Epac Techs., Inc. v. Harpercollins Christian Publ'g, Inc., 3:12-cv-00463

• Court: United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
• Citation: 362 F.Supp.3d 446
• Decision Date: 27 February 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 3:12-cv-00463,3:12-cv-00463
• Parties: EPAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. HARPERCOLLINS CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING, INC., f/k/a Thomas Nelson, Inc., Defendant.

362 F.Supp.3d 446

EPAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
HARPERCOLLINS CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING, INC., f/k/a Thomas Nelson, Inc., Defendant.

NO. 3:12-cv-00463

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed February 27, 2019

362 F.Supp.3d 448

Alex Bartko, Joseph C. Sharp, William B. Hill, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ronni D. Solomon, Susan M. Clare, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Heather Howell Wright, R. Brandon Bundren, Thor Y. Urness, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Nashville, TN, Jonathan M. Redgrave, Redgrave LLP, Chantilly, VA, Timothy C. Travelstead, Narayan Travelstead P.C., Hayward, CA, for Plaintiff.

D. Alexander Fardon, John R. Jacobson, Keane A. Barger, Steven Allen Riley, Timothy L. Warnock, W. Russell Taber, III, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Jenna Lyn Harris, Ritholz Levy Sanders Chidekel & Fields, LLP, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

ORDER

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Thomas Nelson's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Costs Incurred in Defense of the CNDA Claim. (Doc. No. 1065.) EPAC has filed a response opposing the motion, to which Thomas Nelson has replied. (See Doc. Nos. 1075, 1085). For the following reasons, Thomas Nelson's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. No. 1065) will be denied.

In its instant motion, Thomas Nelson moves the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), for reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in defense of EPAC's claim of breach of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement ("CNDA"). (Id. at 1.) Thomas Nelson requests an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs in the amount of $ 4,330,960.39. (Id. ) Thomas Nelson argues that, having prevailed on the CNDA claim by having it dismissed on its Rule 50 motion for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of EPAC's proof, it is entitled to "prevailing party" status on that claim. (Doc. No. 1066 at 3.) Thomas Nelson maintains that it is not seeking fees and expenses unrelated to the CNDA claim, but, because EPAC intermingled its claims, "it is simply not possible to separate out specific hours spent on defending only the CNDA claim separate and apart from EPAC's other claims." (Id. at 4.) Thomas Nelson also argues that the requested fees and costs are reasonable. (Id. at 5.) Thomas Nelson contends that its attorneys' hourly rates are reasonable considering the attorneys' skill, experience, and the market hourly rate in Nashville. (Id. at 7.) Moreover, Thomas Nelson asserts that the extensive amount of work was necessary to defend against EPAC's "scorched-earth" litigation tactics. (Id. at 9.) Accordingly, Thomas Nelson requests $ 4,330,960.39 in attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. (Id. at 9-10.)

EPAC opposes Thomas Nelson's motion, first arguing that Thomas Nelson is not entitled to "prevailing party" status. (Doc. No. 1075 at 4.) EPAC contends that whether a party is entitled to "prevailing party" status depends on whether the party was successful in the overall litigation. (Id. at 4-5.) EPAC maintains that Thomas Nelson was found liable on the breach of Master Service Agreement and fraudulent concealment claims, and, therefore, it was not successful in the overall litigation. (Id. at 5.) EPAC also asserts that Thomas Nelson's failure to limit its motion to solely fees incurred to defend the CNDA claim necessitate denial. (Id. at 6.) EPAC notes that Thomas Nelson admits it cannot separate

362 F.Supp.3d 449

out the fees related to defense of the CNDA claim. (Id. at 8.) EPAC argues that, because Thomas Nelson cannot separate out these fees, granting its motion would be absurd because the Court would necessarily be awarding fees for claims in which Thomas Nelson did not prevail. (Id. at 9-10.) Finally, EPAC argues that Thomas Nelson's request for fees is unconscionable, especially considering that the Magistrate Judge specifically found Thomas Nelson to have engaged in wrongful litigation tactics. (Id. at 10-11.) Accordingly, EPAC requests that Thomas Nelson's motion be denied. (Id. at 11.)

The "bedrock principle" of the American Rule says that " [e]ach litigant pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise in ‘specific and explicit’ terms." Warren Drilling Co. v. Equitable Prod. Co., 621 Fed. App'x. 800, 806 (6th Cir. 2015). In the context of...