Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A.
278 F. Supp. 3d 210
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- SEI sued Telewizja Polska S.A. (TVP) for copyright infringement; after trial the court found TVP willfully and intentionally infringed 51 episodes and awarded statutory damages of $60,000 per episode (total $3,060,000).
- SEI moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505; the court found SEI a prevailing party and that fees may be awarded in the court’s discretion.
- The court evaluated the Fogerty factors (including frivolousness, motivation, objective reasonableness, compensation, and deterrence) and Kirtsaeng’s emphasis on objective reasonableness while preserving district-court discretion to consider misconduct and deterrence.
- The court concluded TVP’s litigation positions were not objectively unreasonable, but TVP engaged in egregious litigation misconduct: intentional deletion, falsification, and submission of doctored evidence to the court.
- Because the misconduct undermined the judicial process and the Copyright Act’s purposes, and given the willful infringement, the court held that fee-shifting is appropriate for deterrence and compensation.
- The court granted fees in principle but required SEI counsel to resubmit billing records after reductions: lower paralegal rates to LSI Laffey matrix levels, exclude non-working travel time, and exclude alcoholic beverage charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SEI is a "prevailing party" under §505 | SEI: Judgment on the merits establishes prevailing-party status | TVP: did not contest prevailing-party status | Held: SEI is a prevailing party (judgment on the merits suffices) |
| Whether fees are warranted under Copyright Act (totality of circumstances) | SEI: TVP acted in bad faith, defenses were objectively unreasonable, and misconduct justifies fees | TVP: defenses were unsuccessful but reasonable; statutory damages suffice for deterrence/compensation | Held: Fees warranted despite reasonable defenses because totality (esp. misconduct and willfulness) supports fee award |
| Effect of litigation misconduct (deleting/falsifying/submitting evidence) on fee award | SEI: misconduct demonstrates need for deterrence and compensation for extra work | TVP: counsel acted properly; disputed relevance | Held: Misconduct was egregious (deletion, falsification, submission of doctored screenshots) and materially supports awarding fees for deterrence and integrity of judicial process |
| Reasonableness and amount of requested fees (rates/hours/costs) | SEI: billed rates and contemporaneous records justify lodestar; compared to LSI Laffey matrix and other authorities | TVP: rates too high for some staff, block billing, vague entries, improper travel and beverage charges; suggested use of USAO Laffey or AIPLA survey | Held: Hourly attorney rates reasonable given complexity and counsel’s expertise; paralegal/support rates reduced to LSI Laffey levels; travel time (non-working) and alcohol charges excluded; block billing/vague entries not a basis for broad reduction but SEI must resubmit adjusted records |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (factors and equitable discretion for awarding attorney's fees in copyright cases)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) (objective reasonableness significant but district courts may consider misconduct and other factors)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) (fee awards depend on statutory or contractual authorization; general rule against fee shifting)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (burden on fee applicant to document hours and rates; lodestar analysis)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (definition of "prevailing party" requires an enforceable alteration of legal relationship)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (burden and three-part analysis for assessing reasonable hourly rates)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (three-part lodestar framework for reasonableness: hours, rates, multipliers)