GCCA, LLC v. MACCG LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-05022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In GCCA v. MACCG, Judge Moses denied GCCA’s request for $30,608.50 in discovery-related attorneys’ fees because its discovery motion achieved only a partial result.
GCCA, LLC did not receive the requested attorneys’ fees; MACCG LLC was not ordered to pay them, and each side bears its own expenses related to the motion to compel.
What happened
GCCA, LLC asked for attorneys’ fees after the court ordered MACCG LLC to produce loan-application documents during discovery in a trademark-infringement case. GCCA sought $30,608.50 for its motion to compel and for preparing the fee request.
The court said GCCA’s motion had produced only a partial result. The court ordered MACCG to provide the most complete packages it could find for two Paycheck Protection Program loans and one Economic Injury Disaster Loan, but it did not order all the financial documents GCCA had requested or decide whether MACCG had withheld responsive documents.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the fee motion. She found that the mixed result and the absence of a finding of discovery misconduct made it appropriate for each side to pay its own expenses, and she did not decide whether the requested amount was reasonable.
The detailed version
- GCCA, LLC v. MACCG LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05022
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
GCCA, LLC filed a letter-motion seeking $30,608.50 in attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). The fees were connected to GCCA’s August 29, 2022 motion to compel discovery from MACCG LLC in a trademark-infringement action. GCCA’s discovery requests sought financial statements and documents concerning MACCG’s projected sales and profits.
GCCA argued that MACCG had not produced complete loan packages submitted for two Paycheck Protection Program loans and one Economic Injury Disaster Loan. MACCG maintained that the document requests did not specifically seek loan applications, but offered during a discovery conference to provide the most complete packages it could assemble, including materials that might not otherwise be responsive to the requests.
On September 21, 2022, the court ordered MACCG to produce the most complete loan-application packages it could locate and to provide a sworn statement from a person with personal knowledge verifying that the production included everything MACCG could find. The order also denied GCCA’s request for fees without prejudice to renewal. MACCG later produced three loan packages and a declaration. GCCA remained dissatisfied with the production but did not file a separate motion seeking sanctions for violating the September 21 order.
Rule 37 and the Court’s Analysis
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) generally requires an award of reasonable expenses when a motion to compel is granted or the requested discovery is provided only after the motion is filed, subject to stated exceptions. Rule 37(a)(5)(C), however, applies when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part and permits the court to apportion expenses in its discretion.
The court concluded that GCCA’s motion to compel had been granted only in part. GCCA had sought all documents responsive to Requests 9 and 31, including financial information submitted for the loans. The court instead issued a narrower order concerning the three loan-application packages. The court also acted substantially because of MACCG’s offer to produce those packages, rather than because it found that MACCG had violated its discovery obligations.
The court declined to consider GCCA’s allegations that MACCG failed to comply fully with the September 21 order. Those allegations were not supported by admissible evidence, and GCCA had not filed the separate motion for sanctions that would apply to an alleged violation of a discovery order. The court therefore treated the outcome as mixed and applied Rule 37(a)(5)(C), not Rule 37(a)(5)(A).
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses denied GCCA’s fee motion. No fees were awarded for GCCA’s August 29, 2022 motion to compel, and each side was left to bear its own expenses. Because no fee award was made, the court did not decide what portion of GCCA’s $30,608.50 request would have been reasonable.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.