Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"

Background

Actava TV, Inc., Master Call Communications, Inc., Master Call Corporation, and Rouslan Tsoutiev sought attorneys’ fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C). Their request arose from a motion to compel discovery against Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide,” Closed Joint Stock Company “CTC Network,” Closed Joint Stock Company “New Channel,” Limited Liability Company “Rain TV-Channel,” Open Joint Stock Company “ACCEPT,” Limited Liability Company “Comedy TV,” and Kartina Digital GmbH.

The discovery motion concerned eleven requests. The court directed defendants to respond to nine requests and upheld an objection to one request because it was overly broad as written. Plaintiffs therefore sought 82% of their expenses. They initially calculated the requested amount as $33,018.16, although the opinion notes that the correct calculation was $33,018.48.

Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiffs submitted attorney declarations, attorney biographies, and contemporaneous time records. They sought fees for Toby Butterfield, Michael Rosenberg, and Mikhail Lezhnev, as well as $1,140.16 for 82% of claimed legal research costs. Plaintiffs argued that their billing was reasonable, that they had kept the legal team as small as possible, and that they were not seeking reimbursement for redacted entries.

Defendants argued that the records were incomplete, heavily redacted, vague, excessive, and duplicative. They challenged the use of three attorneys, the hourly rates, and billing related to preparation for oral argument. Defendants proposed substantial reductions and argued that the remaining amount should be reduced by 50%.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the “presumptively reasonable fee,” also called the lodestar: a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. The court found that plaintiffs had supplied enough information to support the requested hourly rates for Butterfield and Rosenberg. It found their rates of $695 and $400 per hour reasonable based on prevailing market rates and the court’s familiarity with rates in the district.

The court found the $300 hourly rate claimed for Lezhnev insufficiently supported because plaintiffs did not identify his regular hourly rate or provide a basis for evaluating the claimed discount. The court therefore reduced Lezhnev’s claimed fees by 50%, using an effective rate of $150 per hour for 27.6 hours.

The court otherwise found the number of hours reasonable. It found no evidence of excessive hours, inappropriate billing by senior attorneys, or block billing. The court also found the requested legal research costs reasonable.

Calculation and Disposition

The court calculated the award as follows:

- Butterfield: $695 per hour multiplied by 32.8 hours, with 82% recoverable, for $18,692.72. - Rosenberg: $400 per hour multiplied by 19.5 hours, with 82% recoverable, for $6,396.00. - Lezhnev: $150 per hour multiplied by 27.6 hours, with 82% recoverable, for $3,394.80. - Total attorneys’ fees: $28,483.52. - Costs: $1,140.16.

The court stated that plaintiffs’ fee application was granted and awarded them $28,483.52 in attorneys’ fees and $1,140.16 in costs.