Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast, 4:13-cv-05472

Plaintiffs, Erickson Productions Inc. et al., prevailed on a willful copyright infringement case against Kraig Rudinger Kast et al., with statutory damages being awarded after a retrial.
The court previously awarded attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs for earlier phases of the litigation and for the retrial, but reduced the fee request by 30% due to duplicative work and insufficient clarity in time records.
Plaintiffs sought to amend or alter this reduction via a Rule 59(e) motion, arguing the reduction was in error.
Plaintiffs contended that the work on remand was not duplicative, and that the work of attorney Kleinman was substantial and necessary.
Defendants opposed the motion, and the court reviewed briefs from both parties without oral argument.
The court found no new evidence, no change in controlling law, and ruled there was no clear error, thus denying Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 30% fee reduction was clearly erroneous	No duplication; Kleinman's work was necessary	Reduction appropriate due to duplicative work and unclear records	Court found reduction reasonable; motion denied
Whether new evidence or changes justified altering the judgment	New time records warrant reconsideration	Submission of new records improper; no change in facts or law	No new evidence; court declined reconsideration
Whether court was correct to assess fee reasonableness based on record	Fee award should not be reduced based on court's assessment	Court best positioned to judge necessity of work	Court confirmed its discretion and denied motion
Whether Plaintiffs can use Rule 59(e) to reargue dissatisfaction	Fee reduction was a clear error	Rule 59(e) not for rearguing prior decisions	Court held only clear error/new facts warrant amendment

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets standard for amending judgments under Rule 59(e) – requires new evidence, change in law, or clear error)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court discretion in granting or denying motions to amend judgments)
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court is best positioned to assess reasonableness of attorneys’ fees)
Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court best positioned to discern unnecessary work for fee awards)
Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) (Rule 59(e) does not allow new arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier)