Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDY R. O’LAUGHLIN (pro hac vice)
`andy.olaughlin@wilmerhale.com
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: (617) 526-6220
`Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
`
`CINDY PAN (pro hac vice)
`cindy.pan@wilmerhale.com
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Telephone: (212) 937-7275
`Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
`sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
`Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`ALLISON SCHULTZ (pro hac vice)
`Allison.Schultz@wilmerhale.com
`ROBIN C. BURRELL (pro hac vice)
`robin.burrell@wilmerhale.com
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant,
`
`v.
`BRANDTOTAL LTD., an Israeli corporation, and
`UNIMANIA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Defendants/
`Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:20-CV-07182-JCS
`
`PLAINTIFF META PLATFORM
`INC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`Hon. Joseph C. Spero
`Courtroom F – 15th Floor
`Date: October 7, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ..................................................1 
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF ...........................................................................................1 
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......................................................................1 
`
`I. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`BrandTotal Scraped Data From Meta’s Platforms Without Authorization ...................2 
`
`BrandTotal Continued Its Unlawful Conduct, Forcing Meta To Litigate .....................2 
`
`BrandTotal’s Conduct Drove Up Litigation Costs ........................................................4 
`
`Meta Prevailed At Summary Judgment .........................................................................6 
`
`BrandTotal Stopped Its Unlawful Conduct Only After The Court Granted
`Meta’s Motion For Summary Judgment ........................................................................7 
`
`II. 
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Meta Is Entitled To Recover All Reasonable Attorney’s Fees ......................................7 
`
`The Requested Fee Amount Is Reasonable .................................................................11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Meta’s Fee Request Is Reasonable In Light Of Its Significant Success ..........11 
`
`The Fee Rate Is Reasonable .............................................................................14 
`
`Meta’s Fee Request Is Reasonable In Light Of BrandTotal’s Litigation
`Conduct ............................................................................................................15 
`
`Meta Is Not Seeking Fees Paid To Hunton Andrews Kurth ............................16 
`
`III. 
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................16 
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`i
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA,
`2020 WL 8680070 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) ...................................................................14
`
`Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan,
`963 F. Supp. 2d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...............................................................................14
`
`Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,
`511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................10
`
`Caplan v. CAN Financial Corp.,
`573 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .......................................................................13, 14
`
`Cottle v. Plaid Inc.,
`2022 WL 2829882 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2022) ....................................................................14
`
`Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Resource Development Co.,
`981 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).....................................................................................15
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3394754 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) ......................................................................7
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................9
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sluchevsky,
`2020 WL 5823277 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020), report & recommendation adopted,
`2020 WL 5816578 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020) ....................................................................7
`
`Farrar v. Hobby,
`506 U.S. 103 (1992) .............................................................................................................8
`
`Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc.,
`2022 WL 2789496 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) ....................................................................14
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) .............................................................................................7, 9, 12, 13
`
`Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma,
`717 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................8
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. BGI Genomics Co.,
`2022 WL 899421 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2022) .....................................................................10
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.,
`611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................7, 9
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1746484 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015), aff’d, 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) .........14
`
`Physician’s Surrogacy, Inc. v. German,
`311 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (S.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................8
`
`Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...............................................................................12
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systesms, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2539002 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2020) ...................................................................14
`
`Thorne v. City of El Segundo,
`802 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................9, 11, 12
`
`Watson v. County of Riverside,
`300 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................8
`
`Webb v. Sloan,
`330 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................9, 12
`
`Wit v. United Behavioral Health,
`__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 45057 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2022)............................................15
`
`STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA ........................ passim
`
`Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 502(e)(2) .........................................................................................................1, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a) ......................................................................................................................10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)................................................................................................................1, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`Local Rule 54-5..........................................................................................................................9, 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`1987 Cal. Legis. Servs. ch. 1499 (S.B. 255) (West) ........................................................................8
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`2000 Cal. Legis. Servs. Ch. 635 (A.B. 2727) (West) ......................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`iv
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on October 7, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom F of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
`San Francisco Division, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, plaintiff Meta
`Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) will and hereby does move for reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and California Penal Code § 502(e)(2). Meta’s Motion for Fees is
`based on this Notice of Motion; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declarations of Sonal
`Mehta, Ari Holtzblatt, Allison Schultz, and Michael Chmelar; and the accompanying exhibits.
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and California Penal Code § 502(e)(2),
`Meta requests an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,733,750.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Meta filed this lawsuit nearly two years ago to stop BrandTotal’s unlawful data-scraping
`operation. Meta alleged that BrandTotal violated, among other things, the California Comprehensive
`Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”), Cal. Penal Code § 502; Computer Fraud and
`Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; and the Facebook Terms of Service and Instagram Terms of
`Use by scraping user- and advertising-related information from Meta’s platforms using automated
`means and without authorization. On May 27, 2022, this Court granted Meta’s motion for partial
`summary judgment, holding conclusively and on the merits that BrandTotal’s conduct violated the
`CDAFA and Meta’s Terms.
`Because Meta prevailed on its CDAFA claim, it is entitled under California Penal Code
`§ 502(e)(2) to all reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with that and all related claims.
`Meta thus requests $2,733,750.00, an amount reflecting a portion of fees Meta incurred and calculated
`based on the fixed-fee amounts actually paid in this litigation for litigating the CDAFA and related
`claims, and also consistent with prevailing market rates for complex civil litigation in the San
`Francisco Bay Area given the 4,228.2 hours expended on those claims.
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`I.
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`BrandTotal Scraped Data From Meta’s Platforms Without Authorization
`Between 2017 and October 2020, BrandTotal developed and distributed at least 10 browser
`extensions and mobile applications (which BrandTotal has referred to as its “legacy” tools) for the
`specific purpose of scraping user- and advertising-related information from password-protected
`locations on Meta’s computers. See Dkt. 272-7 (Meta’s MSJ Ex. 16) at 2-4. BrandTotal accomplished
`this by designing the apps and extensions to “hijack[] a user’s logged-in session with Facebook or
`Instagram to manipulate Meta’s servers to divulge … information.” Dkt. 344 (MSJ Op.) at 52. The
`applications and extensions (1) monitored logged-in users’ activities and surreptitiously scraped data
`while users browsed Facebook and Instagram and also (2) sent unauthorized automated requests for
`the users’ demographic data—including their age, relationship status, location, and advertising
`interests—using the user’s log-in credentials. See Dkt. 272 (Meta’s MSJ) at 5; see also Meta’s MSJ
`Ex. 1 (Martens Report) ¶¶ 34-35, 99-102. BrandTotal supplemented that data with data that it scraped
`using a number of fake Facebook and Instagram accounts (which BrandTotal referred to as “the
`Muppets”) that it created and purchased to access and retrieve data directly from password-protected
`locations on Meta’s computers. See Meta’s MSJ at 5; MSJ Op. at 53; Meta’s MSJ Ex. 1 ¶¶ 108-110.
`B.
`BrandTotal Continued Its Unlawful Conduct, Forcing Meta To Litigate
`After detecting and investigating BrandTotal’s scraping activities, Meta took enforcement
`actions against BrandTotal in September and October of 2020. Meta’s MSJ at 7-8. Meta disabled
`BrandTotal’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, reported two of its extensions to Google (on whose
`website the extensions were distributed), and sued BrandTotal in California state court, alleging,
`among other claims, that BrandTotal’s conduct violated the Facebook Terms of Service and Instagram
`Terms of Use. Id.; see also Dkt. 40-2 (State Court Compl.). When BrandTotal nonetheless then
`created new Facebook and Instagram accounts and republished one of its scraping extensions on the
`Google Chrome Web Store—after that extension was suspended by Google—Meta dismissed its state-
`court case and filed this federal action, adding claims under the California Comprehensive Computer
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”), Cal. Penal Code § 502; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
`(“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; and California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”), based on
`BrandTotal’s continued attempts to access Meta’s platforms after Meta unambiguously revoked
`BrandTotal’s authorization to do so. See Dkt. 1 (Compl.); see also Dkt. 148 (Am. Compl.). Id.
`BrandTotal filed counterclaims, see Dkt. 23 (Answer and Countercl. Compl.), and sought a temporary
`restraining order, see Dkt. 27 (Mot. for TRO). This Court denied the temporary restraining order,
`holding that BrandTotal likely violated Meta’s Terms by “us[ing] ‘automated means’ to access and
`collect data from Facebook’s website without obtaining Facebook’s permission,” and that Meta had a
`significant “interest in policing access to the password-protected portions of its networks.” Dkt. 63
`(TRO Op.) at 22-23, 29, 34-35.
`As the litigation progressed, Meta reiterated repeatedly to BrandTotal that any permission it
`might once have had to access Meta’s platforms had been revoked. It did so not only through the
`filing of the two lawsuits but also through two letters to BrandTotal’s counsel expressly stating that
`“BrandTotal’s access to Meta’s platforms remains revoked,” and in statements during the hearing on
`BrandTotal’s subsequent motion for preliminary injunction. Meta’s MSJ Ex. 37; see also Dkt. 120-
`11 (Am. Countercl. Compl. Ex. K); May 28, 2021 Hearing Transcript, Dkt. 156 at 16 (“And I want to
`make clear that Facebook’s position remains, of course, that access to our systems is revoked[.]”).
`In February 2021, BrandTotal launched a new made-for-litigation extension, called UpVoice
`2021. See Meta’s MSJ at 9. Around August 2021, BrandTotal released another new extension, called
`Calix, using the same scraping code as UpVoice 2021, and then similarly redesigned two of its mobile
`applications. See Meta’s MSJ at 9; Dkt. 359 (Opp’n to Meta’s MSJ) at 23 n.16. And around October
`or November 2021, BrandTotal released yet another extension, Restricted Panel, using scraping
`techniques similar to UpVoice 2021 to scrape from age-restricted, password-protected locations on
`Meta’s computers. See Opp’n to Meta’s MSJ at 23 n.16; Dkt. 361 (Reply ISO Defs.’ MSJ) at 18;
`Meta’s MSJ Ex. 1 ¶¶ 630-646.
`But, despite the apparent recognition that its earlier scraping tools and practices were unlawful
`and that BrandTotal therefore needed to develop new scraping tools, BrandTotal continued to use its
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`legacy tools to scrape data from Facebook and Instagram throughout this litigation. See Meta’s MSJ
`at 9. For example, after its extensions were suspended by Google in October 2020, BrandTotal
`continued to scrape data through approximately 10 to 15% of previously installed UpVoice extensions
`that remained operational and continued collecting password-protected data through approximately
`mid-February 2021. Id. BrandTotal also continued scraping password-protected data from Facebook
`and Instagram using its four mobile applications at least through the litigation of the parties’ summary
`judgment motions. Id. And BrandTotal continued using its server-side collection software to scrape
`data from password-protected locations on Meta’s computers for at least a year into this litigation,
`until at least around “late October, beginning of November 2021,” right at the close of fact discovery.
`Reply ISO Defs.’ MSJ at 18; Dkt. 167 (Scheduling Order). But see Meta’s MSJ Ex. 1 ¶¶ 363-369
`(identifying use of access credentials even after November 2021). BrandTotal not only continued to
`collect information from password-protected locations on Meta’s platforms, but also to load it into its
`client-facing platform and sell that information to its customers. See Meta’s MSJ Ex. 22.
`Meta was thus forced to spend significant time and resources building a case against
`BrandTotal’s legacy extensions and applications and server-side collection from password-protected
`locations. This included, for example, many hours working with Meta’s technical experts to
`understand the technical operation of BrandTotal’s legacy tools, both for purposes of developing
`Meta’s technical expert report, taking the depositions of BrandTotal’s technical witnesses, and drafting
`Meta’s summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Schultz Decl. Ex. 2 at 574, 598, 1038, 1838. Indeed, of
`Meta’s 649 paragraph technical expert report, approximately 365 paragraphs focused specifically on
`BrandTotal’s legacy extensions and applications and its server-side collection from password-
`protected locations. See Meta’s MSJ Ex. 1 ¶¶ 32-33, 36-38, 42-44, 46-48 99-102, 108-110, 137-145,
`147-156, 198-230, 247-249, 250-273, 325-470, 516-637.
`C.
`BrandTotal’s Conduct Drove Up Litigation Costs
`Meta had to fight continuously to obtain discovery relevant to BrandTotal’s legacy tools and
`server-side collection from password-protected locations. As detailed in Meta’s motion for sanctions,
`Meta fought for a year to obtain records showing BrandTotal’s use of access credentials in its server-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`side collection, only to find that BrandTotal had been deleting those records. See Dkt. 246 (Mot. for
`Sanctions) at 5-11. Meta had to fight to cure many other deficiencies in BrandTotal’s discovery
`responses. To obtain all relevant source code, for example, Meta had to seek relief from this Court
`and obtain an order compelling BrandTotal to produce all of its end-to-end source code. See Dkt. 179
`(Discovery Letter Br.); see also Dkt. 180 (Order Re: Discovery Letter Br.). Even months after the
`Court ordered BrandTotal to produce all end-to-end code, Meta still had to work extensively with its
`technical experts to identify and resolve myriad deficiencies in BrandTotal’s piecemeal source-code
`productions. See Meta’s MSJ Ex. 1 ¶ 294; Dkt. 259-2 (Nov. 2, 2021 Email from Schultz). Meta also
`spent over a month, after the close of fact discovery, negotiating an agreement with BrandTotal for
`BrandTotal to search for and produce documents that should have been produced many months earlier,
`including files from a database of BrandTotal’s internal technical documents and other documents in
`the possession of BrandTotal’s key technical employees. See Dkt. 215 (Stipulation re: Discovery
`Disputes). The parties also agreed to allow Meta to take additional depositions after the close of fact
`discovery following BrandTotal’s late production of relevant documents. Id.
`Prior to the parties’ stipulation, BrandTotal had produced only 816 documents in response to
`Meta’s discovery requests. See Dkt. 233 (Mot. to Enlarge Time) at 1. Those documents were self-
`identified as relevant by BrandTotal’s own witnesses, without so much as search parameters to guide
`them; as a result, even basic terms like “FB” and “IG” were not consistently used by witnesses when
`searching through their emails. Dkt. 354-3 (Nov. 9, 2021 Leibovich Tr.) at 195:19-196:10. After the
`stipulation, BrandTotal initially produced just 40 additional documents and then, on the deadline for
`complete production, moved for relief from its production obligations. See id.; Dkt. 217 (Mot. for
`Relief from Stip.). After this Court denied BrandTotal’s motion, see Dkt. 219, BrandTotal then—just
`one month before summary judgment briefs were to be filed—dumped six million raw files on Meta.
`See Mot. to Enlarge Time at 2. BrandTotal’s late-produced documents included crucial technical
`information regarding BrandTotal’s legacy products and server-side collection from password-
`protected locations, including, for example, a spreadsheet identifying the fake “Muppet” accounts that
`BrandTotal used in connection with its server-side collection. See Meta’s MSJ Ex. 15. In light of
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`BrandTotal’s untimely and unprocessed data dump, Meta had to seek leave of this Court to extend the
`deadline for the post-discovery depositions and for summary judgment briefing, in order to allow Meta
`sufficient time to sift through the millions of late produced files. See Mot. to Enlarge Time. Notably,
`two of the four post-close-of-discovery depositions (as well as several earlier depositions) focused
`primarily on BrandTotal’s legacy tools and server-side collection from password-protected locations.
`See Meta’s MSJ Exs. 14, 25; Meta’s Mot. for Sanctions Exs. 6, 7.
`BrandTotal also failed to timely disclose that two of its key technical employees, included on
`BrandTotal’s initial disclosures, had left the company. See Dkt. 201 (Ex Parte Hague Appl.) at 1.
`Though the employees left in the spring of 2021, Meta did not learn of their departure until October,
`when it sought to schedule their depositions. Id. These individuals had information about
`BrandTotal’s historic practices, including its legacy extensions and applications and server-side
`collection from password-protected locations, that no remaining BrandTotal employees could provide.
`See id. Because they reside in Israel, Meta was thus forced to undertake the additional expense of
`obtaining permission to take their depositions through the complicated procedures established in the
`Hague Convention. Id. at 2-4.
`Finally, BrandTotal submitted an expert report purporting to opine on the technical operation
`of BrandTotal’s non-UpVoice legacy extensions and applications and server-side collection, despite
`its expert never having reviewed the relevant source code or otherwise conducted any independent
`analysis of them. See Dkt. 251 (Meta’s Mot. to Exclude) at 4. BrandTotal also submitted a report
`opining on the ostensibly public nature of the information that BrandTotal scraped, despite that expert
`having never independently assessed what information BrandTotal actually scraped. Id. at 19. To
`guard against these unreliable opinions, Meta had to expend additional resources to file a motion to
`exclude.
`D. Meta Prevailed At Summary Judgment
`This Court granted Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that all of
`BrandTotal’s challenged conduct was unlawful under either the CDAFA (and CFAA), Meta’s Terms,
`or both. Meta prevailed on its claim that BrandTotal’s ten “legacy” applications and extensions and
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`server-side collection from password-protected locations violate, as a matter of law, the CDAFA and
`CFAA. See MSJ Op. at 57, 67-68. As to just the CFAA, the Court held that Meta had satisfied all
`elements necessary for liability except the $5,000 loss requirement. Id. at 50, 57. Meta was also
`entitled to judgment on its UCL claim by virtue of its favorable judgments under the CDAFA. Id. at
`59. And finally, Meta also prevailed across the board on its breach of contract claim, on which this
`Court granted summary judgment in full in Meta’s favor. Id. at 41.1
`E.
`BrandTotal Stopped Its Unlawful Conduct Only After The Court Granted
`Meta’s Motion For Summary Judgment
`BrandTotal shut down its data-scraping operation after the Court granted Meta’s motion for
`partial summary judgment. On June 29, 2022, BrandTotal informed current and potential UpVoice
`users that “BrandTotal has ceased operating and has shut down all operations, including UpVoice.”
`Schultz Decl. Ex. 5. The shutdown included not just BrandTotal’s applications and extensions, but
`also all server-side operations; on July 27, 2022, Meta received notice from BrandTotal that
`“BrandTotal’s systems are down,” including the Rapid7 logging service used to log all of BrandTotal’s
`data-collection operations. See Schultz Decl. Ex. 4.
`II.
`ARGUMENT
`A. Meta Is Entitled To Recover All Reasonable Attorney’s Fees
`Meta prevailed on its CDAFA claim and is therefore entitled to recover all reasonable
`attorney’s fees incurred in connection with its CDAFA and related claims. The CDAFA provides that
`“[i]n any action brought pursuant to [the statute’s civil-remedies provision] the court may award
`reasonable attorney’s fees.” Cal. Penal Code § 502(e)(2). Courts have construed this language to
`authorize prevailing plaintiffs, but not prevailing defendants, to recover attorney’s fees. See
`Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2017 WL 3394754, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) (holding
`that the CDAFA “allows prevailing Plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees”); Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Meta also prevailed on BrandTotal’s interference counterclaims (the only counterclaims to have
`survived dismissal on the pleadings), see MSJ Op. at 68, but that victory is not relevant to Meta’s
`request for attorney’s fees because BrandTotal’s interference counterclaims do not involve the same
`facts and law as Meta’s CDAFA claim. See Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 614
`(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983)).
`7
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`Sluchevsky, 2020 WL 5823277, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (awarding attorney’s fees to
`Facebook as prevailing plaintiff under CDAFA), report & recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
`5816578 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020).2
`Meta is a prevailing plaintiff with respect to its CDAFA claim. A plaintiff prevails when it
`obtains “‘actual relief on the merits of [its] claim [that] materially alters the legal relationship between
`the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.’” Higher
`Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712, 715 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S.
`103, 111-112 (1992)) (addressing availability of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988). Here, this
`Court’s summary judgment order definitively held on the merits that BrandTotal’s “legacy”
`applications and extensions and its server-side collection from password-protected locations “violated
`the CFAA and the CDAFA.” MSJ Op. at 57. By virtue of that ruling, BrandTotal modified its
`behavior to Meta’s benefit by shutting down all of its scraping operations. See Schultz Decl. Ex. 4.
`An injunction, when one issues, will secure that change by precluding BrandTotal from (1) accessing
`Facebook or Instagram or scraping data from those platforms, including from users while they are
`interacting with those platforms; (2) selling or distributing the code that it has used to scrape data from
`Facebook and Instagram; and (3) selling or distributing the data that it has illegally scraped from
`Facebook and Instagram. See Dkt. 367 at 2; Dkt. 367-1. Meta is thus the prevailing party.3
`
`
`2 Though the statute is silent as to which party may recover fees, its legislative history makes clear
`that fees may be recovered by prevailing plaintiffs only. The CDAFA originally authorized any
`“‘prevailing party’” to obtain fees. Physician’s Surrogacy, Inc. v. German, 311 F. Supp. 3d 1190,
`1195 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting 1987 Cal. Legis. Servs. ch. 1499 (S.B. 255) (West)). In 2000, the
`statute was amended to remove the reference to the prevailing party, which courts have construed to
`mean that only prevailing plaintiffs, but not prevailing defendants, may recover fees under the
`CDAFA. See id. (citing 2000 Cal. Legis. Servs. Ch. 635 (A.B. 2727) (West) and collecting cases).
`3 Indeed, Meta is the prevailing party even absent entry of a permanent injunction. A plaintiff prevails
`for purposes of an entitlement to fees even without a final judgment or permanent injunction when the
`plaintiff obtains a judgment “‘on the merits’” of its claims that “‘materially alters the legal relationship
`between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the
`plaintiff.’” Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712, 715-717 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting
`Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-112 (1992)); accord Watson v. County of Riverside, 300 F.3d
`1092, 1095-1096 (9th Cir. 2002). That is precisely the case here, where Meta’s summary judgment
`victories on the merits of its claims have, as discussed above, caused BrandTotal to shut down its
`entire scraping operation.
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-07182
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 368 Filed 08/17/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`Meta is also entitled to recover fees incurred for litigating other related claims. A statutory fee
`provision extends to authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees for “work done on claims that ‘involve
`a common core of facts or [are] based on related legal theories’ as the claims governed by the statutory
`…