Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Newman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-3536
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PLANNED PARENTHOOD No. 24-3526 FEDERATION OF AMERICA, D.C. No. INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD 3:16-cv-00236-WHO SHASTA-DIABLO, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MEMORANDUM* THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF PASADENA AND SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD GULF COAST,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS; BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC; DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Sarkis; GERARDO ADRIAN LOPEZ,

Defendants - Appellants.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD No. 24-3532 FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD D.C. No. SHASTA-DIABLO, INC.; PLANNED 3:16-cv-00236-WHO PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF PASADENA AND SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD GULF COAST,

SANDRA SUSAN MERRITT, AKA Susan Tennenbaum,

Defendant - Appellant.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD No. 24-3536 FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD D.C. No. SHASTA-DIABLO, INC.; PLANNED 3:16-cv-00236-WHO PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE,

2 INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF PASADENA AND SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD GULF COAST,

TROY NEWMAN; ALBIN RHOMBERG,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 8, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: KOH and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.***

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

3 Defendants-Appellants Center for Medical Progress, BioMax Procurement

Services, LLC, David Daleiden, Gerardo Adrian Lopez, Sandra Susan Merritt,

Troy Newman, and Albin Rhomberg (collectively, “the Center”) appeal the district

court’s award of supplemental, appellate-level attorneys’ fees and costs to

Plaintiffs-Appellees Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. and ten of its

regional affiliates (collectively, “Planned Parenthood”). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs

for an abuse of discretion. Lowery v. Rhapsody Int’l, Inc., 75 F.4th 985, 991 (9th

Cir. 2023) (fees); Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)

(costs). Finding none, we affirm.

The Center’s sole argument in this appeal is that the district court erred by

awarding fees and costs without requiring Planned Parenthood’s counsel to

produce timesheets. We considered a nearly identical argument in the Center’s

appeal of the award of trial-level attorneys’ fees and costs in Planned Parenthood

Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, No. 21-15124, 2024

WL 4471745, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished). For the same reasons,

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding

appellate-level attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Center’s primary argument in this appeal is that Intel Corp. v. Terabyte

International, Inc., 6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1993), mandates disclosure of the

4 timesheets underlying the award. As in the Center’s appeal concerning trial-level

attorneys’ fees, Intel is inapposite. Again, the district court made specific findings

that Planned Parenthood’s counsel provided “highly detailed” declarations and

charts that allowed the court and the Center to evaluate the reasonableness of the

requested fees. This evidence is sufficient to “support[] the hours worked and rates

claimed.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Fischer v. SJB-

P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that “a summary of the

time spent on a broad category of tasks” was sufficient to support a fee award).

The Center’s only other argument is that Planned Parenthood’s declarations

and charts are summary exhibits subject to the requirements of Federal Rule of

Evidence 1006. This argument is squarely foreclosed by our decision in Henry v.

Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 n.1 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.