Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

DecidedApril 7, 2015

Docket12C-06-196 CCLD

StatusPublished

This text of Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., (Del. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mary M. Johnston New Castle County Courthouse Judge 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0668

April 7, 2015

Blake Bennett, Esquire Michael Kelly, Esquire Cooch and Taylor McCarter & English The Brandywine Building Renaissance Centre 1000 West Street, 10th Floor 405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680

Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed counsel’s letters dated April 1, 2 and 6, 2015.

As the Court stated in its March 23, 2015 Opinion:

Should HP dispute the reasonableness of the dollar amount represented by 75% of PICA’s attorneys’ fees, HP shall provide a full accounting of HP’s own fees and costs in defending the entirety of this litigation. The Court then will make a determination as to reasonableness.1

1 Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2015 WL 1417329, at *8 (Del. Super.) (citing Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, 2010 WL 61075, at *34 (Del. Ch.)(“I will assume that if each side’s expenditures are reasonably similar...the fees and costs were reasonably incurred.”)). This ruling is clear. HP can attempt to demonstrate that PICA’s fee request is not appropriate by providing its own fees for comparison. In other words, if HP’s counsel submits an affidavit stating that 75% of HP’s total attorneys’ fees is less than $1,028,130.38, the Court will require both parties to provide a full accounting of fees to determine reasonableness.

The same procedure applies to PICA’s calculation of the fees awarded under the Rule 37(b) sanctions. However, PICA is directed to review its fee calculations to ensure that PICA is not recovering the same fees twice, as HP claims. The Court declines to require PICA to break down the Rule 37(b) fees by category.

Finally, the Court awarded 75% of PICA’s total attorneys’ fees. This includes the post-trial proceedings.

HP shall file any objections to the Proposed Final Order and Judgment by no later than April 14, 2015. Post judgment interest will run as of the date the Court enters the Final Order and Judgment.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston Mary M. Johnston

MMJ/tjm oc: Prothonotary

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mary M. Johnston New Castle County Courthouse Judge 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0668

April 7, 2015

Blake Bennett, Esquire Michael Kelly, Esquire Cooch and Taylor McCarter & English The Brandywine Building Renaissance Centre 1000 West Street, 10th Floor 405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680

Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed counsel’s letters dated April 1, 2 and 6, 2015.

As the Court stated in its March 23, 2015 Opinion:

Should HP dispute the reasonableness of the dollar amount represented by 75% of PICA’s attorneys’ fees, HP shall provide a full accounting of HP’s own fees and costs in defending the entirety of this litigation. The Court then will make a determination as to reasonableness.1

1 Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2015 WL 1417329, at *8 (Del. Super.) (citing Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, 2010 WL 61075, at *34 (Del. Ch.)(“I will assume that if each side’s expenditures are reasonably similar...the fees and costs were reasonably incurred.”)). This ruling is clear. HP can attempt to demonstrate that PICA’s fee request is not appropriate by providing its own fees for comparison. In other words, if HP’s counsel submits an affidavit stating that 75% of HP’s total attorneys’ fees is less than $1,028,130.38, the Court will require both parties to provide a full accounting of fees to determine reasonableness.

The same procedure applies to PICA’s calculation of the fees awarded under the Rule 37(b) sanctions. However, PICA is directed to review its fee calculations to ensure that PICA is not recovering the same fees twice, as HP claims. The Court declines to require PICA to break down the Rule 37(b) fees by category.

Finally, the Court awarded 75% of PICA’s total attorneys’ fees. This includes the post-trial proceedings.

HP shall file any objections to the Proposed Final Order and Judgment by no later than April 14, 2015. Post judgment interest will run as of the date the Court enters the Final Order and Judgment.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston Mary M. Johnston

MMJ/tjm oc: Prothonotary

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/professional-investigating-consulting-agency-inc-v-delsuperct-2015.