United States District Court, D. Arizona
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Holland Electronics, LLC's ("Holland") Application for Attorneys' Fees Re: Sanctions Awarded in Conjunction with Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Trial Subpoenas ("Application"). (Doc. 356). The Court now rules on the Application.
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff PCT International, Inc. ("PCT") issued and subsequently served subpoenas on various witnesses residing outside of Arizona. (Doc. 328 at 1-2). Holland filed a motion to quash, arguing that the subpoenas were invalid because the witnesses did not reside in Arizona and were located over 100 miles from the Court. (Id. at 2-4). Additionally, Holland requested that the Court sanction PCT pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 45(d)(1). (Id. at 3).
On April 27, 2015, the Court considered whether it would quash the subpoenas and impose sanctions on PCT. (Tr. 4/27/15 at 37-38). At this hearing, PCT argued that it had served the subpoenas because Holland would not reveal whether the "witnesses were unavailable." (Id. ) Additionally, PCT claimed that it did not withdraw the subpoenas, even after it was aware of the unavailability of the witnesses, because Holland did not "provide... [PCT] with some authority that... [PCT] had an obligation to withdraw them." (Id. at 39).
The Court quashed the subpoenas and imposed sanctions on PCT in accordance with Rule 45. (Id. at 44-45). The sanctions were to "take the form of an application for attorney's fees by... [Holland], all in accordance with the local rule." (Id. ) The Court stated that it would:
grant reasonable attorney's fees for that which... [Holland has] had to expend to basically seek to get these subpoenas quashed upon notifying... [PCT] that the witnesses were neither residing in, employed in or regularly transacting business in the state of Arizona or within 100 miles of the court.
Holland seeks $18, 992.00 in attorneys' fees. (Doc. 402 at 3). PCT objects to the fees listed for preparing the fee application and for having multiple attorneys prepare and attend the April 27 hearing. (Doc. 397 at 2). Additionally, PCT argues that Holland is only entitled to the fees incurred after Holland affirmed that the witnesses were unavailable. (Id. at 4 n.1). PCT has not had an opportunity to object to Holland's request for fees associated with producing Defendant's Reply in Support of Application for Attorneys' Fees Re: Sanctions Awarded in Conjunction with Defendant's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Trial Subpoenas ("Reply"). (Doc. 402).
II. Legal Standard
Attorneys, as officers of the court, have the capacity to issue subpoenas. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 advisory committee's note to 1991 amendment. Accordingly, attorneys are liable and responsible for "misuse of this power." Id. To regulate attorneys' subpoena power, the Court can award "reasonable attorney's fees" where a party fails to "avoid imposing undue burden or expense on" a subpoenaed individual. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1).
A. Preparing the Fee Application and the Reply
PCT objects to Holland's request for $4, 632.50 for preparing the Application. (Doc. 397 at 2-3). PCT argues that Holland improperly relies upon Anderson v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs to justify its entitlement to fees for preparing its Application. (Id. at 3) (citing Anderson v. Dir., Office of Workers Comp. Programs, 91 F.3d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996)). PCT claims that this Court has held that Anderson is limited to cases involving fee applications under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. ) ...