United King Film Distribution Ltd v. Does 1-10 d/b/a Israel.tv

Background

The court addressed attorneys’ fees and costs in three related copyright-infringement actions brought by United King Film Distribution Ltd., D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd., Hot Communication Systems Ltd., Charlton Ltd., Reshet Media Ltd., and Keshet Broadcasting Ltd. The defendants were identified as Does 1-10 doing business as Israel.tv, Israeli-TV.com, and Sdarot.com, respectively. The actions were filed on December 22, 2021. After the court granted the plaintiffs’ requests for expedited discovery and alternative service, the defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond. The court entered default judgments on April 26, 2022, stating that attorneys’ fees and costs would be addressed separately.

The plaintiffs then requested attorneys’ fees totaling $92,525.71 and costs totaling $13,174.97 across the three cases. Their counsel submitted a declaration and billing records. The requested fees reflected approximately 168.23 hours at an hourly rate of $550.

Legal standard

Under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a copyright action. The court considered factors including frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness, compensation, and deterrence. It concluded that a fee award was warranted because the defendants had defaulted after what the court described as a “breathtaking amount” of infringing activity, the infringement had been found willful, and an award would promote deterrence.

The court calculated the presumptively reasonable fee, also called the lodestar, by considering a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours. It also reviewed whether the requested work was excessive, redundant, or unnecessary and considered the nature of the matter, counsel’s experience, prevailing rates in the Southern District of New York, and the purpose of the award.

Attorneys’ fees

The court declined to use the requested $550 hourly rate. Counsel had practiced since 1989 and specialized in copyright and trademark matters, but the court noted the small size of the firm and the relatively straightforward theory of recovery. It determined that $450 per hour was more reasonable. The court also found that some work performed by counsel should have been delegated to a more junior lawyer or paralegal, and that counsel billed travel time at the full rate rather than the 50-percent rate commonly used in the district.

The court reduced the approximately 168.23 hours claimed to 134 hours, an approximately 20-percent reduction. Applying the $450 hourly rate to 134 hours, it awarded $60,300 in attorneys’ fees.

Costs and allocation

The plaintiffs requested $13,174.97 in costs, including filing fees, process-server expenses, computer-aided legal research, and transcript fees. The court found that the costs were adequately supported and traceable to the defendants’ conduct, and awarded the full $13,174.97.

The court considered whether the defendants in all three cases should be jointly and severally liable for the fees and costs. It found evidence of considerable copyright infringement but not corresponding evidence of concerted action among the three defendant groups. Because the billing records and counsel’s declaration did not permit a more specific allocation, the court divided the awards equally among the three cases.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla awarded attorneys’ fees of $60,300 and costs of $13,174.97, for a stated total of $73,474.97. The court assessed attorneys’ fees of $20,100 and costs of $4,391.66 against the defendants in each of cases 21 Civ. 11024, 21 Civ. 11025, and 21 Civ. 11026. The Clerk was directed to file the order in all three cases and terminate all pending motions.