Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al, No. 5:2010cv02863 - Document 820 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISARS MOTION FOR FEES by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 780 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2015)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al Doc. 820 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al., 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES (Re: Docket No. 780) 10 IPTRONICS INC., et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 Last August, the court refereed several discovery disputes between Plaintiffs Avago 13 14 Technologies, Inc., et al. and Defendants IPtronics Inc., et al. as well as third parties, including 15 Finisar Corp.1 The upshot of these proceedings was that Avago was allowed to depose third 16 parties that it had not previously deposed, and that Avago would bear the fees and costs of these 17 depositions and document production.2 Unfortunately, this straightforward order has predictably 18 spawned further bickering, and Finisar now moves for an order to show cause why Avago should 19 not be held in contempt for its failure to pay Finisar’s fees and costs, or alternatively, to compel 20 payment.3 In June and July, Avago served deposition and document subpoenas on Finisar.4 Finisar 21 22 23 1 See Docket No. 697. 2 See Docket No. 703 at 2. 3 See Docket No. 780. 4 See Docket No. 780 at 1. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES Dockets.Justia.com 1 objected,5 Avago moved to compel compliance with the subpoenas,6 and Finisar both opposed 2 Avago’s motion7 and moved for a protective order and to quash the deposition subpoena.8 While 3 this motion practice proceeded, Finisar also worked on analyzing the subpoenas and began 4 identifying potentially responsive documents and potential witnesses for deposition.9 Following a 5 hearing on these (and other) motions,10 the court issued a written order on August 7, 2015.11 The 6 court held that Avago could “only take deposition of third parties it [had] not previously deposed, 7 including Finisar Corporation.”12 It also held that “Avago shall pay for any fees and costs 8 associated with document production and depositions.”13 Following the court’s August 7 order, 9 Finisar and Avago proceeded with discovery through October.14 Finisar produced approximately 1,130 pages and Avago deposed three Finisar witnesses on October 7, for a total of fewer than 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 seven hours.15 12 On August 12, 2015, Finisar sent Avago its first fees and costs invoice, for $52,541.07, 13 covering work done by Finisar personnel and outside counsel from June 2 to August 10.16 On 14 15 5 See id. 16 6 See Docket No. 649; Docket No. 674 at 3-4. 17 7 See Docket No. 678. 18 8 See Docket No. 677. 19 9 See Docket No. 780 at 2. 20 10 See Docket No. 697. 11 See Docket No. 703. 12 Id. at 2. 13 Id. 14 See Docket No. 780 at 3. 15 See Docket No. 794 at 1. 16 See Docket No. 780-6. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES 1 October 13, 2015, Finisar sent its second invoice, for $130,754.92, covering August 11 to October 2 13.17 As detailed in a letter to Avago, Invoices One and Two include fees and costs for Finisar’s 3 motion for a protective order and its opposition to Avago’s motion to compel, as well as fees and 4 costs relating to the depositions and document production.18 On December 10, 2015, Finisar sent 5 its third invoice, for $44,812.08, covering October 13 to November 30.19 Invoice Three includes 6 Finisar’s fees and costs for its motion to compel payment.20 In total, Finisar requests 7 $228,108.07.21 Avago opposes and disputes the reasonableness of the fees and costs that Finisar 8 seeks.22 The court’s order allowed Avago to depose third parties it had not previously deposed, and 9 to pay “any fees and costs associated with document production and depositions.”23 As Finisar’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 counsel admitted at oral argument, this means “reasonable” fees and costs associated with 12 document production and depositions.24 The “any” is not to be construed as a blank check. 13 Furthermore, the language of the order plainly states that the fees and costs must be “associated 14 with document production and depositions.”25 With those principles as guides, the court 15 GRANTS-IN-PART Finisar’s motion to compel payment of fees and costs as follows. Finisar is entitled to payment of fees and costs associated with the depositions and 16 17 18 17 See Docket No. 780-11. 19 18 See Docket No. 780-14 at 4-6. 20 19 See Docket No. 816. 20 See Docket No. 816 at ¶ 5. 21 See id. at 2. 22 See Docket No. 794 at 1. 23 Docket No. 703 at 2. 24 See Docket No. 817. 25 Docket No. 703 at 2. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES 1 document production, but not with its motion for a protective order26 or its opposition to Avago’s 2 motion to compel.27 These filings preceded the court’s order on fees and costs and were unrelated 3 to conducting the depositions and document production that eventually took place. Moreover, 4 Finisar lost both motions.28 Granting fees and costs for this motion practice would give Finisar an 5 inappropriate windfall. Finisar also is not entitled to the fees and costs associated with its motion 6 to compel payment, because these also are not related to the depositions and document production. 7 Finisar’s invoices are block-billed and provide only monetary totals for each Finisar 8 employee and outside counsel’s work during the period covered by each invoice,29 rather than 9 discrete time entries setting forth the amount of time spent per task, a description of the work performed and the relevant billing rate. The court thus relies on the dates that document 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 production and the depositions occurred to determine which invoiced fees and costs were incurred 12 in complying with the depositions and document production. 13 On August 19, 2015, Avago sent a letter to Finisar, which stated, 14 As you well know, Finisar steadfastly refused to produce any documents until ordered to do so by the Court on August 7. There has been no document production by Finisar, and Finisar refuses even to respond to Avago’s proposed significant narrowing of the Requests for Production in the document subpoena, so that the document collection process may begin. In the face of this refusal to cooperate, Avago is concerned about the ability of Finisar to comply with the Court’s Order specifying a deadline of September 21, 2015. . . . 15 16 17 18 During the August 11 call, you stated that Finisar had not yet begun even to collect documents, and I proposed that we cooperate to develop a reasonable plan for the production of documents, based upon the narrowed scope of the revised Requests for Production, provided to you on August 13, 2015.30 19 20 Invoice One covered June 2 to August 10. It is apparent from Avago’s letter that Finisar 21 22 26 See Docket No. 677. 27 See Docket No. 678. 28 See Docket No. 703. 29 See Docket Nos. 780-6, 780-11, 816. 30 Docket No. 780-7. 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES 1 had not begun collecting documents or producing documents as of August 11. Taken in 2 combination with Finisar’s letter stating that Invoices One and Two included attorney work on 3 Finisar’s motion for a protective order and its opposition to Avago’s motion to compel,31 these 4 facts make it apparent that the work charged in Invoice One was likely not “associated with [the] 5 document production and depositions”32 that the court compelled, but primarily related to Finisar’s 6 unsuccessful motion practice. Finisar argues that during June and July, the period before the 7 court’s order, it worked on “evaluating and responding” to Avago’s subpoenas and this work “was 8 part and parcel of Finisar’s document production and depositions.”33 However, given Finisar’s 9 continued refusal as of August 19 to begin collecting documents, producing documents or responding to Avago’s proposed narrowing of document production, this pre-order work was 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 extraordinarily unproductive and it is not obvious that they were related to the document 12 production and depositions that actually took place, rather than the motions. Finisar may not 13 receive the monies requested in Invoice One. Invoice Two covered August 11 to October 13. Avago and Finisar began corresponding 14 15 on narrowed subpoena topics as early as August 13,34 and document production presumably 16 occurred sometime afterward.35 The Finisar depositions occurred on October 7.36 Based on these 17 facts, the fees and costs in Invoice Two were associated with the depositions and document 18 production ordered by the court. Finisar may receive the monies requested in Invoice Two. Invoice Three covered October 13 to November 30. The depositions already had 19 20 21 See Docket No. 780-14 at 3-5. 32 Docket No. 703 at 2. 33 Docket No. 797 at 4-5. 34 See Docket No. 780-7 at 2-3. 35 22 31 See, e.g., Docket No. 780-9 (confirming partial document production on September 15, 2015). 36 See Docket No. 780 at 3. 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES 1 concluded before this period. It is apparent from Finisar’s own papers that the bulk of the work 2 performed in this period related to invoices, correspondence, meet and confers and motion practice 3 for Finisar’s fees and costs.37 Strictly speaking, none of this work is “associated with document 4 production and depositions.”38 The court’s order was intended to mitigate the burden that third 5 party Finisar faced in complying with Avago’s discovery subpoenas.39 It was not intended to 6 allow Finisar to run up fees and costs tangentially related to discovery compliance and charge 7 them to Avago. Finisar may not receive the monies requested in Invoice Three. Finisar’s motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. Avago shall pay Finisar for Invoice Two, 8 9 $130,754.92, within 14 days. SO ORDERED. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Dated: December 17, 2015 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 37 See Docket No. 780 at 4-5. 38 Docket No. 703 at 2. 39 See id. 25 26 27 28 6 Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR FEES
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
