Harvest Aid, LLC sued Steven Paul and related entities for copyright infringement and circumvention of copyright protection systems. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Harvest Aid. Following the judgment, Defendants moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and filed a motion for attorneys' fees. Harvest Aid also filed a motion for attorneys' fees. The district court denied the Defendants' new trial motions because they failed to strictly comply with the Central District of California's Local Rule 7-3, which requires counsel to meet and confer before filing motions. The district court did not address the merits of the new trial motions. The case reached the Ninth Circuit through three consolidated appeals: the Defendants' appeal of the new trial denial, the Defendants' appeal of the fee award, and Harvest Aid's conditional cross-appeal regarding the timing of the fee motion.
The Ninth Circuit applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the district court's denial of the new trial motions. The court reasoned that while Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel to contact opposing counsel seven days prior to filing a motion, courts must liberally construe local rules to ensure cases are tried on their merits. The record showed that Defendants made substantial, documented efforts to comply, including retaining new counsel and requesting meetings. However, Harvest Aid's counsel either failed to respond or failed to appear for scheduled calls. The court emphasized that equitable principles require courts to weigh a party's good-faith efforts against the other party's opportunistic refusal to cooperate. Because the denial of the motion was effectively with prejudice due to the strict 28-day deadline for Rule 59 motions, the district court's failure to consider the merits constituted an abuse of discretion. Regarding the fees and costs, the court noted that the deadline for filing a fee motion is tolled while post-trial motions are pending. Since the new trial motions were vacated and remanded, the fee motion deadline remains tolled. However, the court reversed the costs award because the district court included non-taxable costs. Under Supreme Court precedent in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., a party is entitled to recover only the six categories of taxable costs specified in the general costs statute.
The case is remanded to the district court to evaluate the merits of the Defendants' motions for a new trial. The district court must now consider the arguments for a new trial rather than dismissing them based on procedural non-compliance. The award of attorneys' fees stands, but the award of costs is reduced to the taxable amount of $16,355.65. The deadline for Harvest Aid to file a supplemental motion for fees is tolled until the new trial motions are resolved. If the district court grants the new trial motions, the fee award will likely be vacated; if denied, Harvest Aid may file a supplemental fee motion within 14 days.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download