Teradek LLC v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd. and EC Pro Video Systems

Background

Teradek sued Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd. and EC Pro Video Systems over alleged trade-secret misappropriation under federal and state law, copyright infringement, and unfair competition. The court previously denied Defendants’ motions asking it to reconsider an earlier opinion and held that Teradek was entitled to fees incurred in responding to those motions.

Teradek then requested $68,460 for responding to the reconsideration motions and $13,508 for preparing the fee application, for a total request of $81,968. Defendants objected and asked that the request be reduced to $22,536. They challenged fees for preparing the application, unrelated or unnecessary work, work performed after Teradek filed its opposition, partially redacted entries, the attorneys’ hourly rates, and the number of hours claimed.

Legal standard

The court used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. The party seeking fees must provide contemporaneous time records showing the date, hours, and nature of work for each attorney. Courts may reduce excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, or unrelated hours, including through an overall percentage reduction rather than reviewing every billing entry individually.

Court’s analysis

The court held that fees for preparing the fee application were within the scope of the earlier fee ruling, but it declined to award those fees at this time because Teradek had not supplied contemporaneous time records. The court directed Teradek to file those records by December 1, 2025.

The court allowed fees for adjusting and finalizing Teradek’s opposition to the reconsideration motions. It denied fees for work amending the discovery schedule because that was a distinct matter. The court also denied the challenged 0.6-hour entry by Fisher for amending the schedule and reduced Magee’s mixed 4.7-hour entry by 25%, to 3.5 hours.

The court allowed fees for reviewing deposition records, considering a possible motion to strike, and reviewing Defendants’ reply brief, even though some of that work occurred after Teradek filed its opposition. Those activities were still part of responding to the reconsideration motions. The court denied 1.3 hours related to changing the discovery schedule.

The court rejected Defendants’ challenge to three partially redacted billing entries totaling 12.5 hours. It found that the entries sufficiently described the work and that the redactions were limited. The court also found the requested 2025 rates reasonable: $880 per hour for Magee and $750 per hour for Fisher.

Finally, after the other reductions, the court applied a further 10% reduction because Teradek requested slightly more hours than the court expected reasonable attorneys to spend and because the partner’s share of the work was higher than in earlier fee applications.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Teradek’s motion for fees. It did not award fees for preparing the fee application at that time and directed Teradek to file contemporaneous records for that work by December 1, 2025. It awarded fees for responding to Defendants’ reconsideration motions. The conclusion states that award as $58,592, but the chart lists $27,675 for Fisher and $31,592 for Magee, totaling $59,267. The opinion contains no explanation resolving that inconsistency. The clerk was instructed to terminate the fee motion.