Motion2 Attys Fees SGT Sarver V Nicolas Chartier

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133
Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1882
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY
TEL (310) 855-3200 FAX (310) 855-3201 9601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 700
TIMOTHY J. GORRY (SBN 143797) tgorry@eisnerlaw.com JON-JAMISON HILL (SBN 203959) jhill@eisnerlaw.com JACKIE M. JOSEPH (SBN 151102) jjoseph@eisnerlaw.com EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (310) 855-3200 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201 Attorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:10-cv-09034-JHN (JCx) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES BY DEFENDANTS THE HURT LOCKER, LLC, GREG SHAPIRO, NICOLAS CHARTIER, VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA L.P. AND KINGSGATE FILMS, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
THE HURT LOCKER, LLC; MARK BOAL; KATHRYN BIGELOW; GREG SHAPIRO; NICOLAS CHARTIER; TONY MARK; DONALL MCCLUSKER; SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC; GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP; FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.; KINGSGATE FILMS, INC. and Date: December 12, 2011 PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Time: 2:00 p.m. Jointly and Severally, Courtroom: 790 Defendants.
[Declaration Of Timothy J. Gorry submitted concurrently herewith] Assigned to the Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen
i
282773/0950-03001
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in Courtroom 790 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) will, and hereby do, move this Court for an order awarding them attorneys fees against Plaintiff in the amount of $111,200.00. This Motion is made pursuant to the Courts October 13, 2011 Order granting Defendants motion to dismiss, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c). This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Timothy J. Gorry, any reply memorandum submitted by the Defendants, the complete files and records in this action, and such other argument and evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of this matter. This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took place on October 21, 2011.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dated: October 27, 2011
/s/ Timothy J. Gorry Timothy J. Gorry Attorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Films, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc.
By:
ii
282773/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION Defendants1 successfully moved to strike each of the claims brought by
Plaintiff, Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver, in this lawsuit (the anti-SLAPP Motion). In its final Order, the Court ordered that Defendants are entitled to an award of their attorneys fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c). As set forth below and in the supporting Declaration of Timothy J. Gorry, Defendants seek the total sum of $111,200.00 for the attorneys fees incurred in connection with bringing the antiSLAPP Motion and the instant fee motion. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c) mandates that Defendants be awarded fees for all of the work they performed in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion and the instant motion for attorneys fees (the Fee Motion). As the Court is undoubtedly aware, the anti-SLAPP Motion involved numerous and complex issues. To properly brief the procedural questions, such as the choice of state law that applied to Plaintiffs claims, and the substantive issues, such as the application of First Amendment law, Defendants counsel spent a significant amount of time analyzing, researching and drafting the arguments made to the Court. As discussed below, the attorneys fees Defendants request through this Fee Motion are reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Fee Motion in its entirety and enter an order awarding them $111,200.00 in attorneys fees. /// /// ///
1
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants refers to The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc. 1
282773/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
II.
LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Defendants Are Entitled To Recoup All Attorneys Fees Incurred In Connection With The Anti-SLAPP Motion. At its core, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 is designed to prevent chilling of free
speech through abuse of the judicial process. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(a). In order to encourage defendants to fight baseless claims, the statute provides that any defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorneys fees and costs. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c)(1). The language of the statute indicates that an award of fees is mandatory. See City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League, 135 Cal. App. 4th 606, 627 (2006) (explaining that the purpose of the fees provision is both to discourage meritless lawsuits and to provide financial relief to SLAPP lawsuit victim). The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that the availability of fees and costs under Californias anti-SLAPP statute is not in conflict with the Federal Rules, and will be applied by federal courts. See United States v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963, 970-73 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 425.16 does not define the scope of the fee award. Courts, however, have examined this issue, and there is ample caselaw that provides guidance. Section 425.16 is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extracting herself from a baseless lawsuit. Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, 141 Cal. App. 4th 15, 22 (2006) (recognizing that the purpose of subsection (c) is to compensate a defendant for the expense of responding to a SLAPP suit). While a defendants moving papers are necessarily included in the award, courts have wide latitude to include fees for additional items related to the antiSLAPP process. See Premier Medical Management Sys., Inc. v. California Ins.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Guarantee Assn, 163 Cal. App. 4th 550, 556 (2008) (holding that the award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent). That may
include discovery initiated by the opposing party . . . directly related to the special 2
282773/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
motion to strike. Jackson v. Yarbray, 179 Cal. App. 4th 75, 92-93 (2009). The award may also include the costs incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees, i.e. the fees for making a separate demand or motion for the fee award. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1141 (2001). The California Supreme Court has upheld the lodestar method for determining the appropriate amount of attorney fees for a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion. Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 342 (2006) (citing Ketchum, 24 Cal. 4th at 1136). Under this method, a court assesses attorney fees by first determining the time spent and the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 342. Then, the court determines whether that lodestar figure should be adjusted based on various relevant factors. Id. One of those factors, the overall success achieved by counsel, is beyond reproach here. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-435 (1983) (stating that where a party obtain[s] excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . .). Under these principles, Defendants are entitled to an award of $111,200.00. That sum reflects the total amount in attorneys fees that Defendants reasonably incurred in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion, and which they have expended and expect to incur in connection with the instant Fee Motion.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
B.
Defendants Are Entitled To An Award $111,200.00 Against Plaintiff.
Defendants anti-SLAPP Motion required significant attorney time. Briefing on the anti-SLAPP Motion was extensive, and Defendants submitted moving papers, reply papers, and supporting documents, including declarations and evidentiary objections. [See Docket Nos. 78-81, 111-114, 117.] Moreover, because Plaintiff filed a host of atypical papers with the Court in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion, including an ex parte application, objections, and improper sur-replies, Defendants were forced to spend time and take actions that are not typical in connection with 3
282773/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
motion briefing. For example, Defendants opposed an ex parte request by Plaintiff to continue the hearing set for the anti-SLAPP Motion and to set a modified briefing schedule. [Docket No. 89.] Defendants were also required to analyze and address several improper objections and sur-replies Plaintiff filed after briefing of the antiSLAPP Motion was complete. [Docket Nos. 121-122, 126, 128.] Defendants briefing included a host of complex legal issues. This is apparent from the Courts twenty-two page order granting to the anti-SLAPP Motion. [Docket No. 129.] Defendants briefing included choice of law analysis, the application of Section 425.16 to this case, and the numerous legal and factual reasons that prevent Plaintiff from proving a probability of success on each of his seven claims. [Docket Nos. 78, 111.] The work associated with the anti-SLAPP Motion required an excess of 255 attorney-hours. [Declaration Of Timothy J. Gorry (Gorry Decl.), 17 and Ex. A.] The work was performed by attorneys who have experience handling this type of matter, and whose billing rates are reasonable and customary in the Los Angeles legal market.2 [Gorry Decl., 4-12 and Ex. A.] Defendants incurred at least $106,350.00 in attorneys fees in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion itself. [Gorry Decl., 17 and Ex. A.] It should also be noted that, when appropriate, Defendants prepared joint submissions with other named defendants (most often, Summit Entertainment, LLC (Summit)), or joined in documents submitted by other parties. [Gorry Decl., 1415.] These joint filings did not result in additional or double billed time. Rather, they allowed the defendants to more efficiently tackle the numerous and complex issues presented to the Court. Where appropriate and practicable, and so as to
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
streamline the presentation to the Court, Defendants and Summit divided the issues
It should be noted that counsel for the various separately represented defendants all charged their clients roughly the same rates for this matter, and that several of the attorneys who worked on the matter charged less than their standard billing rate. 4
282773/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
that were required to be addressed to ensure that there was no duplication of effort. [Gorry Decl., 14-15.] Finally, Defendants seek to recoup the fees they had to expend filing the instant Fee Motion. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1141 (2001) (holding that a prevailing defendant may seek the costs incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees). The total fees incurred for the preparation and filing of the Fee Motion, including the anticipated fees associated with Defendants reply memorandum, is $4,850.00. [Gorry Decl., 18.] Therefore, Defendants seek a total award of attorneys fees of $111,200.00. For the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully ask this Court to grant their Fee Motion in its entirety.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, and as detailed in the accompanying
Declaration of Timothy J. Gorry, Defendants respectfully ask this Court to grant the instant Motion in its entirety and award them statutory attorneys fees against Plaintiff in the amount of $111,200.00.
Dated: October 27, 2011
/s/ Timothy J. Gorry Timothy J. Gorry Attorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Films, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc.
By:
5
282773/0950-03001
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1889
Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIMOTHY J. GORRY (SBN 143797) tgorry@eisnerlaw.com JON-JAMISON HILL (SBN 203959) jhill@eisnerlaw.com JACKIE M. JOSEPH (SBN 151102) jjoseph@eisnerlaw.com EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (310) 855-3200 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201 Attorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:10-cv-09034-JHN (JCx) DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY IN SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY DEFENDANTS THE HURT LOCKER, LLC, GREG SHAPIRO, NICOLAS CHARTIER, VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA L.P. AND KINGSGATE FILMS, INC.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
THE HURT LOCKER, LLC; MARK BOAL; KATHRYN BIGELOW; GREG SHAPIRO; NICOLAS CHARTIER; TONY MARK; DONALL MCCLUSKER; SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC; GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP; Date: December 12, 2011 FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.; Time: 2:00 p.m. KINGSGATE FILMS, INC. and Courtroom: 790 PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Jointly and Severally, Assigned to the Honorable Defendants. Jacqueline H. Nguyen
1
283749/0950-03001
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I, Timothy J. Gorry, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court, and I am a partner
at the law firm of Eisner, Kahan & Gorry (EK&G), counsel for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc. (collectively, Defendants). Except where expressly indicated below or otherwise apparent, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and I could and would testify competently thereto if sworn as a witness. 2. I am the partner at EK&G principally responsible for overseeing and
handling this lawsuit. I am intimately familiar with the Court submissions EK&G prepared on Defendants behalf, and I am fully aware of the work that went into preparing those Court filings. I attended the lone hearing held in this lawsuit on Defendants behalf. 3. I carefully review the bills that EK&G submits to the Defendants on a
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
monthly basis. As a partner in the firm, I have full access to EK&Gs billing and accounting records. In order to calculate and confirm the fee amounts discussed in this declaration and in the Defendants motion for attorneys fees (the Fee Motion) to which this declaration relates, I reviewed the bills EK&G previously submitted to Defendants. 4. Although each attorney at EK&G has a standard hourly billing rate, the
firm, at times, negotiates with clients, or insurance companies who pay the clients bills, for blended or reduced rates. I was the partner at EK&G who negotiated the hourly billing rates that the firm would charge Defendants for the firms work on this lawsuit. 5. I am the head of EK&Gs litigation department. Prior to joining EK&G,
I was a partner at Venable LLP, where my duties included managing the firms California office. Prior to that, I was the managing partner at Gorry Meyer & Rudd, LLP. My managerial roles at these firms required that I learn, know and understand 2
283749/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
appropriate billing rates for attorneys in the Los Angeles market so that the firm for which I was working could negotiate appropriate billing rates with its clients. Therefore, I am familiar with the rates that large and mid-sized Los Angeles law firms charge for various types of litigation matters. I also regularly negotiate rates with insurance companies who pay my clients bills, and again, because of these negotiations, I have learned, know and understand the rates generally paid in the Los Angeles market for various types of litigation matters. 6. I was admitted to practice in California in 1989. Since that time, I have
primarily handled litigation matters. For the past decade, a significant component of my practice has been entertainment litigation. My prior experience includes handling First Amendment issues, name and likeness claims, and prosecuting and defending the types of causes of action that Plaintiff brought in this lawsuit. 7. In 2010 and 2011, my standard billing rate at EK&G was $550 per hour.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
That rate is commensurate with the rates charged by partners at other law firms in the Los Angeles area who have a similar level of experience and handle similar types of litigation matters. However, for this matter, I agreed to bill, and the firm has billed, at the reduced rate of $450 per hour for my time. 8. In addition to me, two other attorneys at EK&G performed substantial
work on the instant lawsuit. Those attorneys are Jon-Jamison Hill and Jackie M. Joseph. 9. My partner, Jon-Jamison Hill, was admitted to practice in California in
1999. I have worked with Mr. Hill since the time he was admitted to the bar, and I know the types of matters he has handled over the years. Mr. Hills practice has always included entertainment litigation. Mr. Hills experience includes anti-SLAPP motions, First Amendment issues, name and likeness claims, and prosecuting and defending the types of causes of action that Plaintiff brought in this lawsuit. 10. In 2010 and 2011, Mr. Hills standard billing rate at the firm was $450
per hour, and for the instant lawsuit, EK&G billed at that rate for Mr. Hills time. Mr. 3
283749/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hills rate is commensurate with the rates charged by partners at other firms in the Los Angeles area who have a similar level of experience and handle similar types of litigation matters. 11. Jackie M. Joseph was admitted to practice in California in 1990. I have
worked with Ms. Joseph since 2001, and I know the types of matters she has handled during that period of time. Over the past decade, Mr. Josephs practice has included entertainment litigation. Mr. Josephs experience includes prosecuting and defending the types of causes of action that Plaintiff brought in this lawsuit. 12. In 2010 and 2011, Ms. Josephs standard billing rate at EK&G was $450
per hour. That rate is commensurate with the rates charged by attorneys at other firms in the Los Angeles area who have a similar level of experience and handle similar types of litigation matters. However, for this matter, EK&G agreed to bill, and the firm has billed, at the reduced rate of $350 per hour for Ms. Josephs time. 13. Defendants filed a Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant To
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP Motion). I, along with Mr. Hill and Ms. Joseph, spent significant amounts to time researching and drafting the antiSLAPP Motion and the instant Fee Motion. 14. In addition, my colleagues and I worked with counsel for other named
defendants to prepare the moving and reply papers for the anti-SLAPP Motion. More specifically, EK&G worked closely with counsel for Summit Entertainment, LLC (Summit) in an effort to minimize the need for multiple, overlapping and duplicative motions that would have burdened the Court and made review of the issues more difficult. We also coordinated our efforts with counsel for Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow, again, to minimize duplication of efforts amongst the named defendants. 15. In particular, we worked with co-defense counsel in an effort to
efficiently tackle the numerous and complex issues that needed to be presented to the Court. Defendants and Summit divided the issues that each would research, analyze 4
283749/0950-03001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
and address to ensure that there was no duplication of effort. 16. Defendants were billed for the all of the services EK&G rendered on
their behalf. To date, Defendants have been billed in excess of $111,200.00 for attorneys fees related to the anti-SLAPP Motion and the instant Fee Motion. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A is a summary document containing the billing entries relevant to the anti-SLAPP Motion. Any billing entry that is not relevant to the fee request Defendants are making here, and all privileged information contained in any billing entry, has been redacted from the document. 17. The fees billed to Defendants in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion,
which amount to $106,350.00, arise from the following work: a. I performed in excess of 64 hours of work in connection with the antiSLAPP Motion. That work consisted primarily of revising the moving papers and the reply papers, and preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion. b. Jon-Jamison Hill performed more than 107 hours of work in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion. That work consisted of analyzing the legal issues involved, drafting the moving papers and reply, opposing an ex parte matter concerning the briefing schedule and hearing date for the motion, working with co-defense counsel to coordinate additional motion-related filings, and assisting me to prepare for the hearing. c. Jackie M. Joseph performed more than 84 hours of work in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion. That work consisted of analyzing the legal issues involved, drafting the moving papers and reply, opposing an ex parte matter concerning the briefing schedule and hearing date for the motion, working with co-defense counsel to coordinate additional motion-related filings, assisting me to prepare for the hearing, and attending the hearing on the anti-SLAPP Motion. /// 5
283749/0950-03001
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18.
Defendants will also be billed for the work that EK&G performs in
connection with the instant motion for attorneys fees, which is expected to amount to at least $4,850.00, stemming from the following work: a. I performed in excess of 1 hour of work in connection with the instant motion for attorneys fees, consisting primarily of revising the moving papers and this declaration. I anticipate having to spend additional time to prepare reply papers and attend any hearing on the motion. b. Jon-Jamison Hill, performed more than 5 hours of work in connection with the instant motion for attorneys fees, consisting primarily of drafting the moving papers and this declaration. I anticipate that Mr. Hill will have to spend at least 4 hours of additional time to prepare reply papers for the motion. c. Jackie M. Joseph, performed more than 1 hour of work in connection with the instant motion for attorneys fees, consisting primarily of handling the Court-mandated meet and confer with Plaintiffs counsel and drafting the moving papers for this motion. I anticipate that Ms. Joseph will have to spend additional time to prepare reply papers for the motion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct on this 27th day of October 2011, at Beverly Hills, California. /s/ Timothy J. Gorry Timothy J. Gorry
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6
283749/0950-03001
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:1895
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
960.I WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 TELEPHONE: (31 0) 855-3200
7OO
ErsNER, KAr{AN & GORRY

Federal Tax ID: REDACTED
FACSIMILE: (310)8s5-3201
Invoce Date
voltage pictures, LLC AXIS Insurance 2300 Main street, suite 800 Kansas City, MO 6410g
october 27,2011 Fle rnvoce
#: #:
01-03058
Settle
Attn:
Russell Hickey/Senior Claims Specialist Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt. Jeffrey S. Sarver
RE: DATE
ClaimNo.49177 DESCRIPTION
HOURS AMOUNT LAWYER
EXHIBIT A
PageT
Invoice #:
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 46 Page ID Page 2 #:1896 October 27,2011
EXIIIBIT A
Page
Invoice #:
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 46 Page ID Settle Page 3 #:1897 October 27,2011
EXHIBIT A
Page 9
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 10
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 11
Invoice #:
EXIIIBIT A
Page12
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 13
lnvoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 14
Invoice
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 9 of 46 Page ID #: Settle Page 9 #:1903 October 27,2011
EXHIBIT A
Page 15
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 16
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 17
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 18
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 19
Invoice #:
EXIIIBIT A
Page20
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page2l
.a
Invoice
EXHIBIT A
Ptge22
Invoice #:
Nov-29-10
draft motion to dismiss; research on application of state law
2.80
1,260.00
JL
Nov-30-10
draft motion to dismiss; review legal
3.00
1,350.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page23
Invoice
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 18 of 46 Page ID #: Settle Page l8 #:1912 October 27,2011
authorities supporting same;
REDACTED
offrce conference re: choice of law issues; telephone conference with counsel for Summit re: strategy in connection with responsive pleading for central district of California; review prelimitary case managment orders the district court
2.00
700.00
JJ
of
REDACTED
Dec-02-10
REDACTED
draft motion to dismiss; review legal authorities supporting same and potential anti-SLAPP motion
1.00
450.00
JL
REDACTED
REDACTED
telephone call from counsel forlayboy re: strategy in connection with anti-slapp motion; draft correspondence to all defense counsel re: same
1.40
490.00
JJ
Dec-03-10
review authorities regarding the standards anti-slapp motions; draft motion to strike;
for
3.30 1,485.00
JL
intraoffice conferences and review correspondence related to upcoming meeting ofcounsel
REDACTED
off,rce conference re: strategy for conference counsel and procedures related to anti slapp
of
2.30
805.00
JJ
motion; review legal authorities concerning anti slapp REDACTED
motion;
Dec-06-10
REDACTED
6.30 2,835.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page24
Invoice
REDACTED
draft motion to strike; review authorities concerning standards for anti-slapp motions
review draft motion to strike (anti-slapp); intraoffice conference re: same; telephone conference with defense counsel re: strategy in connection with preparation of rule 26(f) report. motion to strike, and motion to dismiss; email to defense counsel re: same; email to plaintiff s counsel re: court-ordered conference of counsel
2.50
875.00
JJ
REDACTED
office conference re: meet and confer issues related to frling anti-slapp motron
1.80 630.00
rJ
EXHIBIT A
Page25
lnvoice
Dec-10-10
REDACTED
draft motion to strike; review legal authorities supporting same
3.30 1,485.00
JL
Dec-13-10
REDACTED
draft anti-SLAPP motion; intraoffi ce
conferences conceming same
6.30 2,835.00
JL
Dec-14-10
REDACTED
REDACTED
conferences re: anti-slapp motion
2.40 1,o8o.oo rc
REDACTED
review and
revise motion to strike complaint
r.60 s6o.oo
810.00
rr
Dec-15-10
review and revise motion to strike;
REDACTED 1.80
JL
review correspondence from

counsel; correspondence to and from David
EXHIBIT A
Page26
Invoice
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 21 of 46 Page ID #: Settle Page 2l #:1915 October 27,2011
Halberstadter regarding anti-SLAPP motion and rule 26 report
REDACTED
review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; conference re: same
2.60 1,l7o.oo rc
EXIIIBIT A
Page27
Invoice
EXIIIBIT A
Page 28
Invoice #:
Dec-28-10
review correspondence from David Halberstadter; review caselaw regarding SLAPP standards; intraofhce conferences concerning same; draft correspondence to David Halberstadter regarding same; correspondence to and from David Halberstadter concerning conflict of laws statutes and rules review anti-slapp research; review and respond to emails re: same; office conferences re: same review legal authorities re: permissible discovery vis-a-vis anti-slapp motion; office conference re: same; telephone call from co-defense counsel re: deadline to file responsive pleading
3.00
1,350.00
JL
1.80
810.00
TG
1.50
525.00
JJ
Dec-29-10
review authorities concerning conflicts of laws and application of California law to this action; correspondence to and from David Halberstadter; review and revise SLAPP motion; review and revise motion to dismiss review email re: revisions to antislapp motion; office conference re: same
3.00
1,350.00
JL
0.90
405.00
TG
Dec-30-10
review David Halberstadter's comments to the SLAPP motion;revise SLAPP motion review correspondence from Sally Wu conceming changes to the anti-SLAPP motion; review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; draft motion to dismiss; review legal authorities supporting same
4.00
1,800.00
JL
Jan-03-l I
6.30
2,835.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page29
Invoice
review and check anti-SLAPP motion; review comments from Ms. Wu, cite check same; conference re: definition convention and page
3.10
1,395.00
TG
limit
issues
REDACTED
office conference re: anti-SLAPP
REDACTED
anti-SLAPP motion
motion;
1.60
560.00
JJ
review and edit
Jan-04-11
review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; correspondence to and from Davi Halberstadter; correspondence to co-defense counsel; intraoffice conferences concermng anti-SLAPP motion review and comment on anti-SLAPP respond to e-mails re: same
emails re: draft anti-SLAPP motion; current draft of motion
2.00
900.00
JL
motion; review
0.60 0.30
270.00 105.00
TG
JJ
REDACTED
Jan-06-11
telephone conferences with
David
0.50
225.00
JL
Halberstadter regarding additional anti-SLAPP
motion arguments; intraoffice conferences concerning same
REDACTED
email from counsel for Summit re: strategy issues and respond to same
various
0.50
175.00
JJ
REDACTED
Jan-10-1 I
REDACTED
Page 30
EXHIBIT A
Invoice
office conference re: strategy in connection with timing of filing anti-SLAPP motion, etc.
0.30
105.00
JJ
ran-l3.r'
conferences re: same,
REDACTED
REDACTED
filing of anti-SLAPP
0.60 27o.oo rc
motion
REDACTED
Jan-18-1
1 1
correspondence to and from
David
0.30
I
135.00 450.00
JL
Halberstadter
Jan- 1 91
intraoffice conferences concerning case strategy; telephone conference with David Halberstadter regarding anti-SLAPP motion; telephone conference with Jeremiah Reynolds regarding same
.00
JL
office conference re: anti-SLAPP motion; telephone conference with counsel for Summit re: same
0.80
280.00
JJ
REDACTED
Jan-20-1
1
REDACTED
0.80 360.00
Tc
EXHIBIT A
Page 31
Invoice
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-2 Filed 10/27/11 Page 26 of 46 Page ID #: Settle Page 26 #:1920 October 27,201I
conference re: same, pro hac vice opposition and anti-SLAPP motion; draft email to counsel
for Summit
REDACTED
Jan-21-I1
review correspondence and comments from David Halberstadter; intraoffice conference concerning changes to anti-SLAPP motion and submission of supporting documents review Summit's comments to draft anti-SLAPP motion; revise motion; office conference re: proper authentication ofdvd and lodging same
0.50
225.00
JL
1.30
455.00
JJ
Jan-24-Il
telephone conference with Steve Berkowitz and Jeremiah Reynolds; telephone conference
0.50
225.00
JL
with David Halberstadter; intraoffice conferences concerning arguments for Anti-SLAPP motion; follow up on joint
defense agreement
REDACTED conference O.2o

re: filing anti-SLAPP motion further revisions to anti-SLAPP motion; Chartier declaration in support of same
90.00
700.00
TG
draft
2.00
JJ
Jan-25-ll
REDACTED
continue drafting Chartier declaration support of motion to strike; draft notice of manual filing; office conference re: strategy in connection with motion to strike; draft correspondence to client re: same
in
2.50
875.00
JJ
Jat26-ll
finalize anti-SLAPP Motion; intraoffice conferences re: same; draft declaration of Timot Gorry
5.30 2,385.00
JL
REDACTED
Jan-27-Il
prepare attomeys'fees calculations anti-SLAPP motion; correspondence to and
for
1.50
675.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page32
Invoice
from David Halberstadt er; frnalize anti-SLAPP motion; intraoff,rce conferences review andftnalize anti-SLAPP
motion;
office
2.50
1,125.00
TG
REDACTED
conferences re: same, declaration of N.
Chartier
Jan-28-11
correspondence to and from David Halberstadter; review Summit's comments to anti-SLAPP motion; correspondence to co-defense counsel
1.30
585.00
JL
multiple emails from counsel for Summit re: anti-SLAPP motion; respond to same;review Gorry declaration in support of same
1.50
525.00
JJ
REDACTED
Jan-31-11
correspondence with co-defense counsel coordinating filing of motions; prepare motion to strike and supporting documents for filing
0.80 2.50 0.50 2.50
360.00 1,125.00 175.00 1,125.00
JL
ftnalize anti-SLAPP motion; telephone calls
to
TG
Mr. Hickey re: same

review multiple emails from counsel for co-defendants re: anti-SLAPP motion; office conference re: same
JJ
Feb-01-11
handle f,rling of motion to strike and supporting documents; correspondence to and from counsel regarding same; review Summit's joinder and supporting documents; revrew Boal's and Bigelow's joinder; review and revise rule 26 Report; intraoffice conference concerning same
JL
review and finalize declaration of TJG for anti-SLAPP motion; office conferences re: frling, opposition to Pro Hac Vice application; telephone call to Mr. Hickey re: same
emails from co-defense counsel re: strategy filing issues attendant to anti-SLAPP motion and related matters; review Summit notice ofjoinder in anti-SLAPP motion
and
1.20
540.00
TG
1.30
455.00
JJ
EXHIBIT A
Page 33
lnvoice #:
Feb-09-1
review correspondence from plaintiffls counsel seeking continuance of hearing; intraoff,rce conference concerning same; correspondence to and from defense counsel conceming same; telephone conference with Jeremiah Reynolds concerning opposition to plaintiffs request;
3.00
1,350.00
JL
REDACTED
EXHIBIT A
Page 34
Invoice
review email correspondence from plaintiff s counsel re: briefing schedule for motion to strike; email from counsel for Smmit re: same; telephone call to counsel for defendants Boal and Bigelow re: same; draft email correspondence to counsel for plaintiffre:
1.50
525.00
JJ
same;
Feb-10-11
REDACTED
review correspondence between plaintiffs and Summit's counsel; correspondence to and from David Halberstadter concerning plaintiff s anticipated filings; REDACTED
outline arguments and procedural history necessary to oppose plaintiffs anticipated filing; review and analyze plaintiffs ex parte application and supporting documents; draft opposition to ex parte application; review legal authorities supporting same; coffespondence with counsel regarding same; intraoffice conferences concerning same; REDACTED
8.30 3,735.00
JL
REDACTED
review email from counsel for Summit re: plaintiffs request for a continuance of hearing date on motion to strike; office conference re:
0.50
175.00
JJ
same;
REDACTED
Feb-l1-11
correspondence to and from David
Halberstadter; REDACTED
review and revise opposition to ex parte application and declaration ofJackie Joseph; intraoffice conferences concerning same; telephone conference with and correspondence to and from Jeremiah Reynolds
2.50 1,125.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page 35
Invoice #:
review ex parte application, emails discussing same; conference re: local counsel designation; review and revise opposition to application review plaintiffs ex parte application to continue the hearing date on defendants' anti-SLAPP motion; office conference re: same; review and revise opposition to ex parte application; multiple email communications to and from co-defense counsel re: same; draft declaration in support of opposition to ex parte application; attention to collection and organization of exhibits thereto Feb-14-l I
review plaintiffs reply to ex parte application and supporting documents; REDACTED revlev/ court's order
3.00
1,350.00
TG
6.50
2,275.00
JJ
1.00
450.00
JL
review emails from Mr. Weglarz re: extention; review order on ex parte; office conferences re: same; REDACTED
1.20
540.00
TG
REDACTED
review reply brief and supplemental declaration in support of plaintiffs ex parte application; review court's order re: same
1.00
3s0.00
JJ
EXHIBIT A
Page 36
Invoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page37
lnvoice #:
EXHIBIT A
Page 38
-t
Invoice
Mar-03-11
review coffespondence amongst
defense
0.50
225.00
JL
counsel; review recent decisions construing anti-SLAPP motions; intraoffice conference
concerning same
REDACTED
email from co-defense counsel re: authorities in support of anti-SLAPP motion;
respond to
REDACTED
t.5o s2s.oo
rr
same; REDACTED
EXHIBIT A
Page 39
Invoice
Mar-08-11
REDACTED
telephone conference with David Halberstadter; draft reply in support of motion
2.80 1,260.00
JL
to strike; review legal authorities supporting

same
Mar-09-11
draft reply in support of motion to strike; review legal authorities concerning discovery stay under the anti-SLAPP statute and choice of law issues
6.00 2,700.00
JL
EXHIBIT A
Page 40
Invoice
conference re: reply, correspondence with Weglarz; review responses to same
Mr.
0.60
270.00
TG
Mar-10-11
Mar-l1-11
response to
intraoffice conference concerning strategy for plaintiffs opposition to motron to
1.30
585.00
JL
strike;
REDACTED
conference re: discovery, timing on opposition and reply; review emails re: responses, letter
0.50 0.60 1.60 0.20
225.00 210.00 720.00 70.00
TG
from Mr. Weglarz multiple emails to and from counsel re: discovery issues
Mar-14-1
co-defense
JJ
review emails from Mr. Weglarz; conferences with co-defense counsel re: same; review factual issues presented by correspondence
email from opposing counsel re: opposition anti-SLAPP motion
TG
to
JJ
Mar-15-11
review and analysis of oppositions and supporting documents; correspondence to and from opposing counsel; review legal authorities setting standards for rule 56(d) requests; intraoffice conferences concenung reply arguments; draft reply in support of motion to strike
review opposition to anti-SLAPP motion, declarations thereto; office conferences re: reply, objections to declarations, conference call; set up same; review and revise response to Mr. Reynolds email re: timing; off,rce conferences re: same
5.30 2,385.00
JL
1.40
630.00
TG
EXHIBIT A
Page
4l
lnvoice #:
review opposition briefs to anti-SLAPP motions to strike plaintiffs complaint; review Sarver declaration and Weglarz declaration in support of same; office conference re: same; email to co-defense counsel re: same; begin drafting reply in support of anti-SLAPP motion to strike; begin drafting evidentiary objections to declarations in support of plaintiffs opposition
4.80
1,680.00
JJ
Mar-l6-11
intraoffice conferences conceming reply arguments and issues with the facts plaintiff raised through his oppositions and supporting declarations; review correspondence amongst counsel regarding same
conference call re: allocationof responsibilities on reply to anti-SLAPP motion; ofhce conferences re: same; review argument outlines, restatement sections re: domicil; office conferences re: same
0.80
360.00
JL
1.80
8r0.00
TG
office conference re: analysis of opposition to motion to strike and strategy for reply brief; conference call with co-defense counsel re: same; review legal authorities; review exhibits to declarations in support of opposition; continue drafting reply brief in support of motion to strike; review correspondence from plaintiffs counsel re: Renner deposition
Mar-17-11
6.00
2,100.00
JJ
review and analyze plaintiffs opposition arguments; intraoffice conferences concerning reply arguments; review legal authorities supporting same; draft reply in support of motion to strike; REDACTED review evidentiary objections, comment on same; conference re: reply, arguments therein and tie-in to objections office conference re: issues related to reply brief; continue drafting reply in support of motion to strike; review legal authorities in connection with same; multiple emails to and from co-defense counsel; review plaintiffs reply brief in support of pro hac vice application
10.30
4,635.00
JL
3.20
1,440.00
TG
5.50
1,925.00
JJ
EXHIBIT A
Page 42
Invoice
draft reply in support of motion to strike; review legal authorities supporting factors for determining domicile or residence; intraoffice conferenc es concerning reply; correspondenc e to co-defense counsel; review and comment on evidentiary objections
numerous revisions to reply review emails re: same; office conferences re:
same
Mar-18-11
5.30 2,385.00
JL
memorandum; 5.80 2,610.00 to 5.50 I,925.00 1.20 540.00
TG
continue drafting reply in support of motion strike; emails to and from co-defense counsel re: same
JJ
Mar-19-11
review and revise additions to reply memo fom Mr. Halberstadler, Ms. Wu; review and revise objections to declarations review and revise reply to conform to page limits; review emails from Mr. Halberstadler, Ms. Wu; review and revise objections to declarations; draft and send email to counsel for Boal and Bigelow re: separate reply
TG
2.80 1,260.00
TG
Mar-2}-l
review and revise reply in support of motion strike review and revise reply in support of motion strike; intraoffice conferences concerning
same
to to
1.30 2.00
455.00 900.00
JJ
Mar-2t-ll
JL
review David Halberstadter's comments to reply; intraofhce conferences concerning the reply; review and revise reply in support of motion to strike; review declaration of Paul Wilcock; review and revise evidentiary
obj ections; correspondence and telephone
the
7.50 3,375.00
JL
conferences with David Halberstadter, Sally Wu and Jeremiah Reynolds; review Boal's and Bigelow's reply in support of motion to strike
review comments from Mr. Halberstadter; respond to same; office conferences re: comments, inclusion in reply; provide final comments on anti-SLAPP motion; review draft of Boal reply; provide comments to same
review, revise, edit and finabze reply support of motion to strike; emails to and from co-defense counsel re: same; review and
3.20 I,440.00
TG
in
5.50 7,925.00
JJ
EXHIBIT A
Page 43
Invoice
ftnalize objections to declarations of T. Weglarz and J. Sarver in support of opposition to motion to strike; review declaration of P. Wilcock in support of opposition to motion to strike; review andftnalize objections to same
}l4ar-22-Il
REDACTED
review reply brief submitted by defendants Boal and Bigelow in support of motion to strike complaint; office conference re: status
and strategy
1.30
455.00
JJ
Mar-28-11
review court order regarding hearing on motion to dismiss; correspondence to and from c o -defense couns el regarding same ; intraoff,rce conference concerning same review chamber minutes re: no oral argument on anti-SLAPP motion; office conferences and emails re: same review court order re: hearing on motions strike
0.30
135.00
JL
0.40 0.30 0.70
180.00 105.00 315.00
TG
to
JJ
Mar-29-l1
review declaration objections; respond emails re: same
to
TG
EXHIBIT A
Page 44
Invoice
review plaintiffs objections to the declaration of Mark Boal; correspondence to and from co-defense counsel concerning same review latest filings from plaintiff; and emails re: same
Mar-30-11
0.30
135.00 180.00
140.00 450.00
JL
conferences 0.40
TG
review plaintiffs evidentiary objections Boal declaration

Mar-3 I - 1 I
to to
0.40
1
JJ
briefs;
review plaintiff s response to the objections the declaration ofJeffrey Sarver; correspondence with counsel concerning same; review local rules governing reply
.00
JL
REDACTED
review supplemental opposition to declarations late filed by plaintiffs; review and respond to emails ."' .u-"; REDATED review plaintiffs response to evidentiary objections to Sarver declaration; office conference re: same; review emails from co-defense counsel re: potential response to improper filing by plaintiff and discovery
responses
0.90
405.00
TG
0.90
315.00
JJ
Apr-01-11
review Boal's responses to plaintiffs requests for production; review Bigelow's responses to plaintiff s requests for production
telephone call to Mr. Halberstadter; discovery rosponses from Boal and Bigelow
0.30 0.80 0.30 1.00
135.00 360.00 135.00 350.00
JL
review for
TG
Apr-04-11
Apr-05-1
f,rnalize responses to plaintiffs requests
JL
production
review discovery responses served by defendants, Boal, Bigelow, and Summit Entertainment
Totals
JJ
REDACTED
DISBURSEMENTS
REDACTED
EXHIBIT A
Page 45
Invoice
TAX ID
Number
REDACTED
PAYMENT DETAILS
Total Payments
REDACTED
EXHIBIT A
Page 46
9601 Wilshite Boulevard Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
www.eisnerlaw.com
Voltage Pictures
Attn:Nicolas
LLC Chartier
lnvoice 26592 October 27,2011
662 N. Crescent Heights Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048
ID:950-03001 - TJG Re: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver Claim No. 49177 For Services Rendered Through October 27,2011
S.
Fees
Date
Atfy
Description
Hours
Amount
07124
TJG
review minute order; review and respond to emails re: same; office
conferences re: oral arguments
1.00
4s0.00
135.00
07l2ytt rIH
07l2vt1
JMJ
review court order setting hearing on motion to strike; intraoffice conference concerning same review court order setting hearing date; email from co-defense counsel
re: same; respond to same
0.30 0.30
105.in
REDACTED
07l2slt1 TJG
07l27ltl
JMJ
review and respond to email re: status review email from plaintiffs comsel re: request to change hearing date;
0.20 0.30 0.70 0.30 0.30 0.s0 0.90
90.00 105.00 315.00 105.00 10s.00
multle email communications between co-defense counsel re: same
07l27ln TJG 07l28ltt

J}'4J
review request for new hearing date; review and respond to numerous
emails re: same
multle email communications re: plaintiffs request for stulation to

continue hearing date email to opposing coursel re: request for stulation to continue hearing on motion to strke; office conference re: same
07129111 JMJ
07l29ltl TJG
08/01/11 TJG
review emails re: hearing, acquiescence to original date by plaintiff; office

conferences re: same conference call re: oral argument, division of labor; office conference re:
225.n
405.00
EXHIBIT A
Page 47
Eisner, Kahan & Gorry, a Professional Corporation
Voltage Pictures LLC LD. 950-03001 - TJG Re: Jeffrey sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; claimant: Sgt, Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177
October 27,2011 Invoice 26592 Page 2
Date Atty
08/01/l
Description
same
llours stnke; 0.50 3.30 2.50 3.50 5.80 5.60 2.50 2.50 3.70 5.20
Amount
225.00 1,155.00
l JJH JMJ
conference call to discuss upcoming hearing on motion to intraoffice conferences concerning same
08/01/11
telephoneconferencewithco-counselre:hearingonmotiontostrfte;
review motion, opposition, and reply memorandum in preparation for
hearing
JMJ review legal authorities in preparation for hearing on motion to stnke TJG initial review of pleadings in preparation for oral argument 08/03/l l TJG review moving paprs, outline arguments; check PACER for tentative
08l0Ull 08l0Ull 0Sl%lll
ruling
875.00 1,575.00 2,610.00 2,520.00
TJG
08/04/l
I JJH
review pleadings, case law in preparation for hearing on anti-SLAPP motion; office conferences re: same; draft and send emails to Mr. Halberstadter re: meeting; review tentative decision; comment on same; draft and send emails re: rescheduling of meeting review motion and opposition papers and analyze arguments to be made at upcoming hearing; intraoffice conferences to discuss same; review and
ana$zn tentative ruling; correspondence amongst defense counsel conceming same
1,125.00
08/04/11
JMJ review legal authorities in preparation for hearing on motion to stnke

complaint; office conference re: same; review tentative ruling on motion to strke complaint; multle email communications with co-defense counsel re: same
875.00
08/05/11 08/05/11
JMJ meeting with co-counsel to prepare for hearing on motion to strke;

review legal authorities in support of same
1,295.00
JJH
meeting with defense counsel to discuss arguments to be presented hearing on motion to strke; review legal authorities supporting various arguments to be presented at hearing, including attorneys' fees award ability of the court to grant leave to amend and appellate issues
at
23q.00
REDACTED
08/08/11
TJG
prepare for hearing on anti-SLAPP motion; telephone conference Messrs. Halberstadter and Reynolds re: structure of argument; attend and argue motion; office conference re: argtrment
with
7.90
3,555.00
REDACTED
08/08/11 08/08/l
JJH
I JMJ
intraoffice conferences concerning arguments to be made at and results of hearing on motion to s:lke telephone conference with cocounsel to prepare for hearing on motion to strke; review legal authorities and outline in preparation for hearing on motion to strike; attend hearing on motion to strke
0.50 7.50
225.00 2,625.00
REDACTED
08ll4lll TJG
review supplemental pleading filed by counsel for plaintiff; review
and
l.2O
540.00
EXHIBIT A
Page 48
Eisner, Kahan
Voltage Pictures LLC r.D. 950-0300r - TJG Re: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et
& Gorry, a Professional Corporation

October 27,2011 Invoice 26592
al Irsured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant:
Sgt.
Page 3
Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177
Date Atty
08/15/11
Description
respond to emails re: same
Hours
0.90
Amount
315.00
JMJ review plaintiffs supplemental

same
brief in opposition to motion to strike; email commwrications with co-defense counsel re: same; review reply to
REDACTED
08/15/11
JJH
TJG
review and analyze plaintiffs supplemental opposition filed after oral

argwnent; correspondence amongst counsel discussing same and potential response; review reply frled by Boal and Bigelow
1.00
450.00
08/15/11
review emails re: supplementalbrief review andrevise objection
0.70
315.00
REDACTED
09129111 09130111
JJH JJH
review plaintiffs sw-reply; intraoffice confere e conceflxng same correspondence amongst counsel concerning plaintiff s sur-reply and whether to respond to s e
0.s0 0.20
22s.m
90.00
REDACTED
10/04/11
JMJ
review sur-reply filed by plaintiff in support of opposition to motion to

stril<e complaint
0.50 0.50
17s.00
175.00
l0ll3lll JMJ
review order granting motion to strke
REDACTED
r0/13/ll
JJH
review court's order granting motion to dismiss; intraoffice conferences

concerning same correspondence amongst counsel concerning post-order strategy and requests for attomeys' fees
1.00
4s0.00
135.00
t1lt4ltt JIH
tDlt7ltl tDlt9lll
JMJ
0.30 0.20 0.60

1.70
JMJ
review email communications re: attorneys' fee issues review multle email communications re: strategy in connection with
motion for attorneys' fees correspondence amongst counsel regarding fees motion, meeting and conferring with plaintiffs counsel and potential for settlement; draft motion for attorneys' fees; review caselaw supporting entitlement to fees and scope ofaward
70.00 210.00 765.40
10/18/11 JJH
REDACTED
l0ll9lll JJH
review authorities concerning scope of allowable attorneys' fees under $a25.16; draft motion for attorneys' fees t.20
540.00
EXHIBIT A
Page 49
Esner, Kahan
Voltage Piclures LLC
& Gorry, a Professional Coryoration

October 27,2011
r.D. 9s0-03001 - TJc Re: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177
Invoice 26592
Sgt.
Page 4
Date Atty
Description
Hours
Amount
REDACTED
l0l20lll JJH
correspondence amongst counsel arranging meet and confer
with
0.50 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.30
225.00
plaintiffs counsel intraoffrce conferences conceming issues to be raised

during meet and confer; correspondence amongst counsel conceming potential walk-away settlement
l0l20lll Jll4J
multle email commwrications re: conference of counsel attorneys' fee award
concerning
70.00
REDACTED
l0l2llll JJH l0l2llll JMJ

l0l24ll
inkaoffice conferences concerning meet and confer with plaintiff s counsel and preparation of motion for attorneys' fees telephonic meet and confer with plaintiffs counsel re: motion for
attorneys' fees
email to co-defense counsel re: conference of counsel re: award attomeys' fees; email from plaintiffs counsel re: same
90.00 140.00 105.00
I JMJ
of
l0l25lll JMJ l0l25lll TJG

10126lll 10126lll
multle email communications re: offer to waive attorneys' fees and related issues; review draft motion for attorneys' fees prepared by codefense counsel
0.60 2.60 1.00 5.20
210.00
JMJ JJH
review attomey fees motion; revise same; review and respond to correspondence from Mr. Reynolds re: fee motion; review and respond to emails from Mr. Halberstadter re: same, discussions with Mr. Weglarz office conference re:motion for attorneys' fees; email to co-defense counsel re: same; review and edit motion for attomeys' fees review correspondence with plaintiffs counsel concerning settlement offer; draft motion for attorneys' fees; draft declaration of Timot J. Go.ry; intraoffice conferences concerning motion
1,170.00
350.00
23m.00
rotal
Fee Recap
Fees
REDACTED
Amount
Hours Rate/Hour
REDACTED
EXHIBIT A
Page 50
Eisner, Kahan & Gorry,
Voltage Pictures LLC r.D. 9s0-03001 - TJG Re: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et Jeffrey S. Sarver Claim No. 49177
a
Professional Corporation
October 27,2011
lnvoice 26592
al
Insured: Hurt
Locker,LLC; Claimant:
Sgt.
Page 5
Disbursements
EXHIBIT A
Page
5l

Motion2 Attys Fees SGT Sarver V Nicolas Chartier

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion2 Attys Fees SGT Sarver V Nicolas Chartier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1882

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:1883

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

Dated: October 27, 2011

EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:1884

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION Defendants1 successfully moved to strike each of the claims brought by

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:1885

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:1886

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

Defendants Are Entitled To An Award $111,200.00 Against Plaintiff.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:1887

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133

Filed 10/27/11 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:1888

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

Dated: October 27, 2011

EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1889

Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1890

Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1891

Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1892

Filed 10/27/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1893

Filed 10/27/11 Page 5 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 #:1894

Filed 10/27/11 Page 6 of 6 Page ID

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN)

ErsNER, KAr{AN & GORRY

october 27,2011 Fle rnvoce

HOURS AMOUNT LAWYER

draft motion to dismiss; research on application of state law