National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

Background

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) sought attorney fees as the prevailing party after the court granted its motion for summary judgment on a breach-of-contract claim. The court had found that the defendants were barred from relitigating an earlier determination that they breached NAF’s Confidentiality Agreements and Exhibitor Agreements to gain access to NAF’s 2014 and 2015 annual meetings.

The Exhibitor Agreements required exhibitors to reimburse NAF for costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in responding to violations. The defendants named in this fee dispute were the Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, and David Daleiden. NAF requested $6,933,374.25 in attorney fees. It also sought non-taxable costs, and the Clerk’s office separately taxed $24,468.62 in costs against the defendants.

The litigation included temporary and preliminary injunction proceedings, expedited discovery, disputes over protective orders and sealing, contempt proceedings, appeals, and later summary judgment based on issue preclusion—the rule that can prevent relitigating an issue already decided. NAF had dismissed several claims and ultimately obtained summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim and related injunctive relief.

Entitlement to Fees

The defendants argued that NAF was not entitled to reimbursement because its lawyers represented NAF pro bono and NAF therefore had not personally paid or incurred the fees. The court rejected that argument under California Civil Code section 1717, concluding that a prevailing party may recover qualifying fees even when its representation was provided without charge.

The defendants also argued that NAF had obtained no relief under the Exhibitor Agreements because the injunction primarily addressed materials covered by the Confidentiality Agreements. The court rejected that argument, finding that the defendants breached material provisions of the Exhibitor Agreements and that those agreements allowed recovery of reasonable fees and injunctive relief.

Reasonableness of the Fees

The court found the requested hourly rates reasonable. It rejected the argument that NAF’s fee request should be denied or reduced because NAF dismissed most of its claims or obtained only limited relief. The court found that NAF achieved full success on its central claim and that the litigation work was sufficiently related to that successful contract claim.

The court nevertheless required several reductions:

- $193,635 for block-billed entries; - the time spent assisting the criminal case against Daleiden; - the time spent seeking dismissal of Newman as a defendant; - 50% of the amounts charged for meetings at which more than five team members billed time; - 10% of the amounts charged for interfirm communications; and - 50% of the amounts sought for the clerical tasks identified by the defendants.

The court declined to require reductions based solely on the use of whole- or half-hour entries or on 0.1-hour entries.

Costs and Disposition

The court granted in full NAF’s request for $29,358.30 in non-taxable costs for attorney travel, investigation fees, and delivery and messaging services. The court granted NAF’s attorney-fee motion subject to the specified reductions, rather than awarding the full $6,933,374.25 requested. NAF was ordered to submit a proposed amended judgment within 30 days that accounted for the reductions and included the fees and costs awarded.