Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BATTA FULKERSON, LLP, Case No.: 25-cv-00551-AGS-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 14 BULLDOG LAW, P.C., AND COSTS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 64] 16 17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 18 19 20 Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff Batta 21 Fulkerson (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 64.) Defendant Bulldog Law, P.C. (“Defendant”) filed 22 an opposition. (ECF No. 67.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED 23 IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On January 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a discovery-related Motion for Sanctions 26 requesting that sanctions be imposed against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), (d)(1)(a)(ii) and (e). (ECF No. 58.) On March 4, 2026, the 28 Honorable Karen S. Crawford issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in 1 part, finding that Defendant’s complete failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Revised First Set 2 of Interrogatories (“Revised Interrogatories”) warranted compelled responses, in addition 3 to a monetary sanction for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and expenses (the “Sanctions 4 Order”). (ECF No. 63 at 7.) Judge Crawford found the imposition of sanctions supported 5 under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and (d)(1)(a)(ii). (Id. at 5–6.) Accordingly, Judge Crawford 6 ordered Defendant to produce full and complete written responses to the Revised 7 Interrogatories by March 27, 2026. (Id. at 9.) Judge Crawford further ordered Defendant 8 and defense counsel, Mario P. Tafur and Phillip R. Berwish, to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable 9 expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by their failure to produce responses to the 10 Revised Interrogatories. (Id.) 11 Judge Crawford set a briefing schedule for a Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses. 12 (Id.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses was due by March 20, 2026, and 13 Defendant’s opposition or other responsive brief was due by April 3, 2026. (Id.) Plaintiff 14 timely filed a motion (ECF No. 64) and Defendant timely filed an opposition (ECF No. 15 67). 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 An award of attorneys’ fees must be reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 18 424, 433 (1983). “Federal courts employ the ‘lodestar’ method to determine a reasonable 19 attorney’s fees award[.]” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). This is 20 a “two-step process.” Id. “First, a court calculates the lodestar figure by multiplying the 21 number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. The 22 lodestar figure “is treated as a presumptively reasonable award.” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 23 97 F.4th 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2024). “Second, the court determines whether to modify the 24 lodestar figure, upward or downward, based on factors not subsumed in the lodestar 25 figure.” Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099. In determining whether to adjust the lodestar figure, 26 courts consider the following factors: 27 (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions 28 involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the 1 preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time 2 limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount 3 involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and 4 length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in 5 similar cases. 6 Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). “The lodestar is 7 presumed to include (or ‘subsume’) at least some of these factors, and an enhancement can 8 be justified only in ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ cases where the presumption is overcome.” 9 Edmo, 97 F.4th at 1168. 10 “The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to 11 achieve auditing perfection.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). At all times, the court 12 “has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee[,]” including 13 “the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the prevailing party.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 14 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff seeks an award of $77,190.20 in attorney fees and costs. (ECF No. 64-1 at 17 1.) In support of this request, Plaintiff submits itemized billing records listing $67,108.50 18 in attorney fees and $10,081.70 in costs. (Declaration of Kristen G. Roberts (“Roberts 19 Decl.”), ECF No. 64-5 ¶¶ 7–8, Exs. 1, 2.) In its opposition, Defendant objects to the entire 20 request, arguing that “the billing submitted in support of the monies [Plaintiff] seeks is 21 unreasonable, egregiously inaccurate, and unrelated to the alleged failure to respond to 22 discovery.” (ECF No. 67 at 14.)1 The Court addresses the parties’ arguments below. 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 1 Defendant makes several additional arguments in its opposition that are irrelevant to the present motion for attorney fees and costs caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to 28 1 A. Reasonable Rates 2 “Fee applicants have the burden of producing evidence that their requested fees are 3 in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 4 comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 5 1096, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he relevant 6 community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Id. (citation omitted). “Affidavits 7 of the plaintiffs’ attorneys and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community 8 . . . are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” Id. (citation omitted); see also 9 United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1107 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting 10 that “the court must base its determination on the current market rate”). “Once a fee 11 applicant presents such evidence, the opposing party has a burden of rebuttal that requires 12 submission of evidence . . . challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the . . . facts 13 asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1110– 14 11 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 15 Plaintiff argues that the billing rates charged by its counsel at Trestle Law, APC 16 (“Trestle Law”) are consistent with prevailing market rates in San Diego for attorneys of 17 comparable skill, experience, and reputation in intellectual property and trademark 18 litigation. (ECF No. 64-1 at 4–5.) Their billing rates are as follows: 19 20 Kristen G. Roberts Managing Attorney $695 21 Amanda L. Bruss Senior Attorney $650 22 Allegra Garside Associate $400 23 Savannah Swartz Associate $350 24 Kayley Seedborg Paralegal $150 25 26 Plaintiff’s counsel submitted multiple affidavits in support of their billing rates 27 attesting to their skill and experience. Kristen Roberts is the Founder and Managing 28 Attorney of Trestle Law. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 1.) She has been a licensed attorney since 2011 1 and opened the firm in 2014. (Id. ¶ 2.) Ms. Roberts has focused her practice entirely on 2 intellectual property matters. (Id.) Amanda Bruss, Senior Attorney, has been a licensed 3 attorney for nearly 20 years and has specialized in federal IP litigation since 2011. (ECF 4 No. 64-3 at 2.) Allegra Garside, Associate, has been a licensed attorney since 2022 and an 5 associate at Trestle Law focusing primarily on intellectual property matters since 2023. 6 (ECF No. 64-2 at 1–2.) Savannah Swartz, Associate, has been a licensed attorney since 7 2021 and has practiced trademark law for over four years. (ECF No. 64-4 at 1–2.) 8 Plaintiff’s counsel argues that “[c]ourts in this District have approved hourly rates 9 within or well above the range sought here.” (ECF No. 64-1 at 4–5 (citing cases).) 10 Defendant does not dispute the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s hourly rates. Based on its 11 review of the relevant case law, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates to be in 12 line with those prevailing in this District for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 13 comparable skill, experience and reputation. See, e.g., Soler v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 14 14cv2470-MMA (RBB), 2021 WL 2515236, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2021) (“[C]ourts in 15 this District have awarded hourly rates for work performed in civil cases by attorneys with 16 significant experience anywhere in [the] range of $550 per hour to more than $1000 per 17 hour.”); 3D Sys., Inc. v. Wynne, No. 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL, 2025 WL 51443, at *2–4 18 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2025) (finding hourly rates of $830 for a litigation partner, $685 for 19 litigation counsel, and $475 and $505 for litigation associates to be reasonable and 20 collecting cases); Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN 21 (BLM), 2017 WL 2212029, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 18, 2017) (finding hourly rates of $750 22 for an intellectual property partner with 25 years of experience, $550 for an intellectual 23 property associate with 10 years of experience, $350 for an intellectual property associate 24 with 4 years of experience, and $150 for an intellectual property paraprofessional with 19 25 years of experience reasonable). 26 Moreover, the Court finds the hourly paralegal rate to be reasonable and in line with 27 the prevailing rate in this District. See Fitzgerald v. Pollard, No. 20cv848 JM(MSB), 2024 28 WL 4596401, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024) (“Generally, reasonable rates for paralegals 1 in this district have ranged from $125 to $250.”). Accordingly, the Court will utilize the 2 rates set forth above in its lodestar analysis. 3 B. Reasonable Hours 4 Litigants seeking fees have the “initial burden of production,” under which they 5 “must produce satisfactory evidence establishing the reasonableness of the requested fee.” 6 $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d at 1105 (citation and internal quotation marks 7 omitted). Thus, the applicant must “document[] the appropriate hours expended in the 8 litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked.” Gates, 987 F.2d at 9 1397. The fee award “may be based on the affidavits of counsel, so long as they are 10 sufficiently detailed to enable the court to consider all the factors necessary in setting the 11 fees.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal 12 quotation marks omitted). “The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal 13 that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and 14 reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its 15 submitted affidavits.” Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397–98. 16 Billing records submitted by the party seeking fees “may contain entries for hours 17 that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 18 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 “Because a reasonable attorney’s fee would not include compensation for such hours,” the 20 court may “conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request, and exclude those hours 21 for which it would be unreasonable to compensate the prevailing party.” Id. (internal 22 quotation marks and citation omitted). Alternatively, “when faced with a massive fee 23 application the district court has the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts 24 either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure as a practical means of 25 excluding non-compensable hours from a fee application.” Id. 26 Plaintiff argues that all the time reflected in Trestle Law’s billing statement was 27 necessarily and reasonably incurred in connection with this litigation. (ECF No. 64-1 at 28 5.) Plaintiff contends that the billing statement “captures the full scope of work performed 1 by Trestle Law regarding this discovery dispute through the preparation of these moving 2 papers, including meet-and-confer efforts and correspondence regarding Defendant’s 3 noncompliance; joint discovery dispute submissions to Judge Crawford; attendance at 4 Court conferences; preparation and filing of the Motion for Sanctions; review of 5 Defendant’s opposition; and preparation of this fee motion.” (Id. at 5–6.) 6 The Court has reviewed the billing statement in detail and finds that not all of 7 Plaintiff’s counsel’s hours were reasonably caused by Defendant’s failure to produce 8 responses to the Revised Interrogatories. See Breaking Code Silence v. McNamara, No. 9 2:22-cv-02052-MAA, 2024 WL 6847883, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2024) (“[F]or fees to 10 be awarded pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), there must be a ‘causal connection’ between a 11 litigant’s discovery misconduct and the legal fees incurred by the opposing party.” (quoting 12 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 108 n.5 (2017))); Andreoli v. 13 Youngevity Int’l, Inc., No. 16-cv-02922-BTM-JLB, 2019 WL 2492491, at *9, n.12 (S.D. 14 Cal. June 14, 2019) (declining to award fees for litigation efforts not directly caused by the 15 noncompliance). Plaintiff includes nearly all discovery-related billing done in this case, 16 which is beyond the scope of Judge Crawford’s Order. For example, the Revised 17 Interrogatories, the only interrogatories at issue, were served on July 14, 2025. (ECF No. 18 63 at 3, n.1.) Defendant had until August 13, 2025, to serve its answers and any objections. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Plaintiff included, however, billing entries prior to this deadline. 20 The first entry in Plaintiff’s billing statement regarding Defendant’s failure to 21 respond to the Revised Interrogatories is dated August 19, 2025. (ECF No. 64-6 at 2 (“draft 22 and send email to opposing counsel requesting M&C on Interrogatory Response”).)2 23 Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant regarding deficient discovery, including 24 Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories, on September 8, 2025. (Id. 25 26 27 28 1 at 3.) On September 10, 2025, the parties lodged a Joint Discovery Statement addressing, 2 in part, Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories. (ECF Nos. 58-8; 63 3 at 3–4.) The Court held a Discovery Conference to address the parties’ discovery dispute 4 on September 19, 2025. (ECF Nos. 40, 42.) Following the conference, Judge Crawford 5 ordered Defendant to provide full and complete responses to the Revised Interrogatories 6 by October 3, 2025. (Id. at 1.)4 7 Defendant argues that time spent on the meet and confer process is typically not 8 included in a fee award. (ECF No. 67 at 6.) As to the initial meet and confer, this argument 9 is well taken. In this District, the Local Rules require the parties to meet and confer on all 10 disputed issues prior to bringing any motion pursuant to Rule 37. CivLR 26.1(a). “As 11 such, fees associated with the initial meet and confer process logically should not always 12 be included in a fee award.” Matlink, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 07cv1994-DMS 13 BLM, 2008 WL 8504767, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2008). Although “a fee award may be 14 proper where a party fails to participate in a good faith meet-and-confer, or otherwise 15 obstructs the resolution process,” that is not the case here. RG Abrams Ins. v. L. Offs. of 16 C.R. Abrams, No. 2:21-cv-00194-FLA-MAAX, 2021 WL 4974050, at *19 (C.D. Cal. July 17 8, 2021). Here, Defendant did participate in the meet and confer process initiated on 18 August 19, 2025, which culminated in the submission of a Joint Discovery Statement and 19 a Discovery Conference on September 19, 2025. Such an attempt at informal resolution 20 occurs in the normal course of discovery. Accordingly, the Court does not find any of the 21 22 23 3 Although the parties were drafting a Joint Discovery Statement around this time and 24 such time is included in the billing statement, the Joint Discovery Statement submitted on 25 August 21, 2025, did not address Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories and is therefore not compensable. 26 4 In August, September, and October 2025, Plaintiff noticed and took the depositions 27 of Defendant and Mario Tafur. (ECF No. 64-6 at 2–4.) Plaintiff seeks attorney fees related to noticing, preparing for, and conducting these depositions. (Id.) For the reasons set forth 28 1 hours reasonable with respect to this initial attempt at resolving the parties’ discovery 2 dispute over Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories. 3 Defendant did not provide full and complete responses to the Revised Interrogatories 4 by October 3, 2025, as ordered by the Court. (Declaration of Amanda Bruss in Support of 5 Motion for Sanctions (“Bruss Sanctions Decl.”), ECF No. 58-1 ¶ 25.) Therefore, Plaintiff 6 initiated meet and confer efforts a second time, on October 7, 2025, which culminated in 7 another Joint Discovery Statement on November 20, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 27–30, 33–34, Ex. J.) 8 The Court finds all hours associated with this meet and confer and Joint Discovery 9 Statement to be reasonable. Rather than a discovery dispute in the normal course, 10 Defendant had violated a court order and offered no justification for doing so. (See ECF 11 No. 63 at 7.) 12 The parties held a telephonic conference with Judge Crawford’s law clerk on 13 December 11, 2025, who advised that Plaintiff could proceed with filing a motion for 14 sanctions and set the applicable briefing schedule. (Id. ¶ 36; see also ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff 15 received an extension of the briefing schedule on January 7, 2026. (ECF No. 56.) 16 Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed the motion for sanctions on January 19, 2026. (ECF No. 17 58.) The opposition was filed on February 2, 2026. (ECF No. 61.) 18 On February 9, 2026, the parties lodged another Joint Discovery Statement in which 19 Plaintiff sought to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 62.) The Court denied the request without 20 prejudice, stating that Plaintiff did not explain “what specific discovery it intends to pursue, 21 why it did not seek this discovery earlier, or allege any facts that would support a good 22 cause finding to reopen discovery or reset discovery deadlines that have already passed.” 23 (Id.) Although requested, the Court declines to find reasonable hours related to this denied 24 request. Judge Crawford issued the Sanctions Order on March 4, 2026. (ECF No. 63.) 25 Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter drafted the present motion for attorney fees and costs, which 26 was filed on March 20, 2026. (ECF No. 64.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 Although Plaintiff seeks $67,108.50 in attorney fees related to the Sanctions Order, 2 ||the Court finds that only the following hours, which reflect the timeline set forth above, 3 || were reasonably caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories:

Rate Amount 5 10/7/25 1.3 650 845 Review production and amended 6 discovery responses from Defendant, draft email requesting 7 conference, check caselaw on sanctions, next steps, outline joint 8 dispute letter (1.3 10/8/25 650 65 Review correspondence from 9 opposing counsel regarding 10 discovery dispute call, draft and send response with proposed times 11 10/9/25 1.1 650 715 Prepare for and conduct M&C with 12 opposing counsel regarding discovery issues (.7); finish draft 13 joint letter and send to opposing 14 counsel with exemplar document list (.4 15 10/10/25 650 65 Draft and send follow up to = 16 letter (.1). oe re UP eee to opposing counsel regarding 18 discovery dispute letter (.1 10/14/25 □□ 650 195 Review and respond to | eee documents, review documents (.3 20 10/30/25 650 65 Draft and send follow up to 21 opposing counsel regarding discovery dispute (.1 ae 11/20/25 3 650 195 Review and finalize Joint Discovery Dispute Letter regarding 23 Defendant’s failure to comply with Court’s Order compelling production in Batta Fulkerson, LLP 5 v. Bulldog Law, P.C.; Review Civil Chambers Rules and discovery 26 deadlines to confirm compliance; Prepare and serve Joint Discovery 27 Dispute Letter and correspondence 28 to the Court and all parties (0.3 Wh Rate Amount 2 12/10/25 1 650 65 Receive and review court 3 correspondence regarding Judge Crawford’s request for clarification 4 of partial responses to Document Requests and scheduling of 5 conference to address discovery sanctions (0.1 6 12/11/25 3 650 195 Participate in call with court clerk 7 regarding discovery deficiencies and procedural requirements for 8 upcoming hearing (0.3 pee eS een 9 addressing sanctions order (0.1 10 12/12/25 | Roberts s 695 208.5 Prepare and send detailed correspondence to Dan and Paul at Batta Fulkerson, LLP summarizing sanctions motion, discovery 12 enforcement, and propose call to discuss path forward (.2):; 13 Correspond with Senior Attorney 14 regarding same (.1 12/17/25 650 65 Coordinate with support staff Pe? sanctions motion (0.1). 16 1/5/26 A 650 260 Draft correspondence to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford and 17 opposing counsel to explain basis 18 for request to extend Plaintiff s sanctions motion deadline in light 19 of medical necessity and proposed settlement conference continuance; 20 review Defendant’s Letter Motion to Adjourn Mandatory Settlement 21 Conference due to medical 22 necessity and analyze impact on case schedule: Draft and revise 23 Plaintiff's Response to Court to confirm non-opposition to 24 adjournment, request resetting of Mandatory Settlement Conference 25 and extension of Plaintiff's motion 26 for sanctions deadline, and ensure language addresses circumstances a7 outlined in Defendant’s request; Correspond with Managing 28 Attorney and Paralegal to finalize 1 Date Attorney | Time | Hourly | Total Description Rate Amount 3 response for internal review (0.4 1/5/26 Roberts A 695 278 Review correspondence regarding 4 extension of Discovery Sanctions Motion deadline (.1); Coordinate 5 with Senior Attorney regarding submission strategy to the Court 6 and internal reporting for billing 7 discovery sanctions (.3): 1/7/26 A 650 260 Review and draft correspondence to 8 Law Clerk to Magistrate Judge Crawford and opposing counsel to 9 request and justify extension of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 10 filing deadline to follow 11 rescheduled Mandatory Settlement Conference, and review case 12 calendar to confirm timing and implications of proposed extension 13 0.2 14 1/8/26 650 65 Correspondence with Dan Fulkerson and Paul Batta of Batta 15 Fulkerson, LLP regarding new deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for 16 Sanctions (0.1). 1/9/26 650 65 Review and respond to 17 correspondence from Paul Batta 18 regarding need to file extension for sanctions motion in Batta 19 Fulkerson, LLP v. Bulldog Law, P.C. (0.1 20 1/12/26— 14.4 | 650 9360 Draft motion for sanctions and 1/20/26 related research 21 1/20/26 | Roberts 695 69.5 Review correspondence from Senior Attorney to Kate regarding the filing of the Motion for 23 Sanctions and associated exhibits, including declarations and 24 deposition excerpts, to track 5 litigation status and move the matter forward (0.1). 26 2/2/26 2 650 130 Receive and review Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for 27 Sanctions to evaluate legal arguments and identify discovery 28 deficiencies (0.2 119% Rate Amount 2 2/3/26 Roberts l 695 69.5 Review Defendant’s opposition to 3 the Motion for Sanctions to evaluate the clean hands doctrine 4 argument and determine its impact on the pending request for equitable 5 relief (0.1) (duplicate ent 3/5/26 650 585 Review and analyze Order Granting 6 Tn Part Plaintiffs Motion For 7 Sanctions And Setting Briefing Schedule For Motion For Attorney 8 Fees and Order on Discovery Extension to evaluate upcoming 9 deadlines and compliance requirements (0.1); Internal 10 correspondence with Managing 11 Attorney regarding matter strategy and status updates for Batta 12 Fulkerson, LLP (0.3); Review and analyze the Batta Dispute Report to 13 evaluate billing status and matter management to move the matter 14 forward (0.1).draft overview of 15 court rulings, the award of attorney’s fees, and strategic 16 settlement leverage to move the matter forward (0.2); internal L? correspondence with Managing 18 Attorney regarding preparation of the Motion for Attorney Fees, 19 finalize and send update to client 0.1). 30 3/5/26 Seedborg 150 15 Review Order on Motion for Sanctions and update the case 21 calendar and internal matter notes with upcoming deadlines to move 22 the matter forward (0.1). 3/9/26 A 650 260 Internal correspondence with Managing Attomey regarding 24 procedural requirements and estimated time for the Motion for 25 Attorney Fees (0.1). : Associate Attorney to prepare to a7 draft and file motion SS 28 and Senior Attorney (0.4); confer Rate Amount 2 with support staff regarding 3 updated dispute report to support motion for fees (0.1); Begin to 4 revise spreadsheet of Discovery fees for Batta Fulkerson, LLP 5 dispute to facilitate motion for fees 0.3); 6 3/12/26 | Swartz 2 350 700 Review the Order on Sanctions 7 Motion and Motion for Sanctions to identify relevant discovery dispute 8 dates (0.3); revise and notate Batta Dispute Report regarding fee 5 records for Senior Attorney to facilitate motion for fees (1.7). 10 3/13/26 | Swartz 1 350 350 Continue to revise and notate the 11 Batta Dispute Report regarding time entry records for the 12 Managing Attorney and Senior Attorney to facilitate fee tracking 13 and matter management (0.9); prepare and send email to Senior 14 Attorney outlining revisions (0.1). 15 3/13/26 2 650 130 Review and analyze internal dispute reporting and discovery 16 status for Batta Fulkerson, LLP to facilitate case management and 17 move the matter forward (0.1); pull and circulate sample declarations 18 from prior matter for support 19 needed for fees motion (0.1 3/14/26 2.5 650 1625 Review and analyze the Batta 20 Dispute Report to evaluate billable entries related to the discovery 21 dispute (0.2); draft and revise 02 motion for attorney’s fees (0.9); perform legal research regarding current market rates and the recovery of attorney fees at current 24 versus historical rates under Missouri v. Jenkins and Gonzalez 25 v. City of Maywood, recovery of 2% administrative staff costs (0.3); revise brief to incorporate legal a7 research regarding fee-shifting authorities, current market rates, 28 and paralegal fees (0.3); review and Rate Amount 2 revise the Motion for Attorneys’ 3 Fees to incorporate updated case citations, billing summaries, and 4 procedural formatting requirements to move the matter forward (0.2); 5 perform legal research regarding the ‘unjust’ circumstances 6 exception under Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) to support the argument for the full 8 fee award against Bulldog Law, PC (0.2); prepare draft declarations for 5 Senior Attorney and Associate Attorney regarding professional 10 experience and the accuracy of ae records support the fee application (0.4). 12 3/15/26 1.4 650 910 Review and revise motion for fees, pulling additional caselaw to 13 support legal arguments and billing rates (1.1); revise Bruss Declaration 14 (0.2); draft and send email to 15 Managing Attorney and Associate Attorneys regarding declaration 16 shells and information needed (0.1). 3/16/26 | Roberts 2 695 139 Revise declaration in support of | PEC? ea Attorney for handling/input. 18 3/16/26 | Swartz A 350 140 Review and revise personal 19 declaration in support of attorneys’ fees and send to Senior Attorney 20 for approval. 3/17/26 a 650 325 Correspondence with Associate 21 Attorney regarding the coordination 02 and review of time entries for a motion for attorney’s fees (0.2); check Southern District of California Local Rules to confirm 24 electronic filing of attorney declarations, draft and send 25 correspondence to team regarding 2% same, and deadline for completion (0.1); review internal a7 correspondence from Associate Attorney regarding the updated 28 Declaration in Support of Fees to Rate Amount 2 facilitate administrative 3 coordination and ensure accurate matter management (0.1); review 4 and analyze the Batta Dispute Fees Report to evaluate billable entries 5 and discovery status for Batta Fulkerson, LLP to facilitate case 6 management and move the matter forward (0.1 3/17/26 | Swartz 2.9 350 1015 Continue to revise and notate the 8 Batta Dispute Report to include updated billing entries and refined 5 descriptions for the Managing Attorney, Senior Attorney, and 10 Associate Attorney to support the 11 motion for attorney fees (1.5); Confer with Managing Attorney 12 and Senior Attorney regarding revisions to the billing report and 13 strategic updates to the fee motion to move the matter forward (0.2): 14 Review comments from Senior 15 Attorney and finalize the Batta Dispute Report in support of the 16 motion for attorney fees (1.1); prepare email to Managing L? Attorney and Senior Attorney 18 regarding finalization of Report 0.1 19 3/17/26 | Roberts 3 695 208.5 Review and revise Motion for Attorneys Fees and supporting 20 declarations (0.2); internal correspondence with Senior 2] Attorney and Associate Attorney regarding finalization of fee motion 22 exhibits and coordination of filing 73 schedule for Batta Fulkerson (0.1). 3/18/26 650 390 Meeting with Managing Attorney RE [Pe Dag Fes Maton 3/18/26 | Roberts 695 417 Meeting with Senior Attorney to 25 review documents for production 2% on discovery dispute and drafted settlement agreement and revise a7 declaration in support of Attorneys’ Fees Motion 28 1 Date Attorney | Time | Hourly | Total Description Rate Amount 2 3/19/26 | Swartz 3:1 350 1085 Review Civil Chambers Rules 3 regarding evidence formatting and submission requirements in 4 preparation of finalizing exhibits (0.2); communicate with Senior 5 Attorney and Managing Attorney regarding inclusion of deposition 6 costs (0.2); Conference with 7 paralegal regarding Batta Deposition costs and invoices (0.2); 8 Review Batta costs and invoices (0.2); prepare the Batta Dispute 5 Cost Report (0.4); Revise and finalize the Declaration of 10 Savannah Swartz in Support of 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees regarding the authentication of 12 billing records and professional background (0.5); Revise and 13 finalize Batta Dispute Fees Report 1.4 14 3/20/26 5 1650 | 325 Finalize and file motion for 15 attorney’s fees and supporting documentation.

Ly 18 Based on the foregoing, the lodestar is $22,543.00. The Court finds no rare or 19 ||€xceptional reason for adjusting this figure and therefore finds it to be the reasonable 30 || attomey fee award pursuant to the Sanctions Order. 1 C. Costs 09 Plaintiff also requests $10,081.70 in costs related to the depositions of Defendant’s 3 witnesses, Mario Tafur and David Prescilla. (Roberts Decl. § 8, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff argues it 74 ||1s entitled to these costs because they were “incurred solely because [Defendant] never 5 responded to [the Revised Interrogatories].” (ECF No. 64-1 at 8.) Plaintiff contends that 6 it was “compelled to depose Defendants’ witnesses to obtain basic factual information the 97 || terrogatory answers would have provided, at far less expense.” (/d.) Defendant objects 28 || to the request for costs, arguing, in part, that the request is “unrelated to the alleged failure 1 to respond to discovery.” (ECF No. 67 at 3–4.) For the reasons set forth below, the request 2 for deposition costs is denied. 3 In its Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff did not indicate that this was the sole reason for 4 deposing Defendant’s witnesses. Rather, the depositions were noticed while the parties 5 were still engaging in their discovery disputes and Judge Crawford was continuing to order 6 Defendant to respond to the Revised Interrogatories. (Bruss Sanctions Decl. ¶¶ 21–24.) 7 Plaintiff also attached excerpts from these depositions to its Motion for Sanctions and 8 claimed that the excerpts show that certain categories of documents responsive to the 9 Court-ordered Requests for Production had not been produced. (Bruss Sanctions Decl. ¶¶ 10 24, 31, Exs. H, I.) In the Sanctions Order, Judge Crawford denied without prejudice 11 Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions relating to Defendant’s alleged failure to 12 comply with the Court’s order to produce documents responsive to Request for Production 13 Nos. 11, 12, 14, and 26, and for alleged ESI spoilation. (ECF No. 63 at 7–10.) 14 Although the depositions may have been at least partially unproductive due to 15 Defendant’s allegedly deficient document production, the Court is not convinced that these 16 deposition costs were incurred because of Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised 17 Interrogatories. Compare RG Abrams Ins. v. L. Offs. of C.R. Abrams, No. 2:21-cv-00194- 18 FLA-MAAx, 2021 WL 4974049, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021) (declining to award fees 19 for the hours counsel spent reviewing discovery responses and preparing for depositions 20 because the plaintiff did not explain why this preparation was rendered unnecessary by the 21 failure to attend the deposition as the plaintiff may use this preparation when she deposes 22 the defendants in the future), with 3D Sys., Inc., 2025 WL 51443, at *4 (“Given that 3D 23 Systems did not intend to depose PTC and did so only after learning that defendants deleted 24 OnShape documents and elements, reasonable fees incurred by 3D Systems in taking the 25 deposition are within the August 21 Order’s scope.”). Rather, the Court finds that Plaintiff 26 would have noticed and taken these depositions regardless of Defendant’s failure to 27 28 1 ||respond to the Revised Interrogatories. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's requests 2 || for costs related to Defendant’s depositions.° 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is 5 ||GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff attorney fees 6 ||in the amount of $22,543.00. Bulldog Law, PC, Mario P. Tafur and Phillip R. Berwish, 7 || shall pay Plaintiff such fees no later than June 8, 2026, and shall file a declaration verifying 8 ||such payment has been made by June 15, 2026. Failure to comply with this Order may 9 || result in the imposition of additional sanctions. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: May 8, 2026 12 | 4.— 13 14 Hoh. Guillermo Cabrera 1 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2oi}o020tti<“i‘< OO! 27 |? The Court notes that while Plaintiff's deposition costs are not recoverable in the 28 context of Defendant’s failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories, the Court may still shift those costs to Defendant depending on the recommendation of the Special Master. 10