Motion2 Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier

8/3/2019 Motion2 Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier

1/59

i

282773/0950-03001 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (2:10-CV-09034-JHN

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY

9601WILSHIREBOULEVARD,SUITE700

BEVERLYHILLS,CALIFORNIA

90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

TIMOTHY J. GORRY (SBN 143797)[email protected] HILL (SBN 203959)

[email protected] M. JOSEPH (SBN 151102)

[email protected], KAHAN & GORRY9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700Beverly Hills, California 90210Telephone: (310) 855-3200Facsimile: (310) 855-3201

Attorneys for Defendants The HurtLocker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, NicolasChartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC,Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. andKingsgate Films, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HURT LOCKER, LLC; MARKBOAL; KATHRYN BIGELOW;

GREG SHAPIRO; NICOLASCHARTIER; TONY MARK;DONALL MCCLUSKER; SUMMITENTERTAINMENT, LLC;VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC;GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP;FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.;KINGSGATE FILMS, INC. andPLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.,Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-09034-JHN (JCx)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEESBY DEFENDANTS THE HURTLOCKER, LLC, GREG SHAPIRO,NICOLAS CHARTIER, VOLTAGE

PICTURES, LLC, GROSVENORPARK MEDIA L.P. AND KINGSGATEFILMS, INC.; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT THEREOF

Date: December 12, 2011Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 790

[Declaration Of Timothy J. Gorrysubmitted concurrently herewith]

Assigned to the HonorableJac ueline H. N u en

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1882


2/59

ii


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 theCentral 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.

Dated: October 27, 2011 EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY

By: /s/ Timothy J. Gorry

Timothy J. GorryAttorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC,Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Films, LLC,Grosvenor Park Media L.P. and Kin s ate Films Inc.



3/59

1


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTIONDefendants

1

successfully moved to strike each of the claims brought byPlaintiff, 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 anti-

SLAPP 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 Defendants refers to The Hurt Locker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier,Voltage Pictures, LLC, Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. and Kingsgate Films, Inc.



4/59

2


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

II. LEGAL ARGUMENTA. 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 freespeech 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 tha

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 anti-

SLAPP process. See Premier Medical Management Sys., Inc. v. California Ins

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



5/59

3


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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.

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



6/59

4


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 anti-SLAPP Motion was complete. [Docket Nos. 121-122, 126, 128.]

Defendants briefing included a host of complex legal issues. This is apparen

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., 14-

15.] 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

streamline the presentation to the Court, Defendants and Summit divided the issues

2 It should be noted that counsel for the various separately represented defendants allcharged their clients roughly the same rates for this matter, and that several of theattorneys who worked on the matter charged less than their standard billing rate.



7/59

5


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 aprevailing 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.

III. CONCLUSIONFor 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 EISNER, KAHAN & GORRY

By: /s/ Timothy J. GorryTimothy J. Gorry

Attorneys for Defendants The Hurt Locker, LLC,Greg Shapiro, Nicolas Chartier, Voltage Films, LLC,Grosvenor Park Media L.P. and Kin s ate Films Inc.



8/59

1

283749/0950-03001 DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. GORRY (2:10-CV-09034-JHN

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

TIMOTHY J. GORRY (SBN 143797)[email protected] HILL (SBN 203959)

[email protected] M. JOSEPH (SBN 151102)

[email protected], KAHAN & GORRY9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700Beverly Hills, California 90210Telephone: (310) 855-3200Facsimile: (310) 855-3201

Attorneys for Defendants The HurtLocker, LLC, Greg Shapiro, NicolasChartier, Voltage Pictures, LLC,Grosvenor Park Media, L.P. andKingsgate Films, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HURT LOCKER, LLC; MARKBOAL; KATHRYN BIGELOW;

GREG SHAPIRO; NICOLASCHARTIER; TONY MARK;DONALL MCCLUSKER; SUMMITENTERTAINMENT, LLC;VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC;GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP;FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.;KINGSGATE FILMS, INC. andPLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.,Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-09034-JHN (JCx)

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J.GORRY IN SUPPORT THE MOTIONFOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BYDEFENDANTS THE HURT LOCKER,LLC, GREG SHAPIRO, NICOLAS

CHARTIER, VOLTAGE PICTURES,LLC, GROSVENOR PARK MEDIAL.P. AND KINGSGATE FILMS, INC.

Date: December 12, 2011Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 790

Assigned to the HonorableJacqueline H. Nguyen

Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 133-1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID#:1889


9/59

2


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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, GrosvenorPark 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

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



10/59

3


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 withinsurance 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

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



11/59

4


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 haveworked 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

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 anti-

SLAPP 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



12/59

5


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 anti-

SLAPP 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 lega

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 lega

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.

///



13/59

6


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E

ISNER,K

AH

AN&

G

O

RRY



90210

TEL(310)855-3200F

AX(310)855-3201

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 instantmotion 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



14/59

ErsNER, KAr{AN & GORRYA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION960.I WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 7OOBEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210TELEPHONE: (31 0) 855-3200FACSIMILE: (310)8s5-3201

Federal Tax ID: REDACTED

Invoce Datevoltage pictures, LLC october 27,2011AXIS Insurance2300 Main street, suite 800 Fle #: 01-03058Kansas City, MO 6410g rnvoce #: SettleAttn: Russell Hickey/Senior Claims Specialist

RE: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et alInsured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt. Jeffrey S. SarverClaimNo.49177

DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT LAWYER

EXHIBIT A PageT



15/59

Invoice #: Page 2 October 27,2011

EXIIIBIT A Page I



16/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 3 October 27,2011

EXHIBIT A Page 9



17/59


EXHIBIT A Page 10



18/59


EXHIBIT A Page 11



19/59


EXIIIBIT A Page12



20/59


EXHIBIT A Page 13



21/59

lnvoice #: Page 8 October 27,2011

EXHIBIT A Page 14



22/59


EXHIBIT A Page 15



23/59


EXHIBIT A Page 16



24/59


EXHIBIT A Page 17



25/59


EXHIBIT A Page 18



26/59


EXHIBIT A Page 19



27/59


EXIIIBIT A Page20



28/59


EXHIBIT A Page2l



29/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 16.a

October 27,2011

Ptge22XHIBIT A



30/59


Nov-29-10 2.80 1,260.00 JLraft motion to dismiss; research onapplication of state law

JL.00ov-30-10 draft motion to dismiss; review legalEXHIBIT A

1,350.00

Page23



31/59

Invoice #: Settle

Dec-02-10

Dec-06-10

1.00 450.00 JL

6.30 2,835.00 JL

Page l8 October 27,2011authorities supporting same; REDACTED

offrce conference re: choice of law issues; 2.00 700.00 JJtelephone conference with counsel for Summitre: strategy in connection with responsivepleading for central district of California;review prelimitary case managment orders ofthe district court REDACTED

REDACTEDdraft motion to dismiss;review legal authorities supporting same andpotential anti-SLAPP motionREDACTED

REDACTEDtelephone call fromcounsel forlayboy re: strategy in connectionwith anti-slapp motion; draft correspondenceto all defense counsel re: same

1.40 490.00 JJ

Dec-03-10 review authorities regarding the standards for 3.30 1,485.00 JLanti-slapp motions; draft motion to strike;intraoffice conferences and reviewcorrespondence related to upcoming meetingofcounselREDACTEDoff,rce conference re: strategy for conference of 2.30 805.00 JJcounsel and procedures related to anti slappmotion; review legal authorities concerninganti slapp motion; REDACTED

EXHIBIT A

REDACTED

Page24



32/59

Invoice #: Settle October 27,2011age 19REDACTEDdraft motion to strike; reviewauthorities concerning standards for anti-slappmotions

review draft motion to strike (anti-slapp); 2.50 875.00 JJintraoffice conference re: same; telephoneconference with defense counsel re: strategy inconnection with preparation of rule 26(f)report. motion to strike, and motion to dismiss;email to defense counsel re: same; email toplaintiff s counsel re: court-ordered conferenceof counsel

REDACTED 1.80 630.00 rJoffice conference re: meet andconfer issues related to frling anti-slappmotron

EXHIBIT A Page25



33/59

lnvoice #: Settle Page 20 October 27,2011

Dec-10-10

Dec-13-10

Dec-14-10

REDACTEDdraft motion to strike; reviewlegal authorities supporting same

REDACTEDdraft anti-SLAPP motion; intraoffi ceconferences conceming same

REDACTEDREDACTED 2.40 1,o8o.oo rcconferences re: anti-slapp motionREDACTED r.60 s6o.oo rrreview andrevise motion to strike complaintDec-15-10 review and revise motion to strike; REDACTED 1.80 810.00 JL

review correspondence fromcounsel; correspondence to and from David

EXHIBIT A

3.30 1,485.00 JL

6.30 2,835.00 JL

Page26



34/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 2l October 27,2011Halberstadter regarding anti-SLAPP motionand rule 26 reportREDACTED 2.60 1,l7o.oo rc

review and revise anti-SLAPPmotion; conference re: same

EXIIIBIT A Page27



35/59


EXIIIBIT A Page 28



36/59


3.00 1,350.00 JL

3.00 1,350.00

1.80

1.50

0.90

4.00

6.30

810.00

525.00

405.001,800.00

2,835.00

TG

TG

JJ

JL

JL

JL

Dec-28-10

Dec-29-10

Dec-30-10Jan-03-l I

review correspondence from DavidHalberstadter; review caselaw regardingSLAPP standards; intraofhce conferencesconcerning same; draft correspondence toDavid Halberstadter regarding same;correspondence to and from DavidHalberstadter concerning conflict of lawsstatutes and rulesreview anti-slapp research; review and respondto emails re: same; office conferences re: samereview legal authorities re: permissiblediscovery vis-a-vis anti-slapp motion; officeconference re: same; telephone call fromco-defense counsel re: deadline to fileresponsive pleadingreview authorities concerning conflicts of lawsand application of California law to thisaction; correspondence to and from DavidHalberstadter; review and revise SLAPPmotion; review and revise motion to dismissreview email re: revisions to antislappmotion; office conference re: samereview David Halberstadter's comments to theSLAPP motion;revise SLAPP motionreview correspondence from Sally Wuconceming changes to the anti-SLAPP motion;review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; draftmotion to dismiss; review legal authoritiessupporting same

EXHIBIT A Page29



37/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 24 October 27,2011review and check anti-SLAPP motion; review 3.10 1,395.00 TGcomments from Ms. Wu, cite check same;conference re: definition convention and pagelimit issues

REDACTEDoffice conference re: anti-SLAPP motion; 1.60 560.00 JJREDACTEDreview and editanti-SLAPP motion

Jan-04-11 review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; 2.00 900.00 JLcorrespondence to and from DaviHalberstadter; correspondence to co-defensecounsel; intraoffice conferences concermnganti-SLAPP motionreview and comment on anti-SLAPP motion; 0.60 270.00 TGrespond to e-mails re: sameemails re: draft anti-SLAPP motion; review 0.30 105.00 JJcurrent draft of motionREDACTED

Jan-06-11 telephone conferences with David 0.50 225.00 JLHalberstadter regarding additional anti-SLAPPmotion arguments; intraoffice conferencesconcerning sameREDACTEDemail from counsel for Summit re: various 0.50 175.00 JJstrategy issues and respond to same

REDACTEDJan-10-1 IEXHIBIT A

REDACTEDPage 30



38/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 25 October 27,2011office conference re: strategy in connection 0.30 105.00 JJwith timing of filing anti-SLAPP motion, etc.

0.80 360.00 Tc

ran-l3.r' REDACTEDREDACTED 0.60 27o.oo rcconferences re: same, filing of anti-SLAPPmotion REDACTED

Jan-18-1 1 correspondence to and from David 0.30 135.00 JLHalberstadterJan- 1 9- 1 1 intraoffice conferences concerning case I .00 450.00 JLstrategy; telephone conference with DavidHalberstadter regarding anti-SLAPP motion;telephone conference with Jeremiah Reynoldsregarding same

office conference re: anti-SLAPP motion; 0.80 280.00 JJtelephone conference with counsel for Summitre: same REDACTED

Jan-20-1 1

EXHIBIT A

REDACTEDPage 31



39/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 26conference re: same, pro hac vice oppositionand anti-SLAPP motion; draft email to counselfor Summit

October 27,201I

1.30 455.00 JJJan-24-Il telephone conference with Steve Berkowitz 0.50 225.00 JL

and Jeremiah Reynolds; telephone conferencewith David Halberstadter; intraofficeconferences concerning arguments forAnti-SLAPP motion; follow up on jointdefense agreementREDACTED conference O.2o 90.00 TGre: filing anti-SLAPP motionfurther revisions to anti-SLAPP motion; draft 2.00 700.00 JJChartier declaration in support of same

Jan-25-ll REDACTEDcontinue drafting Chartier declaration in 2.50 875.00 JJsupport of motion to strike; draft notice ofmanual filing; office conference re: strategy inconnection with motion to strike; draftcorrespondence to client re: sameJat26-ll finalize anti-SLAPP Motion; intraoffice 5.30 2,385.00 JLconferences re: same; draft declaration ofTimot Gorry REDACTEDJan-27-Il prepare attomeys'fees calculations for 1.50 675.00 JLanti-SLAPP motion; correspondence to and

REDACTEDJan-21-I1 review correspondence and comments from 0.50 225.00 JLDavid Halberstadter; intraoffice conferenceconcerning changes to anti-SLAPP motion andsubmission of supporting documents

review Summit's comments to draftanti-SLAPP motion; revise motion; officeconference re: proper authentication ofdvdand lodging same

EXHIBIT A Page32



40/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 27 October 27,2011from David Halberstadt er; frnalize anti-SLAPPmotion; intraoff,rce conferencesreview andftnalize anti-SLAPP motion; 2.50 1,125.00 TGREDACTED officeconferences re: same, declaration of N.Chartier

Jan-28-11 correspondence to and from David 1.30 585.00 JLHalberstadter; review Summit's comments toanti-SLAPP motion; correspondence toco-defense counselmultiple emails from counsel for Summit re: 1.50 525.00 JJanti-SLAPP motion; respond to same;reviewGorry declaration in support of sameREDACTEDJan-31-11 correspondence with co-defense counsel 0.80 360.00 JLcoordinating filing of motions; prepare motionto strike and supporting documents for filingftnalize anti-SLAPP motion; telephone calls to 2.50 1,125.00 TGMr. Hickey re: samereview multiple emails from counsel for 0.50 175.00 JJco-defendants re: anti-SLAPP motion; officeconference re: sameFeb-01-11 handle f,rling of motion to strike and 2.50 1,125.00 JLsupporting documents; correspondence to andfrom counsel regarding same; review Summit'sjoinder and supporting documents; revrewBoal's and Bigelow's joinder; review andrevise rule 26 Report; intraoffice conferenceconcerning samereview and finalize declaration of TJG for 1.20 540.00 TGanti-SLAPP motion; office conferences re:frling, opposition to Pro Hac Vice application;telephone call to Mr. Hickey re: sameemails from co-defense counsel re: strategy 1.30 455.00 JJand filing issues attendant to anti-SLAPPmotion and related matters; review Summitnotice ofjoinder in anti-SLAPP motion

EXHIBIT A Page 33



41/59

lnvoice #: Page 28 October 27,2011

Feb-09-1 1 review correspondence from plaintiffls counselseeking continuance of hearing; intraoff,rceconference concerning same; correspondenceto and from defense counsel conceming same;telephone conference with Jeremiah Reynoldsconcerning opposition to plaintiffs request;REDACTED

3.00 1,350.00 JL

EXHIBIT A Page 34



42/59


review email correspondence from plaintiff s 1.50 525.00 JJcounsel re: briefing schedule for motion tostrike; email from counsel for Smmit re: same;telephone call to counsel for defendants Boaland Bigelow re: same; draft emailcorrespondence to counsel for plaintiffre:same; REDACTEDFeb-10-11 review correspondence between plaintiffs and 8.30 3,735.00 JLSummit's counsel; correspondence to and fromDavid Halberstadter concerning plaintiff s

anticipated filings; REDACTEDoutline arguments and proceduralhistory necessary to oppose plaintiffsanticipated filing; review and analyzeplaintiffs ex parte application and supportingdocuments; draft opposition to ex parteapplication; review legal authoritiessupporting same; coffespondence with counselregarding same; intraoffice conferencesconcerning same; REDACTED

review email from counsel for Summit re: 0.50 175.00 JJplaintiffs request for a continuance of hearingdate on motion to strike; office conference re:same; REDACTEDREDACTED

2.50 1,125.00 JLeb-l1-11 correspondence to and from DavidHalberstadter; REDACTEDreview and revise opposition to ex parteapplication and declaration ofJackie Joseph;intraoffice conferences concerning same;telephone conference with and correspondenceto and from Jeremiah Reynolds

EXHIBIT A Page 35



43/59

Invoice #: Settle

Feb-14-l I

Page 30review ex parte application, emails discussingsame; conference re: local counseldesignation; review and revise opposition toapplicationreview plaintiffs ex parte application tocontinue the hearing date on defendants'anti-SLAPP motion; office conference re:same; review and revise opposition to ex parteapplication; multiple email communications toand from co-defense counsel re: same; draftdeclaration in support of opposition to ex parteapplication; attention to collection andorganization of exhibits theretoreview plaintiffs reply to ex parte applicationand supporting documents; REDACTED

revlev/court's orderreview emails from Mr. Weglarz re: extention;review order on ex parte; office conferencesre: same; REDACTED

REDACTEDreview reply brief and supplementaldeclaration in support of plaintiffs ex parteapplication; review court's order re: same

3.00 1,350.006.50 2,275.00

1.00 450.00

1.20 540.00

1.00 3s0.00

October 27,2011

TG

TG

JJ

JL

JJ

EXHIBIT A Page 36



44/59


EXHIBIT A Page37



45/59

lnvoice #: Settle Page 32 October 27,2011

EXHIBIT A Page 38



46/59

-t


Mar-03-11 review coffespondence amongst defense 0.50 225.00 JLcounsel; review recent decisions construinganti-SLAPP motions; intraoffice conferenceconcerning same

REDACTEDREDACTED t.5o s2s.oo rremail from co-defense counsel re:authorities in support of anti-SLAPP motion;respond to same; REDACTED

EXHIBIT A Page 39



47/59


REDACTEDtelephone conference with DavidHalberstadter; draft reply in support of motionto strike; review legal authorities supportingsame

Mar-08-11 2.80 1,260.00 JL

Mar-09-11 draft reply in support of motion to strike; 6.00 2,700.00 JLreview legal authorities concerning discoverystay under the anti-SLAPP statute and choiceof law issuesEXHIBIT A Page 40



48/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 35 October 27,2011conference re: reply, correspondence with Mr. 0.60 270.00 TGWeglarz; review responses to same

Mar-10-11

Mar-l1-11 intraoffice conference concerning strategy for 1.30 585.00 JLresponse to plaintiffs opposition to motron tostrike; REDACTEDconference re: discovery, timing on opposition 0.50 225.00 TGand reply; review emails re: responses, letterfrom Mr. Weglarzmultiple emails to and from co-defense 0.60 210.00 JJcounsel re: discovery issues

Mar-14-1 1 review emails from Mr. Weglarz; conferences 1.60 720.00 TGwith co-defense counsel re: same; reviewfactual issues presented by correspondenceemail from opposing counsel re: opposition to 0.20 70.00 JJanti-SLAPP motion

Mar-15-11 review and analysis of oppositions and 5.30 2,385.00 JLsupporting documents; correspondence to andfrom opposing counsel; review legalauthorities setting standards for rule 56(d)requests; intraoffice conferences concenungreply arguments; draft reply in support ofmotion to strikereview opposition to anti-SLAPP motion, 1.40 630.00 TGdeclarations thereto; office conferences re:reply, objections to declarations, conferencecall; set up same; review and revise responseto Mr. Reynolds email re: timing; off,rceconferences re: same

EXHIBIT A Page 4l



49/59

lnvoice #: Settle

Mar-l6-11

Mar-17-11

Page 36review opposition briefs to anti-SLAPPmotions to strike plaintiffs complaint; reviewSarver declaration and Weglarz declaration insupport of same; office conference re: same;email to co-defense counsel re: same; begindrafting reply in support of anti-SLAPPmotion to strike; begin drafting evidentiaryobjections to declarations in support ofplaintiffs oppositionintraoffice conferences conceming replyarguments and issues with the facts plaintiffraised through his oppositions and supportingdeclarations; review correspondence amongstcounsel regarding sameconference call re: allocationofresponsibilities on reply to anti-SLAPPmotion; ofhce conferences re: same; reviewargument outlines, restatement sections re:domicil; office conferences re: sameoffice conference re: analysis of opposition tomotion to strike and strategy for reply brief;conference call with co-defense counsel re:same; review legal authorities; review exhibitsto declarations in support of opposition;continue drafting reply brief in support ofmotion to strike; review correspondence fromplaintiffs counsel re: Renner depositionreview and analyze plaintiffs oppositionarguments; intraoffice conferences concerningreply arguments; review legal authoritiessupporting same; draft reply in support ofmotion to strike; REDACTEDreview evidentiary objections, comment onsame; conference re: reply, arguments thereinand tie-in to objectionsoffice conference re: issues related to replybrief; continue drafting reply in support ofmotion to strike; review legal authorities inconnection with same; multiple emails to andfrom co-defense counsel; review plaintiffsreply brief in support of pro hac viceapplication

4.80 1,680.00

0.80 360.00

1.80 8r0.00

6.00 2,100.00

10.30 4,635.00

3.20 1,440.00

5.50 1,925.00

October 27,2011

TG

JJ

JL

JJ

JL

TG

JJ

EXHIBIT A Page 42



50/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 37 October 27,2011Mar-18-11 draft reply in support of motion to strike; 5.30 2,385.00 JLreview legal authorities supporting factors fordetermining domicile or residence; intraofficeconferenc es concerning reply; correspondenc eto co-defense counsel; review and comment onevidentiary objections

numerous revisions to reply memorandum; 5.80 2,610.00 TGreview emails re: same; office conferences re:samecontinue drafting reply in support of motion to 5.50 I,925.00 JJstrike; emails to and from co-defense counselre: sameMar-19-11 review and revise additions to reply memo 1.20 540.00 TGfom Mr. Halberstadler, Ms. Wu; review andrevise objections to declarationsreview and revise reply to conform to page 2.80 1,260.00 TGlimits; review emails from Mr. Halberstadler,Ms. Wu; review and revise objections todeclarations; draft and send email to counselfor Boal and Bigelow re: separate reply

Mar-2}-l I review and revise reply in support of motion to 1.30 455.00 JJstrikeMar-2t-ll review and revise reply in support of motion to 2.00 900.00 JLstrike; intraoffice conferences concerningsamereview David Halberstadter's comments to the 7.50 3,375.00 JLreply; intraofhce conferences concerning thereply; review and revise reply in support ofmotion to strike; review declaration of PaulWilcock; review and revise evidentiaryobj ections; correspondence and telephoneconferences with David Halberstadter, SallyWu and Jeremiah Reynolds; review Boal's andBigelow's reply in support of motion to strikereview comments from Mr. Halberstadter; 3.20 I,440.00 TGrespond to same; office conferences re:comments, inclusion in reply; provide finalcomments on anti-SLAPP motion; reviewdraft of Boal reply; provide comments to samereview, revise, edit and finabze reply in 5.50 7,925.00 JJsupport of motion to strike; emails to and fromco-defense counsel re: same; review and

EXHIBIT A Page 43



51/59

Invoice #: Settle

}l4ar-22-Il

Page 38ftnalize objections to declarations of T.Weglarz and J. Sarver in support of oppositionto motion to strike; review declaration of P.Wilcock in support of opposition to motion tostrike; review andftnalize objections to same

October 27,2011

REDACTEDreview reply brief submitted by defendants 1.30 455.00 JJBoal and Bigelow in support of motion tostrike complaint; office conference re: statusand strategy

Mar-28-11 review court order regarding hearing on 0.30 135.00 JLmotion to dismiss; correspondence to and fromc o -defense couns el regarding same ; intraoff,rceconference concerning samereview chamber minutes re: no oral argument 0.40 180.00 TGon anti-SLAPP motion; office conferences andemails re: samereview court order re: hearing on motions to 0.30 105.00 JJstrikeMar-29-l1 review declaration objections; respond to 0.70 315.00 TGemails re: same

EXHIBIT A Page 44



52/59

Invoice #: Settle Page 39 October 27,2011Mar-30-11 review plaintiffs objections to the declaration 0.30 135.00 JLof Mark Boal; correspondence to and fromco-defense counsel concerning same

review latest filings from plaintiff; conferences 0.40 180.00 TGand emails re: samereview plaintiffs evidentiary objections to 0.40 140.00 JJBoal declaration

Mar-3 I - 1 I review plaintiff s response to the objections to 1 .00 450.00 JLthe declaration ofJeffrey Sarver;correspondence with counsel concerningsame; review local rules governing replybriefs; REDACTEDreview supplemental opposition to 0.90 405.00 TGdeclarations late filed by plaintiffs; review andrespond to emails ."' .u-"; REDATEDreview plaintiffs response to evidentiary 0.90 315.00 JJobjections to Sarver declaration; officeconference re: same; review emails fromco-defense counsel re: potential response toimproper filing by plaintiff and discoveryresponsesApr-01-11 review Boal's responses to plaintiffs requests 0.30 135.00 JLfor production; review Bigelow's responses toplaintiff s requests for productiontelephone call to Mr. Halberstadter; review 0.80 360.00 TGdiscovery rosponses from Boal and BigelowApr-04-11 f,rnalize responses to plaintiffs requests for 0.30 135.00 JLproduction

Apr-05-1 1 review discovery responses served by 1.00 350.00 JJdefendants, Boal, Bigelow, and SummitEntertainmentTotals

DISBURSEMENTSREDACTED

EXHIBIT AREDACTED

Page 45



53/59


TAX ID Number REDACTEDPAYMENT DETAILS

REDACTEDTotal Payments

EXHIBIT A Page 46



54/59

9601 Wilshite BoulevardSuite 700Beverly Hills, CA 90210

EISNER, KAHAN & GORRYA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION www.eisnerlaw.comVoltage Pictures LLC lnvoice 26592Attn:Nicolas Chartier October 27,2011662 N. Crescent Heights BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90048ID:950-03001 - TJGRe: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt. Jeffrey S.Sarver Claim No. 49177For Services Rendered Through October 27,2011

FeesDate Atfy Description Hours Amount

07124 TJG07l2ytt rIH07l2vt1 JMJ

07l2slt1 TJG07l27ltl JMJ07l27ln TJG07l28ltt J}'4J07129111 JMJ07l29ltl TJG08/01/11 TJG

review minute order; review and respond to emails re: same; officeconferences re: oral argumentsreview court order setting hearing on motion to strike; intraofficeconference concerning samereview court order setting hearing date; email from co-defense counselre: same; respond to same

1.000.300.30REDACTED

review and respond to email re: statusreview email from plaintiffs comsel re: request to change hearing date;multle email communications between co-defense counsel re: samereview request for new hearing date; review and respond to numerousemails re: samemultle email communications re: plaintiffs request for stulation tocontinue hearing dateemail to opposing coursel re: request for stulation to continue hearing onmotion to strke; office conference re: samereview emails re: hearing, acquiescence to original date by plaintiff; officeconferences re: sameconference call re: oral argument, division of labor; office conference re:

0.200.30

0.700.300.300.s00.90

4s0.00135.00105.in

90.00105.00

315.00105.0010s.00225.n405.00

EXHIBIT A Page 47



55/59

Eisner, Kahan & Gorry, a Professional CorporationVoltage Pictures LLCLD. 950-03001 - TJGRe: Jeffrey sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; claimant: Sgt,Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177

October 27,2011Invoice 26592Page 2

Date Atty Descriptionsame08/01/l l JJH conference call to discuss upcoming hearing on motion to stnke; 0.50 225.00intraoffice conferences concerning same08/01/11 JMJ telephoneconferencewithco-counselre:hearingonmotiontostrfte; 3.30 1,155.00review motion, opposition, and reply memorandum in preparation forhearing08l0Ull JMJ review legal authorities in preparation for hearing on motion to stnke 2.50 875.0008l0Ull TJG initial review of pleadings in preparation for oral argument 3.50 1,575.0008/03/l l TJG review moving paprs, outline arguments; check PACER for tentative 5.80 2,610.00ruling0Sl%lll TJG review pleadings, case law in preparation for hearing on anti-SLAPP 5.60 2,520.00motion; 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 meeting08/04/l I JJH review motion and opposition papers and analyze arguments to be made 2.50 1,125.00at upcoming hearing; intraoffice conferences to discuss same; review andana$zn tentative ruling; correspondence amongst defense counselconceming same08/04/11 JMJ review legal authorities in preparation for hearing on motion to stnke 2.50 875.00complaint; office conference re: same; review tentative ruling on motionto strke complaint; multle email communications with co-defensecounsel re: same08/05/11 JMJ meeting with co-counsel to prepare for hearing on motion to strke; 3.70 1,295.00review legal authorities in support of same08/05/11 JJH meeting with defense counsel to discuss arguments to be presented at 5.20 23q.00hearing on motion to strke; review legal authorities supporting variousarguments to be presented at hearing, including attorneys' fees awardability of the court to grant leave to amend and appellate issuesREDACTED

08/08/11 TJG prepare for hearing on anti-SLAPP motion; telephone conference with 7.90 3,555.00Messrs. Halberstadter and Reynolds re: structure of argument; attendand argue motion; office conference re: argtrmentREDACTED08/08/11 JJH intraoffice conferences concerning arguments to be made at and results 0.50 225.00of hearing on motion to s:lke08/08/l I JMJ telephone conference with cocounsel to prepare for hearing on motion to 7.50 2,625.00strke; review legal authorities and outline in preparation for hearing onmotion to strike; attend hearing on motion to strkeREDACTED08ll4lll TJG review supplemental pleading filed by counsel for plaintiff; review and l.2O 540.00

llours Amount

EXHIBIT A Page 48



56/59

Eisner, Kahan & Gorry, a Professional CorporationVoltage Pictures LLCr.D. 950-0300r - TJGRe: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Irsured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt.Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177


Date Atty Descriptionrespond to emails re: same08/15/11 JMJ review plaintiffs supplemental brief in opposition to motion to strike;email commwrications with co-defense counsel re: same; review reply tosame REDACTED08/15/11 JJH review and analyze plaintiffs supplemental opposition filed after oralargwnent; correspondence amongst counsel discussing same andpotential response; review reply frled by Boal and Bigelow08/15/11 TJG review emails re: supplementalbrief review andrevise objection

REDACTED09129111 JJH review plaintiffs sw-reply; intraoffice confere e conceflxng same09130111 JJH correspondence amongst counsel concerning plaintiff s sur-reply andwhether to respond to s eREDACTED10/04/11 JMJ review sur-reply filed by plaintiff in support of opposition to motion tostril


57/59

Esner, Kahan & Gorry, a Professional CoryorationVoltage Piclures LLCr.D. 9s0-03001 - TJcRe: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt.Jeffrey S. Sarver ClaimNo. 49177


Date Atty Description Hours AmountREDACTEDl0l20lll JJH correspondence amongst counsel arranging meet and confer with 0.50 225.00plaintiffs counsel intraoffrce conferences conceming issues to be raisedduring meet and confer; correspondence amongst counsel concemingpotential walk-away settlementl0l20lll Jll4J multle email commwrications re: conference of counsel concerning 0.20 70.00attorneys' fee award

REDACTEDl0l2llll JJH inkaoffice conferences concerning meet and confer with plaintiff s 0.20 90.00counsel and preparation of motion for attorneys' feesl0l2llll JMJ telephonic meet and confer with plaintiffs counsel re: motion for 0.40 140.00attorneys' feesl0l24ll I JMJ email to co-defense counsel re: conference of counsel re: award of 0.30 105.00attomeys' fees; email from plaintiffs counsel re: same

l0l25lll JMJ multle email communications re: offer to waive attorneys' fees and 0.60 210.00related issues; review draft motion for attorneys' fees prepared by co-defense counsell0l25lll TJG review attomey fees motion; revise same; review and respond to 2.60 1,170.00correspondence from Mr. Reynolds re: fee motion; review and respondto emails from Mr. Halberstadter re: same, discussions with Mr. Weglarz10126lll JMJ office conference re:motion for attorneys' fees; email to co-defense 1.00 350.00counsel re: same; review and edit motion for attomeys' fees10126lll JJH review correspondence with plaintiffs counsel concerning settlement 5.20 23m.00offer; draft motion for attorneys' fees; draft declaration of Timot J.Go.ry; intraoffice conferences concerning motionrotal Fees REDACTEDFee Recap Hours Rate/Hour Amount

EXHIBIT AREDACTED

Page 50



58/59

Eisner, Kahan & Gorry, a Professional CorporationVoltage Pictures LLCr.D. 9s0-03001 - TJGRe: Jeffrey Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, et al Insured: Hurt Locker,LLC; Claimant: Sgt.Jeffrey S. Sarver Claim No. 49177

October 27,2011lnvoice 26592Page 5

Disbursements

EXHIBIT A Page 5l



59/59


Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lara-pearson
View:	232 times
Download:	1 times

Motion2 Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier

Documents