Parsi v. Daioleslam
937 F. Supp. 2d 44
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs NIAC and Trita Parsi sued defendant Daioleslam in the District of Columbia federal court.
- Defendant sought reimbursement for eight categories of costs tied to a sanctions case, totaling $284,223.34 plus interest.
- The court previously granted in part and denied in part defendant's omnibus sanctions motion and now evaluates the final bill of costs.
- The court applies reasonableness standards and reduces several components (e.g., attorney hours, non-attorney hours, and forensic imaging costs).
- Significant reductions include 10% off Kapshandy hours, 50% off Tisak hours, 10% off Dudley hours, and various PwC imaging deductions.
- The court ultimately awards $183,480.09 in costs to defendant, with postjudgment interest but no prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of sanctions-motion fees | Kapshandy hours are excessive; should be reduced under Mitchell. | Hours are reasonable given lead role and case complexity. | Court applies a 10% reduction to Kapshandy hours; not a drastic cut. |
| Reasonableness of non-attorney time on sanctions motion | Tisak's and Dudley's hours lack detail and are excessive. | Some non-attorney time is reasonable; justify hours with related tasks. | Apply 50% reduction to Tisak hours; Dudley hours reduced by 10%. |
| Reasonableness of PwC forensic-imaging charges | PwC invoices are poorly documented and overstated; several items should be excluded. | Imaging was necessary and charges reasonable; some items relate to imaging. | Impose multi-step reductions (e.g., multiple item deductions, 33% overall PwC reduction, 10% further general reduction) resulting in $71,624.08 for imaging. |
| Motions to compel and Talebi emails order costs | Hours on Talebi and related motions are excessive and not all relate to Talebi emails. | Hours reflect complexity of discovery disputes; some reductions warranted. | Reduce Talebi-related hours by 50%; further reduce proportion to reflect non-Talebi-specific tasks, resulting in $8,605.86. |
| Rule 54(d) costs and translation fees | Translation costs are recoverable under Rule 54(d). | Translation costs for documents are not recoverable; recover only statutorily authorized costs. | Translation fees deducted; Rule 54(d) recovery allowed, totaling $29,026.55 for transcript, witness, and related costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Jersey v. EPA, 703 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (reasonableness review for fee requests; tailoring reductions for vague entries)
- Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 217 F.R.D. 53 (D.D.C. 2003) (reasonable allocation of attorney time; guidance on reductions)
- Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (detailed documentation required to prove hours were expended)
- Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co., 248 F.R.D. 64 (D.D.C. 2008) (near-but-for relationship and reasonableness in fee shifting)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1983) (reasonableness and proportionality of attorney-hours in fee awards)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 643 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (mult-attorney presence at hearings; avoid redundant time)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (S. Ct. 2012) (translation costs not recoverable as document translation)
- Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co., 127 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (considerations for prejudgment interest in fee awards)