Opinion ID: 4525695
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim for Attorneys’ Fees

Text: Thomas Nelson moved for attorneys’ fees as the winning party for the breach of the CNDA claim. The district court denied that request. The CNDA provides for attorneys’ fees, and states in relevant part: In the event [an] action or proceedings are instituted to enforce or interpret the obligations of the Parties to this Agreement, the prevailing Party will be entitled to recover from the other Party all reasonable attorneys’ fees and attendant costs and expenses for the action or proceeding. The district court denied Thomas Nelson’s request, finding Thomas Nelson could not identify and segregate discrete activity or costs related specifically to the CNDA claim. Thomas Nelson argues the district court is required to award some of the attorneys’ fees and its decision to deny any fees at all is wrong as a matter of law. Any contractual interpretations, like interpreting who is the “prevailing party” under the CNDA, we review de novo. Gerken Paving, Inc. v. La Salle Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 510, 516 (6th Cir. 2014). The magnitude of attorneys’ fees (or whether they were granted or not), we review for abuse of discretion. Id. Like the district court, we need not decide whether Thomas Nelson was the prevailing party on the CNDA claim because we too find that Thomas Nelson failed to meet its burden of proving - 22 - Case Nos. 19-5836/5838, EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc. reasonable fees. True, a prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under a contract that explicitly provides for such fees. Monroe v. Zierden, No. W2007-01818-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4253850, at  (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2008). But a party is entitled to only the fees spent defending (or pursuing) that particular claim. See Furnco, LLC v. Laneventure, Inc., No. 07-2333, 2010 WL 11598119, at  (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010); Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at  (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015). And, crucially, a prevailing party “has the burden to make out a prima facie case for [its] request for reasonable attorney’s fees.” Monroe, 2008 WL 4253850, at  (citing Wilson Mgmt. Co. v. Star Distribs. Co., 745 S.W.2d 870, 873 (Tenn. 1988)). For proof of its “reasonable” request, Thomas Nelson offered almost all fees from the time EPAC amended its complaint to include the CNDA claim to the time the CNDA claim was dismissed, disregarding the fact it was defending against all of EPAC’s other claims as well. Thomas Nelson excluded only fees during that time related to pursuing its counterclaims and fees incurred for additional privilege logging. Thomas Nelson’s documentation of fees submitted to the district court totaled over 500 pages and the fees totaled over $4 million, an amount certainly not reasonable for defending just the CNDA claim. Not only did Thomas Nelson fail to attempt to separate the fees for the breach of the CNDA claim, Thomas Nelson claimed it was “not possible” to separate the fees because of EPAC’s trial strategy and so it was therefore entitled to all $4 million in fees. Thomas Nelson, in a complete reversal of its earlier position before the district court, now argues the district court erred in failing to grant a portion of the fees—an argument Thomas Nelson has likely waived. But, regardless, a party that fails to separate out its fees so that a court can sufficiently determine reasonable fees has not met its burden of proof. - 23 - Case Nos. 19-5836/5838, EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc. Furnco, 2010 WL 11598119, at –3 (citing Wilson Mgmt. Co., 745 S.W.2d at 873). The district court therefore did not err in denying Thomas Nelson’s motion for attorneys’ fees.