IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY, 

d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS P. HAUGHEY, an individual, 

and USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., a 

corporation, 

 Defendants.

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-cv-612-HB 

ORDER

AND NOW, this __________ day of ________________, 2006, upon 

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Postjudgment Interest and 

supporting memorandum of law, and any opposition filed thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Judgment of June 28, 2006 (Docket 

Entry No. 122) will be amended pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961(a)-(b) to include an award of postjudgment interest against defendants USI MidAtlantic, 

Inc. and against Thomas P. Haughey, each such award to be calculated from the June 28, 2006 

original date of entry of judgment to the date of payment of each defendant’s judgment, at an 

annual interest rate of 5.24% compounded annually. 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 10
An appropriate Amended Judgment reflecting this award of postjudgment interest 

will be entered. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

 ______________________________ 

Harvey Bartle III, C.J.

2 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY, 

d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS P. HAUGHEY, an individual, 

and USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., a 

corporation, 

 Defendants.

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-cv-612-HB 

AMENDED JUDGMENT

 AND NOW, this ______________ day of ______________, 2006, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)-(b), it is hereby ORDERED that 

the Court’s Judgment of June 28, 2006 (Docket Entry No. 122) is hereby amended to the 

following: 

(1) judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff William A. Graham Company 

and against defendant USI MidAtlantic, Inc. (a) in the amount of $24,612,456, said amount 

reflecting the verdict of $16,561,230 set forth in the answers of the jury to special interrogatories, 

and $8,051,266 in prejudgment interest, (b) together with an award of postjudgment interest, to 

be computed from the June 28, 2006 original date of entry to judgment to the date of payment of 

this judgment, at an annual interest rate of 5.24% compounded annually; and 

(2) judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff William A. Graham Company 

and against defendant Thomas P. Haughey (a) in the amount of $3,414,275, said amount 

reflecting the verdict of $2,297,397 set forth in the answers of the jury to special interrogatories, 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 3 of 10
and $1,116,878 in prejudgment interest, (b) together with an award of postjudgment interest, to 

be computed from the June 28, 2006 original date of entry of judgment to the date of payment of 

this judgment, at an annual interest rate of 5.24% compounded annually. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 ______________________________ 

Harvey Bartle III, C.J.

2 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 4 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY, 

d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS P. HAUGHEY, an individual, 

and USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., a 

corporation, 

 Defendants.

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-cv-612-HB 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 

JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST

Plaintiff William A. Graham Company respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)-(b) for an amendment to the Court’s Judgment of June 

28, 2006 (Docket Entry No. 122) to include an award of postjudgment interest against defendants 

USI MidAtlantic, Inc. and Thomas P. Haughey. The reasons for granting this motion are set 

forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, which is incorporated herein by reference. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: July 12, 2006 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP 

 By: /s/ David J. Wolfsohn 

 David J. Wolfsohn (Atty. ID # 57974) 

 Aleksander J. Goranin (Atty. ID # 92452) 

 Loretta W. Weathers (Atty. ID # 93913)

 One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 557-5928 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 5 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY, 

d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS P. HAUGHEY, an individual, 

and USI MIDATLANTIC, INC., a 

corporation, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-cv-612-HB 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST

Plaintiff William A. Graham Company (the “Graham Company”) respectfully requests 

that this Court amend its Judgment of June 28, 2006 (Docket Entry No. 122) to include an award 

of postjudgment interest against defendants USI MidAtlantic, Inc. and Thomas P. Haughey. The 

Court’s June 28, 2006 Judgment was entered after a jury verdict in the Graham Company’s 

favor, in which the jury awarded $16,561,230 in “profits attributable to infringement” under 17 

U.S.C. § 504(b) against USI MidAtlantic, and $2,297,397 in such profits against Mr. Haughey. 

(Docket Entry Nos. 120-121). 

 While a final computation of the amount of the postjudgment interest award cannot be 

completed until the defendants have fully paid their underlying money judgments, the parties and 

the Court currently have more than adequate information to fashion a directive specifying the 

exact manner in which postjudgment interest is to be calculated. Section 1961 of Title 28 of the 

United States Code provides that money judgments entered in federal civil cases should include 

postjudgment interest on the judgment, to be “calculated from the date of the entry of the 

1 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 6 of 10
judgment” to the “date of payment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)-(b). Section 1961 further provides 

that the postjudgment interest rate to be applied is the rate “equal to the weekly average 1-year 

constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, for the calendar week preceding the date of judgment.” Id. at § 1961(a). In this case, 

the relevant rate, as published by the Federal Reserve, is an annual interest rate of 5.24 percent. 

See Exhibit A attached, Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, Selected Interest Rates through 

June 26, 2006 (showing that for the week ending June 23, 2006, the weekly average interest rate 

for 1-year Treasury constant maturities was 5.24 percent). 

Following Section 1961’s guidelines, the proposed form of amended judgment would 

modify the Court’s June 28, 2006 Judgment to direct that postjudgment interest be awarded on 

each defendant’s judgment at an annual interest rate of 5.24%, compounded annually. 

Accordingly, the Graham Company respectfully requests that this Court amend its Judgment to 

direct that postjudgment interest be awarded in the manner specified in the proposed form of 

amended judgment.1

ARGUMENT

Section 1961 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs the award of postjudgment 

interest, and mandates that postjudgment “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in 

 

1

 The Graham Company has also filed one prior motion to amend the June 28, 2006 

Judgment – a Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest (Docket Entry No. 

123). That Motion seeks an amendment of the judgment to account for interest owed from the 

time of the defendants’ first acts of copyright infringement (in 1992) through June 26, 2006, the 

day preceding entry of the original judgment. 

 Although that Motion has not yet been decided and is currently pending, the Graham 

Company anticipates that this Court, in all likelihood, may rule on that prior motion for 

prejudgment interest at the same time as it resolves the instant motion for postjudgment interest, 

and will enter one amended judgment. Hence, for the Court’s convenience, the proposed form of 

amended judgment accompanying this current Motion is drafted on the assumption that the Court 

will grant plaintiff’s prior prejudgment interest motion as well. The reasons for awarding 

prejudgment interest are set forth at length in the Graham Company’s briefing on its Motion to 

Amend Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest. See Docket Entry No. 123. 

2 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 7 of 10
a civil case recovered in a district court” 28 U.S.C. § 1961; see also Skretvedt v. E.I. Dupont de 

Nemours, 372 F.3d 193, 216 n.32 (3d Cir. 2004) (“federal law mandates the awarding of postjudgment interest” (quoting Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1031 (4th Cir. 

1993) (en banc))). Accordingly, the Court’s final judgment in this case should include a 

provision for the award of postjudgment interest to the Graham Company. 

Furthermore, Section 1961, in subsections (a) and (b), defines the method of calculating 

the amount of any postjudgment interest award; it specifies (1) the start and end point of the time 

period during which postjudgment interest will be owed and (2) the applicable interest rate to be 

applied during that period. See id. at § 1961(a)-(b); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. 

Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 838 (1990). With respect to the time period, Section 1961 provides that 

postjudgment interest “shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment” through 

“the date of payment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)-(b). Here, judgment was entered on June 28, 2006 

(Docket Entry No. 122), commencing the running of the postjudgment interest period, and this 

period will continue to run until each defendant pays the amount of its underlying judgment. Cf. 

Corbett v. Nat’l Prods. Co., Civ. No. 94-2652, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6425, at *16 (E.D. Pa. 

May 9, 1995) (“Section 1961 provides for postjudgment interest automatically as a matter of law 

until the judgment is satisfied.”). The proposed form of amended judgment accompanying this 

Motion follows Section 1961’s guidance with respect to the definition of the relevant 

postjudgment interest period. 

As for the applicable interest rate, Section 1961 provides that postjudgment interest is to 

be calculated “at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as 

published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week 

preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Additionally, the interest “shall be 

3 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 8 of 10
compounded annually.” Id. at § 1961(b). The calendar week preceding the June 27, 2006 

Judgment in this case ended on June 23, 2006. According to Federal Reserve Statistical Release 

H.15 (Selected Interest Rates) for that period, the average weekly 1-year Treasury rate for the 

week ending June 23, 2006 was 5.24 percent. See Exhibit A attached.2

 Following Section 

1961’s instruction, plaintiff’s proposed form of amended judgment uses the rate of 5.24 percent 

and provides for annual compounding. 

In sum, all of the information necessary for specifying the formula to be applied in 

calculating postjudgment interest in this case is currently available. Since 17 U.S.C. § 1961 

provides for the award of postjudgment interest, the Graham Company respectfully requests that 

this Court amend its original June 28, 2006 Judgment to include postjudgment interest on the 

money judgment amounts entered against each defendant, based on the formula prescribed by 

Section 1961. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include 

Postjudgment Interest should, respectfully, be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: July 12, 2006 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP 

 By: /s/ David J. Wolfsohn 

 David J. Wolfsohn (Atty. ID # 57974) 

 Aleksander J. Goranin (Atty. ID # 92452) 

 Loretta W. Weathers (Atty. ID # 93913)

 One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 557-5928 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

2

 The 5.24 percent rate can be found under the column headed “Week Ending Jun 23” and 

the row titled “U.S. government securities / Treasury constant maturities / Nominal / 1-year.” 

4 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 12, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Postjudgment Interest, was served on the following by 

hand delivery: 

 Thomas E. Zemaitis, Esquire 

 Pepper Hamilton, LLP 

 3000 Two Logan Square 

 18th and Arch Streets 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 

 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 /s/ David J. Wolfsohn 

 David J. Wolfsohn 

Case 2:05-cv-00612-HB Document 136 Filed 07/12/06 Page 10 of 10