103 F. Supp. 3d 1242
W.D. Wash.2015Background
- BWP sued RKCC for copyright infringement alleging three celebrity photographs were displayed on RKCC’s website; RKCC defended and obtained judgment in its favor.
- During discovery BWP produced only small "webpage captures" that did not show viewable images; RKCC repeatedly requested the underlying evidence.
- BWP later relied on a full-size screen-grab at summary judgment that it had not timely produced and had previously disclaimed relying upon.
- The Court imposed Rule 37 sanctions precluding BWP from using the full-size screen-grab and dismissed for lack of admissible evidence supporting infringement.
- The Court found BWP failed to comply with disclosure and discovery obligations and that its later-produced emails/screen-grabs reinforced the discovery failure.
- RKCC moved for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505; the Court granted fees after balancing Copyright Act factors and applying the lodestar method, awarding $24,290.00.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act | BWP implicitly contested fee award but did not contest entitlement arguments; emphasized rights-protection motive | RKCC argued BWP’s discovery misconduct, delay, and litigation tactics justify fees to compensate and deter | Court awarded fees to RKCC; entitlement favored defendant based on conduct and motive inference |
| Weight of Fogerty factors (frivolousness, motivation, objective reasonableness) | BWP denied improper motive and argued number of suits is irrelevant; disputed characterization of conduct | RKCC argued claims were at least unreasonable and pointed to motive (pattern of similar suits, settlement demands) and discovery misconduct | Court found frivolousness/objective unreasonableness not proven but motivation and conduct favored RKCC; overall factors supported fees |
| Whether success was on the merits or procedural (impact on fee award) | BWP implied merits issue but did not establish infringement on the record | RKCC relied on its judgment win and sanctions to support fees | Court noted success resulted from discovery sanctions rather than merits comparison but still weighed in favor of fees (tempered effect) |
| Reasonableness/amount of requested fees (lodestar) | BWP reserved right to contest reasonableness but did not submit specific objections on hours/rate when directed | RKCC requested $24,290 (69.4 hours × $350/hr), submitted declarations supporting rate and hours | Court found hours and rate reasonable, applied lodestar, declined adjustment, and awarded $24,290 |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (district courts exercise equitable discretion in awarding copyright fees and must apply factors evenhandedly)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (elements required to prove copyright infringement)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method: hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly rate)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (list of factors relevant to fee adjustments)
- Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (settlement negotiations may be considered in fee determinations)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; use prevailing community rates)