Harvest Aid, LLC sued Steven Paul, SP Releasing, LLC, and Echo Bridge Acquisition Corp., LLC for copyright infringement and circumvention of copyright protection systems. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Harvest Aid. Following the judgment, the defendants moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The district court denied these motions without addressing their legal merits, ruling instead that the defendants had failed to comply with the Central District of California's Local Rule 7-3 and Civil Standing Order regarding pre-filing conferences with opposing counsel. The district court subsequently granted Harvest Aid's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants appealed the denial of their new trial motion and the fee award, while Harvest Aid filed a conditional cross-appeal regarding the initial fee denial.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed the district court's denial of the new trial motions under an abuse of discretion standard. Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel to contact opposing counsel to discuss the substance of a motion at least seven days prior to filing. The court found that the defendants made substantial, documented efforts to comply with this rule. Their counsel retained a new firm to handle post-trial matters, which requested a meeting, but the plaintiff's counsel never responded. When new counsel of record was substituted, they requested a meeting, but the plaintiff's counsel failed to join the scheduled call. The court reasoned that the district court failed to give due weight to these good-faith efforts and the plaintiff's opportunistic refusal to cooperate. The court emphasized that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules should be liberally construed to ensure cases are tried on their merits. Because the denial of the motion effectively barred the defendants from litigating the merits due to strict Rule 59 deadlines that do not permit equitable tolling, the district court's rigid application of the local rule was inequitable. Regarding the fees and costs, the court noted that the 14-day deadline for fee motions is tolled while post-trial motions are pending. Since the new trial motions were vacated and remanded, the fee motion was timely. However, the court reversed the costs award, holding that under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and the Supreme Court's decision in Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., a party is entitled to recover only the six categories of taxable costs specified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920. The district court had awarded $26,638.80 in costs, but the plaintiff only incurred $16,355.65 in taxable costs.
The judgment is vacated and remanded to the district court. The district court must now evaluate the defendants' motions for a new trial on their substantive legal grounds rather than procedural compliance. The award of attorneys' fees is affirmed, but the award of costs is reversed and limited to the statutory taxable categories. If the district court grants the new trial motions, the fee award will likely be vacated; if it denies them, the plaintiff may file a supplemental fee motion within 14 days.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download