Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 717 Page ID
`#:38070
`
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR.
` SBN 132099
` tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`DANIEL G. SWANSON
` SBN 116556
` dswanson@gibsondunn.com
`MINAE YU
` SBN 268814
` myu@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN
`(admitted pro hac vice)
` crichman@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8234
`Facsimile: 202.530.9691
`
`
`Attorneys for Swisher International, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`TRENDSETTAH USA, INC. and
` CASE NO. 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM
`TREND SETTAH, INC.,
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL G.
`SWANSON IN SUPPORT OF
`Plaintiffs,
`DEFENDANT AND JUDGMENT
`CREDITOR SWISHER
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION
`FOR SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`v.
`SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`JULIAN W. KLEINBRODT
` SBN 302085
` jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission St., Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`Facsimile: 415.393.8306
`
`MICHAEL C. MARSH
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`michael.marsh@akerman.com
`RYAN ROMAN
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`ryan.roman@akerman.com
`AKERMAN LLP
`98 Southeast 7th Street, Suite 1100
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: 305.374.5600
`Facsimile: 305.374.5095
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 717 Page ID
`#:38071
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL G. SWANSON
`I, Daniel G. Swanson, declare as follows:
`1.
`I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the State of California
`and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I am a partner
`at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and I am one of the attorneys at my firm responsible
`for representing Swisher International, Inc. (“Swisher”) in the above captioned action.
`I submit this declaration in support of Swisher’s Motion for Sanctions (“Sanctions
`Motion”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, except where stated
`otherwise, and if called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
`2.
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (“GDC”) is a premier, full-service
`international law firm with over 1800 lawyers and 20 offices located in major cities
`throughout the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America. GDC
`consistently ranks among the world’s top law firms in industry surveys and major
`publications. The American Lawyer named GDC its 2022 California “Regional
`Litigation Department of the Year” and has recognized GDC as a winner of its general
`“Litigation Department of the Year” competition for four of the last seven biennial
`competitions. In its 2022 edition, Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for
`Business ranked GDC as a Band 1 law firm for National, California, and Texas in the
`Competition/Antitrust and Appellate Law practices. U.S. News – Best Lawyers® ranked
`GDC in its 2023 edition as a Tier 1 law firm for its Competition/Antitrust and Appellate
`Law practices. In its 2023 edition, Benchmark Litigation US also ranked GDC as a Tier
`1 law firm in the Appellate, Competition/Antitrust, and Commercial categories.
`3.
`I have been practicing law for over 35 years, focusing on antitrust and
`competition law, including trial and appellate litigation, class actions, grand jury and
`civil investigations, merger review, regulatory and competition policy matters, and
`antitrust counseling. In addition to my law degree, I have a Ph.D. in economics from
`Harvard University. Over the course of my practice, I have litigated dozens of Sherman
`Act Section 2 monopolization and dominance cases and handled more than 25
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 3 of 717 Page ID
`#:38072
`
`international cartel investigations. In addition to antitrust matters, I have handled a wide
`variety of commercial litigation disputes and litigated matters of Florida law in Florida
`state court and have twice argued in the Florida District Court of Appeal. I have received
`recognition for the successful results I have obtained on behalf of my clients by industry
`surveys and major publications, including a “Band 1” ranking for California Antitrust
`by Chambers USA. My profile, which lists my experiences and background in greater
`detail, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`4.
`In 2016, GDC was retained to represent Swisher in this Action in
`connection with post-trial and appellate proceedings. Since then, I have overseen all
`aspects of this case and am responsible for staffing and supervising this matter. I have
`served as the supervising attorney in numerous matters and have extensive experience
`managing litigation teams in complex civil lawsuits. I have also practiced in Los
`Angeles for decades and am familiar with the cost of legal services in this market.
`5.
`In its Motion, Swisher seeks an award of $19,859,625.66 as attorney’s fees
`for services provided by GDC’s timekeepers, including fees that Swisher incurred in
`connection with the Sanctions Motion. These fees include (1) $3,917,764.35 that the
`Court previously determined was reasonably incurred in its December 2, 2020 Order
`granting Swisher’s Motion for Attorney’s fees (“Fees Order”) (Dkt. 622 at 12-13)1 and
`(2) $6,976,003.50 that Swisher did not previously claim, including hours that Swisher
`voluntarily excluded from Swisher’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Fees
`Motion”) because the work primarily related to antitrust issues or was performed after
`the date that Swisher filed its motion for fees and costs.
`6.
`Additionally, Swisher seeks an award of $5,241,816.55 for fees charged by
`
`1 Swisher previously requested $4,406,873.50 for services rendered by GDC pursuant to
`the contractual fee shifting provision under the parties’ Private Label Agreements. The
`Court disallowed $53,802.00 and applied a 10% reduction to account for block-billing,
`awarding $3,917,764.35 for GDC’s services. As set forth in Swisher’s Motion for
`Setoff, TSI has indicated that it anticipates filing a motion to vacate the previous fee
`award under Rule 60(b)(5). If the Court awards Swisher sanctions and leaves the De-
`cember 2020 fee award in place, Swisher will make an election of remedies to avoid
`any double recovery.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 4 of 717 Page ID
`#:38073
`
`Akerman LLP and $75,520.00 for fees charged by Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz (“BFW”),
`our co-counsel on this matter, and litigation-related costs of $3,648,521.26 that Swisher
`incurred in the defense of this Action. In this declaration, I explain the basis for GDC’s
`fees and Swisher’s litigation costs. Akerman’s fees are explained in the Declaration of
`Michael Marsh, and BFW’s fees are explained in the Declaration of Alaina Fotiu-
`Wojtowicz, which are concurrently filed herewith. Altogether, Swisher seeks an award
`of $19,859,625.66 in attorney’s fees and costs.
`7.
`Nothing in this Declaration, or its exhibits or attachments, is intended to be
`a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
`A. Hours Claimed by Swisher for GDC’s Services
`8.
`From April 2016 to February 2023, GDC has billed Swisher a total of
`$12,280,902.00 for 12,836.37 hours of services rendered by attorneys, paralegals, and
`other direct billing staff members working on this matter.
`9.
`The hours billed by GDC reflect the services provided to Swisher since the
`end of the first trial in this Action. GDC’s work on this matter includes: (1) Swisher’s
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, In the Alternative, for New Trial; (2)
`Swisher’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 2016 Order; (3) appeal of
`the Court’s December 2016 Judgment to the Ninth Circuit; (4) petition for a writ of
`certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 opinion;
`(5) Swisher’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60 (“Rule 60 Motion”)
`and opposing Plaintiffs’ repeated attempts to overturn the Court’s Order granting
`Swisher’s Rule 60 Motion; (5) post-trial discovery and fact development; (6) Opposition
`to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss; (7) Swisher’s Fees Motion; (8) enforcement of
`Swisher’s award for fees and costs; (9) TSI’s appeal of the Court’s September 2020
`Judgment to the Ninth Circuit; (10) petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
`Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 opinion; and (11) Swisher’s post-
`remand motions.
`10.
` Based on my years of experience and my involvement in this case, the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 5 of 717 Page ID
`#:38074
`
`hours our team members spent on this matter were reasonable and necessary to advance
`and protect Swisher’s interests in this case. While every hour expended on this matter
`provided value to this case, Swisher has excluded hours billed for administrative,
`clerical, and other tasks that were necessary to the case, but for which Swisher does not
`seek recovery. Swisher has also excluded time billed by in-house staff who provided
`support services such as librarians and research assistants. As for in-house e-Discovery
`staff and technicians, I have included their hours as costs. In addition, Swisher does not
`seek to claim hours that the Court previously disallowed.
`11. After imposing these reductions, Swisher seeks attorney’s fees for
`11646.50 hours billed by GDC timekeepers. The claimed hours reflect time billed by 9
`partners on this case, 15 associates, 1 contract attorney, and 2 paralegals, as discussed in
`Section B below.
`12.
`In managing this case, I have allocated various tasks among these
`timekeepers to maximize efficiency while ensuring high-quality services. The partners
`developed the overall litigation strategy for the case based on their areas of expertise in
`coordination with co-counsel. We also supervised the work performed by associates,
`including reviewing research performed by associates and conducting follow-up
`research as needed to further guide the team; revising and editing drafts of briefs and
`other work product generated by associates; and providing guidance on associates’
`interactions with co-counsel, opposing counsel, third parties, and the Court. In addition,
`to familiarize ourselves with the case, the partners managing the case reviewed the trial
`record; records from criminal proceedings of Plaintiffs’ CEO, Mr. Akrum Alrahib; and
`key documents identified by associates. I have also interfaced with various experts and
`consultants retained for this case and appeared at hearings and status conferences on
`behalf of Swisher.
`13. Three senior associates on the case, Mr. Gregory Bok, Ms. Minae Yu, and
`Mr. Julian Kleinbrodt, were primarily responsible for preparing initial drafts of key work
`product, such as briefs and discovery requests, and conducted the legal research and fact
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 6 of 717 Page ID
`#:38075
`
`investigation necessary for that effort. They also interfaced with co-counsel, opposing
`counsel, and third parties, assisted me with hearing preparation, attended hearings and
`status conferences, argued some of the motions, spearheaded fact development, and
`worked with experts and consultants.
`14. Mr. Samuel Eckman, a senior associate in GDC’s Appellate and
`Constitutional Law practice group, was tasked with appeal-related work, including
`opposing Plaintiffs’ petitions for interlocutory review and writ of mandamus to overturn
`the Court’s Rule 60 order.
`15. Other associates assisted Mr. Bok, Ms. Yu, Mr. Kleinbrodt, and Mr.
`Eckman with first-level legal research, drafted portions of briefs and other work product,
`prepared supporting materials for briefs, cite-checked and fact-checked the filings, and
`reviewed documents and the record in the case to assist with fact development. Ms.
`Rani Biswas assisted the team with fact development and review of documents and
`compiled factual support and exhibits for motions filed in this case.
`16. The hours claimed for the GDC team include (1) post-trial and appellate
`work primarily relating to TSI’s antitrust claims (“Antitrust Hours”)2 and (2) litigation
`relating to TSI’s misconduct (“Rule 60 Hours”). The Antitrust Hours include the
`preparation of Swisher’s post-trial motions, fact development and expert work,
`preparation for a new trial on TSI’s attempted monopolization claim, appeal of the
`Court’s December 2016 Judgment, and petitioning the Supreme Court for review of the
`Ninth Circuit’s decision on TSI’s antitrust claims. The Rule 60 Hours include preparing
`Swisher’s Rule 60 Motion and opposing Plaintiffs’ repeated challenges to the Court’s
`Rule 60 order; fact development and discovery in preparation for retrial; working with
`experts and consultants; opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss; preparing Swisher’s
`Fees Motion; post-judgment discovery and efforts to enforce Swisher’s award; TSI’s
`
`2 A portion of Swisher’s post-trial and appellate work related primarily or exclusively to
`TSI’s contract claims. In the billing records appended to this Declaration as Exhibit 3,
`Swisher has designated entries involving such hours as “Contract” in the column under
`the heading “Task Category.” The total hours in this category is 295.80.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 7 of 717 Page ID
`#:38076
`
`appeal of the Court’s September 2020 Judgment; petition for writ of certiorari to the
`U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 opinion; and preparing
`Swisher’s post-remand motions.
`1.
`Antitrust Hours
`17. Post-trial Motions. Following the March 2016 trial, Swisher filed its (1)
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial and (2) Motion for
`Reconsideration of the Court’s August 17, 2016 Order. To prepare these motions, GDC
`attorneys had to expend time becoming familiar with the pre-trial and trial record,
`working with experts and consultants, conducting legal research, drafting briefs and
`supporting documents, coordinating these efforts with Akerman attorneys, and meeting
`and conferring with TSI’s counsel. After the Court granted Swisher’s motion for
`judgment as a matter of law on the monopolization claim and ordered a new trial on the
`attempted monopolization claim, GDC attorneys met and conferred with TSI’s counsel,
`prepared and submitted a joint report on the scope of the new trial and trial schedule,
`and appeared for the status conference held on September 19, 2016. Both parties then
`filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court’s August 2016 Order.
`Opposing TSI’s motion and preparing Swisher’s motion required additional time for
`legal research and drafting the motions, oppositions, and replies. The time and resources
`expended on Swisher’s post-trial motions were necessary to defend against TSI’s
`antitrust claims.
`18. Ninth Circuit Appeal and Petition for Certiorari. Another significant
`portion of GDC’s claimed Antitrust Hours is the time spent preparing for the Ninth
`Circuit appeal of the Court’s December 2016 Judgment and petitioning the Supreme
`Court for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Tasks undertaken for the appellate
`work included drafting Swisher’s Ninth Circuit briefs, related legal research, compiling
`the trial record for submission, preparing for and attending oral argument before the
`Ninth Circuit panel, preparing a petition for en banc review, preparing Swisher’s motion
`for stay of the mandate and opposing TSI’s motion to lift the stay, soliciting amicus
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 8 of 717 Page ID
`#:38077
`
`support for Swisher’s petition to the Supreme Court, and drafting Swisher’s petition for
`writ of certiorari. GDC’s hours spent on these tasks were necessary to defend against
`TSI’s antitrust claims, which the Court and the Ninth Circuit have now determined were
`based on falsified records of lost profits.
`2.
`Rule 60 Hours
`19. Swisher’s Rule 60 Motion. The most substantial portion of the Rule 60
`Hours relate to the preparation of Swisher’s Rule 60 Motion and opposing Plaintiffs’
`repeated efforts to overturn the Court’s August 19 Order granting relief from judgment.
`After the Court issued its order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification under § 1292(b)
`in October 2019, which was denied. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration in
`November 2019, which was also denied. Thereafter, however, the Court sua sponte
`certified its August 19 Order. In January 2020, Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit
`for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b), which the Ninth Circuit denied. In May 2020,
`one week after the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ § 1292(b) petition, Plaintiffs
`petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to reassign this case and direct the
`reinstatement of the jury’s verdict, which the Ninth Circuit denied. Then in June 2020,
`Plaintiffs filed a second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 19 Order,
`which the Court denied. Swisher’s Rule 60 Motion and subsequent briefing, including
`responding to each of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Court’s order, required substantial
`time and effort. Among other things, GDC attorneys monitored and reviewed the filings
`in Alrahib’s criminal cases, reviewed documents and the records in this case as new
`information about Alrahib’s illegal activities became available through his criminal
`proceedings, conducted additional legal research, met and conferred with opposing
`counsel, drafted briefs and supporting documents, compiled factual support and exhibits
`for each filing, drafted motions to seal, and met and conferred with opposing counsel.
`The hours expended in seeking relief under Rule 60 and opposing Plaintiffs’ repeated
`challenges to the Court’s order were necessary and critical to this case.
`20. Fact Development and Discovery. Another significant portion of the Rule
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 9 of 717 Page ID
`#:38078
`
`60 Hours is the time spent on fact development and discovery. After the Court reopened
`discovery in this case, Swisher served discovery on Plaintiffs and their affiliated
`individuals (including Alrahib) and entities. They all refused to produce any information
`or documents responsive to Swisher’s discovery requests. As a result, Swisher had to
`initiate two enforcement actions in the Southern District of Florida and file two motions
`to compel with Magistrate Judge McCormick. Swisher’s motions were either granted
`in their entirety or granted in substantial part. But even with court orders directing
`Plaintiffs and Alrahib to produce documents responsive to Swisher’s discovery requests,
`they refused to comply. This required additional work to prepare motions for contempt
`and/or sanctions to enforce the court orders. In addition, because Plaintiffs refused to
`produce any of their updated financial records and bank records, Swisher had to serve
`nearly 20 subpoenas on third-party banks. Swisher also pursued third-party discovery
`on individuals who may have information about Alrahib’s various tax evasion schemes,
`including Plaintiffs’ former employees and importers who Alrahib admitted helped him
`with tax evasion. When Swisher received some documents from third parties, the
`associate team reviewed them and identified significant ones. Moreover, given the
`passage of time between pretrial discovery and the disclosure of Alrahib’s illegal
`activities, the GDC team reviewed some of the documents produced earlier in this case
`as a part of its continuing fact development efforts. The time spent on discovery and
`fact development was necessary to prepare for retrial and reasonable in light of
`Plaintiffs’ refusal to produce any information about its finances or Alrahib’s tax fraud.
`21. Experts and Consultants. The GDC team also expended time and effort
`working with experts and consultants, including damages/economics experts, a forensic
`accounting expert, and a private investigator. These efforts were necessary to prepare
`for retrial. For example, a forensic accounting expert was necessary to perform a fraud
`analysis on Plaintiffs’ financial records in light of Alrahib’s tax evasion. Swisher also
`had to retain an investigator to locate and gather information on individuals and entities
`affiliated with Plaintiffs, which was necessitated by their refusal to cooperate in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 10 of 717 Page ID
`#:38079
`
`discovery.
`22. Motion to Dismiss. The Rule 60 Hours also include time spent on opposing
`Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and requesting certain conditions on dismissal to protect
`Swisher’s interests. Swisher had expended significant time and resources preparing for
`retrial when Plaintiffs moved to dismiss. For example, Swisher had spent time to secure
`court orders requiring Plaintiffs and their related individuals and entities to produce
`information and documents relevant to this case. While Swisher had pursued the
`information and documents to prepare for retrial, they were also relevant to protecting
`Swisher’s interests after TSI’s dismissal of the case, including Swisher’s right to
`attorney’s fees and enforcement of the award. Accordingly, GDC expended reasonable
`time and effort in conducting legal research, working with Swisher’s forensic accounting
`expert, and preparing Swisher’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss to advance
`and protect Swisher’s interests.
`23. Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The GDC team also worked on
`preparing Swisher’s Fees Motion, which entailed conducting legal research, drafting
`opening and reply briefs, and preparing supporting documents. The Court previously
`found that the hours expended on Swisher’s Fees Motion were reasonable and awarded
`$218,094.20 for the time billed for preparing the Fees Motion. Dkt. 622 at 12. GDC’s
`work on the Fees Motion was necessary to protect Swisher’s interest in recovering the
`expenses it has incurred in this litigation.
`24. Enforcement of Attorney’s Fee Award. The Rule 60 Hours include work
`to enforce Swisher’s award of attorney’s fees and costs. After the Court awarded
`Swisher $10,462,480.60 in fees and costs, TSI did not pay any amount in satisfaction of
`the award or post a supersedeas bond while it sought to appeal the Court’s Rule 60 Order.
`Moreover, TSI claimed to be insolvent, and the bank records Swisher had obtained in
`the course of preparing for the retrial indicated that TSI’s assets had been transferred to
`TSI’s officers, their family members, and related entities. Swisher thus had to pursue
`enforcement of its award, including propounding discovery requests on TSI and issuing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 11 of 717 Page ID
`#:38080
`
`subpoenas to TSI’s officers and affiliated entities, working with a forensic accounting
`consultant to analyze TSI’s financial records, conducting a debtor’s examination, taking
`the depositions of Mr. Alrahib’s wife and TSI’s former CFO, meeting and conferring
`with TSI’s counsel before filing motions to compel, and preparing and filing motions in
`aid of enforcement. These tasks were necessary to protect Swisher’s interests and were
`necessitated by TSI’s refusal to make any payments on the unbonded fee award.
`25. Ninth Circuit Appeal and Petition for Certiorari. The Rule 60 Hours
`include time spent for TSI’s appeal of the Court’s Rule 60 order and Swisher’s petition
`for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The appellate work involved legal research,
`preparing Swisher’s motions, briefs, and supporting records filed with the Ninth Circuit,
`preparing for and attending oral argument before the Ninth Circuit panel, preparing a
`petition for en banc review, preparing Swisher’s motion for a stay of the mandate,
`amicus outreach efforts, and drafting Swisher’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
`26. Post-Remand Motions. The Rule 60 Hours include time spent drafting
`Swisher’s post-remand motions, including its motions for sanctions and setoff, and
`preparing for TSI’s anticipated motions. As the Court has determined and the Ninth
`Circuit has affirmed, TSI has engaged in misconduct that warranted relief under Rule
`60(b). Swisher has expended considerable resources litigating TSI’s claims and
`exposing TSI’s misconduct. Swisher’s post-remand motions were necessary to protect
`Swisher’s entitlement to compensation for defending this lawsuit and to offset the award
`against TSI’s breach-of-contract verdict given TSI’s claims of insolvency. In addition,
`TSI has informed Swisher’s counsel that it will seek fees and costs, prejudgment and
`post judgment interest, and relief from Swisher’s prior fee award under Rule 60(b)(5).
`The parties met and conferred on their upcoming motions and appeared for a status
`hearing on January 9, 2023. Additionally, Swisher worked on opposing TSI’s motion
`to amend the mandate that was filed with the Ninth Circuit, preparing the parties’ joint
`submissions to the Court regarding briefing schedule and word limit, opposing TSI’s ex
`parte application, and objecting to TSI’s proposed judgment.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 12 of 717 Page ID
`#:38081
`
`
`27. Other Tasks. The claimed Antitrust Hours and Rule 60 Hours also include
`time spent on tasks that are a normal and routine part of litigation, including
`communications and meetings among the team members, communications and meetings
`with the client, coordination with co-counsel, organizing tasks, scheduling, and
`preparing for and attending status conferences, among other things.
`28. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 are billing records for the claimed hours with
`narrative descriptions of the tasks performed, the hours spent, and the timekeeper.
`Exhibit 2 includes the billing records that GDC has previously submitted in support of
`its Fees Motion. See Dkt. 605-3, Dkt. 616-4. The Court previously disallowed the hours
`spent on preparing Swisher’s motion to compel discovery from TSI’s expert that was
`not filed and reduced the hours for attorneys attending the November 12, 2019 status
`conference by half. The Court further determined that approximately a third of GDC’s
`claimed hours were block-billed and reduced the total fee award by 10%. Swisher
`accepts the reductions the Court previously applied and does not seek to recover for the
`disallowed hours or 10% reduction applied to Swisher’s fee request for these hours.
`29. Exhibit 3 contains the billing records for the hours that GDC did not
`previously claim. They include the Antitrust Hours that were previously excluded and
`the Rule 60 Hours that have been incurred since the filing of Swisher’s Fees Motion, as
`well as hours for timekeepers whom Swisher previously excluded. Like Swisher’s
`previously submitted time records, the records in Exhibit 3 were obtained from GDC’s
`electronic billing system, which is maintained by the firm in the ordinary course of
`business. The time records were entered into the billing system by GDC timekeepers at
`or around the time they performed each task. Time entries with no claimed hours were
`excluded. In instances where time entries were not broken up by each task, the
`timekeepers have made an effort to itemize the hours. Some timekeepers had initially
`recorded their time per task, but the itemization was removed in the course of processing
`the bills. The initial entries were maintained by the billing department and are reflected
`in Exhibit 2 as they were initially entered by the timekeepers before processing. Other
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 13 of 717 Page ID
`#:38082
`
`timekeepers used their best efforts to allocate the time for each task by referencing their
`litigation files, meeting notes, calendar invites, emails, and other attorney’s time entries,
`among other sources. These allocated entries are highlighted in Exhibit 2.
`30. Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 are tables summarizing the claimed hours for each
`GDC timekeeper for each year. Exhibit 4 was previously filed with Swisher’s Fees
`Motion and contains a summary of the claimed hours in Exhibit 2. Dkt. 606-5. Exhibit
`5 includes a summary of the claimed hours in Exhibit 3 that were not previously
`submitted to the Court.
`B. Hourly Rates for GDC Timekeepers
`31. Swisher seeks GDC’s standard rates for the claimed hours. Attached hereto
`as Exhibit 6 is a table summarizing the standard hourly rates for the 26 attorneys, 1
`contract attorney, and 2 paralegals who worked on this matter, broken down by year.
`The rates are not listed for any year when the timekeeper billed no time to this matter.
`Swisher was generally charged these standard rates for GDC services.3 The Court
`previously agreed that the standard rates Swisher claimed for GDC partners and
`associates in Swisher’s Fees Motion were “reasonable given the prevailing rates in the
`Central District of California.” Dkt. 622 at 12. The standard rates for the timekeepers
`whose hours were not previously submitted are in line with the standard rates for
`previously claimed timekeepers.
`32. Based on my experience, GDC’s standard rates for these timekeepers are
`in line with hourly rates charged for attorneys with comparable skills and experience at
`firms with similar size and reputation as GDC in the Los Angeles market. In particular,
`based on my experience and attorney billing rates reported in publications such as the
`Real Rate Report published by Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions, antitrust and appellate
`lawyers, such as those who constituted GDC’s primary litigation team, command higher
`rates than other litigation partners and associates. Moreover, because Alrahib’s tax fraud
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`3 From August 2021 to December 2022, Swisher received a 10% discount.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM Document 706 Filed 02/07/23 Page 14 of 717 Page ID
`#:38083
`
`further complicated the issues presented in this matter, GDC’s team primarily
`responsible for this matter had to consult with a number of partners and associates who
`specialize in other areas.
`33. The profiles and resumes of GDC team members are attached hereto as
`Exhibit 7.4 In some instances, they provide more detailed information about each
`attorney’s relevant background and experiences than the profiles available on GDC’s
`website.
`34. The partners who have w