Peerless Network, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

Background

Peerless Network, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries sought to enforce a July 31, 2018 settlement agreement with AT&T Corp. Peerless alleged that AT&T failed to use its best efforts to purchase additional telecommunications services from Peerless. Peerless moved for summary judgment. The court previously recommended denying that motion and dismissing the proceeding, and Judge Victor Marrero adopted that recommendation in its entirety.

AT&T then moved for attorney fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The settlement agreement stated that, in an action to enforce or interpret the agreement, the prevailing party could recover its costs, including reasonable attorney fees. Peerless conceded that the agreement permitted such recovery and did not dispute that AT&T prevailed on the central question of whether AT&T breached the agreement’s best-efforts clause.

Attorney fees and costs

The court applied the lodestar method, which generally calculates a reasonable fee by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It found the requested rates for AT&T’s attorneys and paralegal reasonable. It reduced the requested hourly rate for Sean Robinson, an electronic-discovery expert, from $292.50 to $250 for 18.5 hours because the lower rate was consistent with rates for comparable professionals. This resulted in an attorney-fee award of $1,218,044.

Peerless argued that some billing entries were too vague and that AT&T should not recover fees related to an unsuccessful motion concerning Peerless’s expert testimony. After reviewing unredacted billing records, the court found the entries sufficient when read in context. It also found that the motion was not frivolous, so the related fees were recoverable. The court concluded that AT&T’s counsel spent a reasonable amount of time defending the action.

The court awarded AT&T $18,973.76 in other costs, including deposition and oral-argument transcripts and travel expenses. Peerless did not challenge those costs, and the court found them recoverable under the settlement agreement.

Expert fees and late invoice

AT&T initially sought $382,051.90 for expert work. The court found most of the expert rates reasonable based on the experts’ experience, telecommunications expertise, and the complexity of the issues. It reduced Steven Turner’s 2022 hourly rate from $965 to $800 because AT&T had not identified a comparable district-court award supporting a rate near $1,000. The court also found the expert billing descriptions generally adequate when viewed alongside related entries.

AT&T separately sought permission to add a $46,481.50 invoice that had been omitted from its original application. The court found the omission was excusable neglect because counsel mistakenly believed all of the relevant invoices had been paid by counsel, there was no evidence of bad faith, the late submission did not delay the ruling, and Peerless had an opportunity to object.

The court excluded $1,732.50 for 2.1 hours billed by Brian Pitkin on three July 2022 dates because the entries described the work only as “Discussion” and provided no context. It awarded $44,749 from the late invoice and awarded total expert fees of $426,305.90.

Disposition

The court concluded that AT&T was entitled to attorney fees of $1,218,044, costs of $18,973.76, and expert fees of $426,305.90. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 243 and 260.