Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast
- Donna Ryu
- 4:13-cv-05472
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Erickson Productions v. Kast, Judge Ryu denied Plaintiffs’ request to change a fee award, finding disagreement with the prior decision was not clear error.
The ruling affected Plaintiffs’ request to change their supplemental attorneys’ fee award and left the $176,680.70 award in place. Defendant opposed the motion.
What happened
In Erickson Productions Inc. v. Kraig Rudinger Kast, Plaintiffs asked the court to change an earlier order awarding them $176,680.70 in attorneys’ fees for work related to a second trial. The earlier award had reduced their requested $252,401 by 30% because some work appeared duplicative and the time records did not clearly show how the attorneys’ hours were divided.
Plaintiffs argued that the work was not duplicative and that attorney Kleinman’s work was substantial and necessary. They also submitted revised time records. The court said Plaintiffs had not shown newly discovered evidence or a change in the law, and that the revised records were not new evidence because they could have been submitted with the original fee request.
Judge Donna Ryu denied Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the fee order and amended judgment. The court concluded that Plaintiffs’ arguments were disagreements with its earlier assessment, not a clear error warranting reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast · No. 4:13-cv-05472
- Donna Ryu
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
After a retrial concerning willful copyright infringement and statutory damages, the court awarded Plaintiffs a supplemental attorneys’ fee award. Plaintiffs had requested $252,401 for work connected to that phase of the case. The court reduced the request by 30%, citing duplication between work for the second trial and work for earlier phases for which Erickson had already received fees. The court also noted that the time records did not identify how many hours were spent by each timekeeper and that Kleinman had not appeared in court before the judge. The resulting award was $176,680.70.
Motion and arguments
Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the fee order and amended judgment. Rule 59(e) allows a court to reconsider a prior order in limited circumstances, such as newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or clear error. The motion was filed within the required 28-day period.
Plaintiffs did not identify newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law. They argued instead that the 30% reduction was clearly erroneous because none of the work performed after remand was duplicative and Kleinman’s work was substantial and necessary. Plaintiffs also submitted a new set of time records. The court declined to consider those records, explaining that they were not new evidence and that submitting them with the motion was an improper attempt to redo the original fee submission.
Ruling
The court held that Plaintiffs’ arguments amounted to disagreements with the earlier fee decision rather than clear error. It emphasized that the judge had presided over the matter since June 2019, had reviewed the record from the original trial, and had presided over the second trial, placing the court in a strong position to assess the reasonableness of the requested fees. Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the fee order and amended judgment.
Effect of the order
The order left in place the earlier supplemental attorneys’ fee award of $176,680.70 described in the opinion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.