PICA v. Hewlett Packard

Full title: Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Date published: Apr 7, 2015

C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 7, 2015)

Opinion

C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

04-07-2015

Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard

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

Mary M. Johnston Judge

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

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

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.")).