Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc., 2:15-cv-02422

This federal case concerns sanctions and fees arising from Tessier's failure to appear at a noticed deposition (Dec. 15, 2016).
Plaintiff Bartech moved for sanctions (attorneys’ fees and costs) due to Tessier’s non-appearance; a prior order granted in part and directed renewed fee information.
Plaintiff timely filed a renewed motion for attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 304); Tessier responded and Bartech replied.
The court awarded $2,238.20 in attorneys’ fees and denied requested costs, finding some entries duplicative or not attributable to Tessier’s failure to appear.
The court declined to award certain costs for travel and videotaping due to lack of support; the order requires Tessier to pay by July 5, 2017 and to be served by email.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of hourly rates	Bartech supports rates for Lawrence, Kealy, Kushner; Metz rate not tested	Rates are reasonable; disputes only some hours	Rates for Lawrence and Kealy reasonable; Kushner reduced to $150; Metz not awarded hours
Reasonableness of hours and lodestar calculation	All hours billed relate to Tessier’s non-appearance	Some hours spent on co-defendant deposition and duplication; travel costs disputed	Hours: Lawrence 5.7, Kealy 0.2, Kushner 2.1 reasonable; Metz none; lodestar $2,238.20
Award of costs	Costs for non-appearance and travel should be awarded	No receipts or justification for some costs; videotaping costs unsupported	Costs denied due to lack of documentation and improper basis

Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin’l, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; determines reasonable rates and hours)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method guidance; hours must be reasonable)
Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1988) (lodestar framework and rate reasonableness considerations)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (prevailing market rates; evidence of fees and rates admissible)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) (prevailing market rate evidence supports fee outcomes)
Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (court may rely on its familiarity with community rates)
Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) (deference to district court on fee hours reasonable)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (guidance on excluding duplicative or unnecessary hours)
Cruz v. Alhambra Sch. Dist., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (courts may exclude unreasonable or duplicative hours)