestar downward fifty percent for a total of 

$117,393.31. The Court also deducts from Google’s request of $7,666.85 in costs $1,126.07 for 

Drew’s travel to the January hearing as well as costs which did not exclusively relate to spoliation, 

for a total of $6,540.78. Google is not reimbursed for costs related to Drew’s independent counsel. 

Accordingly, Google is awarded $123,934.09 in monetary sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2014

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

C13-01317 EJD (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Adam Hockensmith ahockensmith@susmangodfrey.com, jdunaven@susmangodfrey.com 

Allen Franklin Gardner allengardner@potterminton.com 

Ashley Lauren McMillian amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com 

Ashley Lauren Denton McMillian amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com 

Davida P Brook dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, eball@susmangodfrey.com 

Daymon Jeffrey Rambin jrambin@capshawlaw.com 

Elizabeth DeRieux ederieux@capshawlaw.com 

Joseph S. Grinstein jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com 

Justin Adatto Nelson jnelson@susmangodfrey.com 

Kalpana Srinivasan ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com, hdanielson@susmangodfrey.com 

Manmeet Walia mwalia@susmangodfrey.com, pwallace@susmangodfrey.com 

Marc M. Seltzer mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

Matthew M. Wolf matthew.wolf@aporter.com, aarash.haghighat@aporter.com 

Max Lalon Tribble , Jr mtribble@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com 

Michael A. Berta michael.berta@aporter.com, alaina.austin@aporter.com, 

john.fitzpatrick@aporter.com, sfcalendar@aporter.com 

Michael Anthony Berta michael.berta@aporter.com 

Michael Edwin Jones mikejones@potterminton.com, jovallery@potterminton.com 

Nicholas Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com 

Nicholas H Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com, elizabeth.tryon@aporter.com, 

gloria.turner@aporter.com, john.fitzpatrick@aporter.com, MaryAnne.Donaldson@aporter.com 

Ryan J. Casamiquela ryan.casamiquela@aporter.com, jane.rustice@aporter.com, 

SFCalendar@aporter.com 

Sandeep Seth ss@sethlaw.com 

Sara Patricia Zogg sara.zogg@aporter.com 

Sidney Calvin Capshaw , III ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 324 Filed 08/19/14 Page 8 of 8