Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 2 of 22 Page ID

#:2293

LAFFEY MATRIX -- 2003-2013 (2009-10 rates were unchanged from 2008-09 rates)

Years (Rate for June | - May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U)

Experience 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 = 12-13 20+ years 380 390 405 425 440 465 465 475 495 505 11-19 years 335 345 360 375 390 410 410 420 435 445 8-10 years 270 280 290 305 315 330 330 335 350 355 4-7 years 220 225 235 245 255 270 270 275 285 290 1-3 years 180 185 195 205 215 225 225 230 240 245 Paralegals & 105 110 115 120 125 130 130 135 140 145 Law Clerks Explanatory Notes:

This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to be used in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed by the District Court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), affd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the "United States Attorney's Office Matrix." The column headed "Experience" refers to the years following the attorney's graduation from law school. The various "brackets" are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 years after law school graduation), "senior associates" (4-7 years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-19 years), and "very experienced federal court litigators" (20 years or more). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371.

The hourly rates approved by the District Court in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. The Matrix begins with those rates. See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and the lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington- Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WY\V, as announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of each year.

Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently stated that parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by the United States Attorney's Office as evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area. See Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n. 14, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996). Lower federal courts in the District of Columbia have used this updated Laffey Matrix when determining whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutes are reasonable. See, e.g., Blackman v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999); Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 1997); Ralph Hoar & Associates v. Nat'l Highway Transportation Safety Admin., 985 F. Supp. 1, 9-10 n.3 (D.D.C. 1997); Martini v. Fed. Nat'l Mtg Ass'n, 977 F. Supp. 482, 485 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997); Park v. Howard University, 881 F. Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C. 1995).

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:2294

EXHIBIT B

matrix | Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page Mymiadaarieageikom/see html #:2295

MON ch anViewnup

Years Out of Law School *

BRPPPR

(owoirio- sari | 10sa7 [S161 [S24 [saer[asa2 [a8 [e709 [eoios- sino | 1oa20 [sis [sos [ssa [asos [aseo [sone [eis sais [ 10399 [sis [sav [aaa [Sana [assy [som (eouoe-sa07 | 10256 [ sis9 [sass [ sais [ sas2 [3509 |[ so1a

(onoesraims [10455 [ _si30 [ _s239][ S203 [ sa23|[_sa7e [ ss7a egy (onx-enios [10507 [ siza [s208)[ S280 [ $405 [S456 [$549

(onoxsains [1077 [sus [ sai7\[ _so67 [ s30s)[ sas [ss22 [onorsisim2 [10407 [sia [_s203|[ soa [$359 [ sao [S487 (ouoo-saii [10529 [S106 [— $195)[ $030 [S345 [sae8][ sa0e (oniss-sisi00 [10491 [sion [ _s18s[ _ soo7 [ s328)[ $300 [saa (onssii9 [1089 [ S96 [ si76[ sare [ s312)[ s3s2.[ soa (osrsaies [10419 [S92 [ sr69[ _ so07 [ S209 [ 9337 [sane (onsesiie7 [10396 [ 88 [ _s162\[ _si98 [ son7)[ $323 | s380 (sussai6 [1032 [ sas [ _siss|[_ sisi [ save [ sair|[_sa75 (osesaies [10237 [ 82 [_ sisr[ _sias [ s207)[ s301 [S303

Year

The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).

1 of 2 4/4/13 6:50 PM

matrix Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Paggm Safdar ageihom/see html #:2296

* “Years Out of Law School” is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students graduate. “1-3" includes an attorney in his Ist, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from date of graduation (June 1). “4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier “1-3" from June 1, 1996 until May 31, 1999, would move into tier “4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier “8-10" on June 1, 2003.

** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

2 of 2 4/4/13 6:50 PM

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 6of22 PageID #:2297

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:2298

Daily Journal Classifieds/Jobs/Office Space : Experts/Services : CLE : Search : Logout

TUESDAY | WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY — TODAY Questions and Comments SEARCHI/BACK to search results

Bookmark Reprints

This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers : for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. } Please click “Reprint” to order presentatior-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials oy for j permission to post on a website. :

Friday, August 10, 2012 |

Billing rates up, especially for associates

By Kevin Lee Average law firm billing rates are back on the rise after stagnating somewhat in the te years following the 2008 financial crisis. But most of the action is taking place in ; legs ea aese 310-556.1 : associate billing rates, which jumped 7.5 percent in the first half of the year compared isi 3 Inggethies@ msn.com

to the same period in 2011, more than twice the average rate increase in partner biling | rates nationwide. !

Industry experts say the discrepancy appears to be the market correcting itself after firms sloughed off associates and froze associate hiring in 2009 and 2010.

Partner billing rates, by comparison, rose 3.4 percent in the first half of the year

compared to the year-earlier period, according to the latest research by Valeo Partners 4 JEFF K| C H AVEN

LLC, a Washington D.C.-based consutting firm. , FMLA Bain e Kore ee 8 COMMERCIAL MEDIATION

If inflation goes up 3 percent, so do our 7 associate billing rates, because that is what |G 888-425-2520 jk@jeffkichaven.com

covers rent, lights, computers, telephones, desks." - Marc A. Sockol

Valeo compiled data on the billing rates of lawyers at 550 U.S. law firms through publicly available documents, such as court filings, fee applications and disclosure statements submitted to federal agencies. :

Chuck Chandler, a Valeo co-founder and partner, said this year's rate increases were instituted to offset the lack of rate movement during the recession.

"The associates took the hit after 2008. Some firms laid off as much as 10 percent of their associates, delayed hiring new classes and froze compensation," he said. “Naturally, billing rates were slow to increase during that period.”

For the first six months of this year, California markets all saw associate rate | increases below the national average. Associates in San Francisco and Silicon Valley together claimed the highest average rate increase of the California markets - 7.3 | percent. |

"Northern California has all of the social media, the technology companies, which creates a lot of dealmaking and IPOs and also good fees and hourly rates," Chandler said.

By comparison, Los Angeles associates saw their rates go up an average of 6.6 percent. In San Diego, associate rates rose 4.2 percent. 1

Law firms generally increase billing rates each year, according to Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP partner Marc A. Sockol, who manages the firm's Palo Alto office.

"If inflation goes up 3 percent, so do our associate billing rates, because that is what covers rent, lights, computers, telephones, desks," Sockol said. "During those first couple years of this recession, we chose not to boost our billing rates.”

Sockol declined to provide specific billing rates but said the firm varies its associate rates by practice group and geography. For 2012, the firm raised associate billing rates

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:2299

“roughly 3 percent, he said.

James G. Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement in Washington D.C., said the jump in billing rates results from the overall decrease of associates at law firms, especially at large law firms. Large law firms, which are the biggest employers of junior Jawyers, are relying less on partnership-track associates ! and more on staff lawyers, paralegals and contract lawers.

NALP data reveals that from 2008 to 2011, large law firms on average hired entry-level associates at an annual starting salary of $160,000. Some law firms cut their starting salaries to $145,000 during that time but not many. Leipold said he thought more firms would follow suit.”

"What we saw was that law firms reduced their associate class sizes dramatically, but they didn't reduce their pay,” Leipold said. "They just provided many fewer jobs."

Some large firms have turned to creating nonpartnership-track staff lawyer positions for new classes of junior lawyers, whose billing rates and compensation are lower than those of partnership-track associates.

Law firms can then maintain or increase the billing rates for the small number of associates on the partnership track, knowing they can turn to their staff lawyers, paralegals or contract lawyers to drive down the cost of legal services for clients.

"I think you'll see that [approach] more in the next couple of years," Leipold said. “It's another way for them to bring the salary structure back down and meet the cost-containment demands of clients and use people more efficiently.”

Salaries for recent law school grads continue to fall Juty 13, 2012 The median starting salary for members of the class of 2011 has fallen to $60,000.

Examining the real cost of purchasing lateral talent June 19, 2012 Part Two of a five-part series. By Edwin B. Reeser

Statistics show entry-level law jobs at lowest levels dune 8, 2012 The class of 2011 had an overall employment rate of 85.6 percent as of February, the lowest rate since 1994, according to a report by the National Association for Law Placement.

Playing to win in today’s legal new normal April 23, 2012 Regardless of size, you can improve efficiencies and concentrate on what you do best fo operate more efficiently. By Paul Lippe and Ed Reeser

HOME : MOBILE SITE : CLASSIFIEDS : EXPERTS/SERVICES : CLE : DIRECTORIES : SEARCH : LOGOUT

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1. Filed 04/05/13 Page 9 of 22 Page |

artence and oversight, and my duct was not willful,” Estrich te. :

rewal filed an order ‘Wednesday ng that Estrich explain why

hadnt anterad an annearance

entitled to “all sums” coverage, or the full amount provided by their policy limit, even if some of the damage occurred outside of the

’ polity périod. **~ -

‘This is going to make it much more difficult for insurers to offer such abysmally low sums to their insured during settlement negotiations.’

—- Roger W. Simpson

The court also ruled that when an en- tity purchases insurance policies from several companies over an extended period of time, the insured can recoup the maximum amount of the policy limits from each company — a practice known as stacking. Insurance com- panies argued that the insured should only recover the maximum amount of money provided during a single policy period, and

Cupertino-based consumer technol- ogy company spoliated evidence. Grewal previously ordered a similar instruction against Samsung for failing to preserve evidence. Attarnevs for Annle claimSam-

Daily Journal File Photo

, who represented the state in insurance litigation before the state Supreme Court

s large insurance suit

‘les insurers must pay out claims that are ‘stacked’

that the insurance companies would split that cost.

“An all-sums-with-stacking rule has numer- ous advantages,” Chin wrote. He said it re- solves the question of insurance coverage “as equitably as possible.” It also “comports with the parties’ reasonable expectations,” both for the insurance companies which expect to pay for damage that occurs and for the policy holder that “reasonably expects indemnifica- tion for the time periods in which it purchased coverage.” State of California v. Continental Insurance Co., $170560.

The decision could eventually lead to ef- forts by the insurance industry to exclude coverage for high exposure claims, such as buildings with potential asbestos problems.

The case concerns the Stringfellow quarry in Riverside County. Opened in 1956 as an industrial waste deposit site, it collected more than 30 million gallons of industrial waste during its operation. But the quarry had sev- eral flaws leading to contaminants reaching groundwater. In 1972, the site was closed, but it continued to leak. In 1998, a federal court

See Page 4 — INSUREDS

Associate billing rates start climbing again

Average rates going back up after stagnation brought on by recession

By Kevin Lee Daily Journa! Staff Writer

Average law firm billing rates are back on the rise after stagnating somewhat in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. But most of the action is taking place in associate billing rates, which jumped 7.5 percent in the first half of the year compared to the same pe- riod in 2011, more than twice the average rate increase in partner billing rates nationwide.

Industry experts say the discrepancy ap- pears to be the market correcting itself after firms sloughed off associates and froze asso-

clate hiring in 2009 and 2010.

Partner billing rates, by comparison, rose 3.4 percent in the first half of the year com- pared to the year-earlier period, according to the latest research by Valeo Partners LLC, a Washington D.C.-based consulting firm.

Chuck Chandler, a Valeo co-founder and partner, said this year's rate increases were instituted to offset the lack of rate movement during the recession.

“The associates took the hit after 2008. Some firms laid off as much as 10 percent of their associates, delayed hiring new classes and froze compensation,” he said. “Naturally, billing rates were slow to increase during that period.”

For the first six months of this year, Califor- nia markets ‘all saw associate rate increases below the national average. Associates in San Francisco and Silicon Valley together claimed the highest average rate increase of the Cali- fornia markets — 7.3 percent.

“Northern California has all of the social media, the technology companies, which creates a lot of dealmaking and IPOs and also good fees and hourly rates,” Chandler said.

By comparison, Los Angeles associates saw their rates go up an average of 6.6 percent. In San Diego, associate rates rose 4.2 percent.

Law firms generally increase billing rates each year, according to Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP partner Marc A. Sockol, who manages the firm’s Palo Alto office,

“Tf inflation goes up 3 percent, so do our associate billing rates, because that is what covers rent, lights, computers, telephones, desks,” Sockol said. “During those first couple years of this recession, we chose not to

See Page 5 — ASSOCIATE

tel attorney explains belated admission to court

John B. Quinn for defying the court by releasing excluded evidence to the media. Then, Samsung lawyers broke minor rules when they took some of the witnesses on a tour of the canrt when it wasn't in session

D =

Case 2:12-cv-08333

-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 10of 22 PageID SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNSL

LAW FIRM |

Average Law Firm Billing Rates

Associate

ate

2012 | 2044 aE

2] He «i Partner $568 $568 San Diego Associate |- $304 $378 i e :

$725 $495 $460

Source: Valeo 2012 Halftime Report |}

Percent Increase

Associate billing rates going up

Continued from page 1

boost our billing rates.”

Sockol declined to provide spe- cific billing rates but said the firm varies its associate rates by practice group and geography. For 2012, the firm raised associate billing rates roughly 3 percent, he said.

James G. Leipold, executive di- rector of the National Association for Law Placement in Washington D.C., said the jump in billing rates results from the overall decrease of associates at law firms, especially at large law firms. Large law firms, which are the biggest employers of junior lawyers, are relying less on Partnership-track associates and more on staff lawyers, paralegals and contract lawyers,

NALP data reveals that from 2008 to 2011, large law firms on average hired entry-level associates at an

annual starting salary of $160,000, Some law firms cut their starting salaries to $145,000 during that time but not many. Leipold said he thought more firms would follow suit.

eee ee ae ee ‘If inflation goes up

3 percent, so do our associate billing rates, because that is what covers

rent, lights, computers, telephones, desks.’

— Marc A. Sockol a “What we saw was that law firms reduced their associate class sizes

dramatically, but they didn’t reduce their pay,” Leipold said. “They just

provided many fewer jobs,”

Law firms can then maintain or in- crease the billing rates for the small number of associates on the partner- ship track, knowing they can turn to their staff lawyers, paralegals or contract lawyers to drive down the cost of legal services for clients.

“I think you'll see that [approach] more in the next. couple of years,” Leipold said. “It’s another way for them to bring the salary structure back down and meet the cost-con- tainment demands of clients and use people more efficiently.”

hevin_lee@dailyjournal. com

Rati MEG USE Ce ae tee REAL ae easel,

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:2302

EXHIBIT D

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID

#:2303 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba ia Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 gti x iv Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

In Reference To: Pre-Service Litigation (Legal Services)

Date By Services Hours Rates Amount

Legal Services: Review dockets for each Ingenuity 13 and AF

"W26/2012 MP Holdings case filed in C.D. Cal.

2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00 Legal Services: Review prior case in E.D. Cal.; telephone conference with attorney for Alan Cooper in Minnesota regarding standing issue; prepare and file ex parte application seeking stay of subpoena return date

11/29/2012 MP _ Legal Services: Prepare draft of notice of related cases 3.20 $300.00/hr $960.00

11/28/2012 MP 1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00

Legal Services: Telephone conference with attorney for Alan Cooper; revise and file notice of related cases; coordinate 12/03/2012 MP _ preparation of multiple courtesy copies for all Judges with arelated 98.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00 case; conduct telephonic conference with Magistrate Judge Walsh; prepare meet and confer correspondence to B. Gibbs

Legal Services: Telephone conference with B. Gibbs; prepare 12/07/2012 MP _ correspondence to B. Gibbs recapping that he would not be 1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00 answering any meaningful questions about "Alan Cooper"

Legal Services: Attempt to contact B. Gibbs, by both email and telephone, several times, to meet and confer; conduct telephonic meet and confer conference with B. Gibbs; prepare follow-up correspondence to B. Gibbs

12/13/2012 MP 0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00

Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs again 12/14/2012 MP asking for copy of the verification he submitted in E.D. Cal. 0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00 Ingenuity 13 case

Legal Services: Review frivolous motion for sanctions against

12/17/2012 MP stomey Morgan E. Pietz

0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00

Legal Services: Prepare and file ex parte application for leave to

eiGetle Me take early discovery and to further stay subpoena return date

5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page13o0f22 PageID

#:2304 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 we ave Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Legal Services: Prepare opposition to plaintiff's frivolous

12/18/2012 MP ; : sanctions motion

2.10 $300.00/hr $630.00 Legal Services: Prepare request for Leave to to file opposition to

pseu Me Disqualification Motion to Judge Fitzgerald

0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00

Legal Services: Prepare and serve written discovery regarding Alan Cooper

01/09/2013 MP _ Legal Services: Prepare opposition to disqualification motion 11.20 $300.00/hr $3,360.00

01/04/2013 MP 2.30 $300.00/hr $690.00

Legal Services: Prepare and file Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz

01/14/2013 MP re: Prenda Law, Inc. and exhibits thereto

6.70 $300.00/hr $2,010.00 Legal Services: Revise and file opposition to disqualification

01/14/2013 MP : motion

3.20 $300.00/hr $960.00 Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs regarding attempt to evade discovery by dismissing case and offer to consider not filing a sanctions motion if meaningful discovery responses are provided

01/29/2013 MP 0.40 $300.00/hr $120.00

Legal Services: Review correspondence from B. Gibbs regarding his intention to substitute out of this case with P. Duffy to take 01/30/2013 MP _ over; prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs and P. Duffy following up 0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00 on unanswered questions regarding the Alan Cooper early discovery that is the subject of the Court's January 29 Order

Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to P. Duffy regarding his

g2OTetls MP attempt to meet and confer about this action (12-cv-8333)

0.30 $300.00/hr $90.00 Legal Services: Review order to show cause re: sanctions; place three unsuccessful phone calls to P. Duffy in an attempt to meet and confer at an appointed time, as previously requested by Mr. Duffy

02/08/2013 MP 0.70 $300.00/hr $210.00

Legal Services: Outline and prepare response to OSC re: Sanctions

02/18/2013 MP _ Legal Services: Prepare response to OSC re: Sanctions 6.40 $300.00/hr $1,920.00

02/15/2013 MP 1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page14of22 PageID

#:2305 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 we ave Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Legal Services: Prepare, revise and file response to OSC re:

02/19/2013 MP Sanctions

4.90 $300.00/hr $1,470.00 Legal Services: Prepare illustrative exhibit diagramming the

Oa20i2012". MF organization of Prenda Law, Inc.

3.50 $300.00/hr $1,050.00 Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to A. Waxler regarding

ee le0tS ME joint stipulation to file a reply brief on the sanctions issue

0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00 Legal Services: Investigate suspected second unwitting straw man; review new Guava, LLC verification; research "Alan Mooney" in Minnesota; telephone conference with D. Browning regarding same

02/21/2013 MP 4.20 $300.00/hr $1,260.00

Legal Services: Investigate suspected second unwitting straw man, Allan Mooney, in the Guava, LLC v. Comcast case in St. 02/25/2013 MP Clair County, Illinois; telephone conference with K. Larsen, TCF 2.70 $300.00/hr $810.00 Bank counsel regarding notary Bob Jones; follow up regarding same

03/03/2013 MP _ Legal Services: Prepare reply re: OSC 3.50 $300.00/hr $1,050.00

Legal Services: Prepare, revise and file reply re: OSC; prepare 03/04/2013 MP _ and file declarations and exhibits in support of same; make 5.40 $300.00/hr $1,620.00 inquiries regarding Alan Cooper's willingness to testify

Legal Services: Prepare exhibits relating to case in chief for

OSO7ie0ta> Mr March 11 OSC re: sanctions

8.30 $300.00/hr $2,490.00 Legal Services: Prepare potential rebuttal exhibits relating to March 11 OSC re: sanctions; prepare and file opposition to ex parte application seeking withdrawal of order requiring attendance of Prenda representatives

03/08/2013 MP 6.20 $300.00/hr $1,860.00

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page15of22 PageID

#:2306 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba ia Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 gti x iv Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Legal Services: Prepare examination outline for (i) B. Gibbs; (ii) J. Steele; (iii) Pl. Hansemeier; (iv) P. Duffy; (v) Pe. Hansemeier; (vi) A. V.d. Hemel; and (vii) ISP representatives, for March 11 OSC re: sanctions; prepare correspondence to B. Fox regarding inquiry as to whether Verizon was ever actually served with Court's discovery order

03/09/2013 MP 4.50 $300.00/hr $1,350.00

Legal Services: Travel to and from OSC re: sanctions; conduct

Osatie0ts MP examination of B. Gibbs and various other witnesses

6.10 $300.00/hr $1,830.00

Legal Services: Coordinate preparation of transcript of voicemails meets: ME played at 3/11 OSC hearing re: sanctions

03/13/2013 MP _ Legal Services: Prepare and file notices of lodging 0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00

0.40 $300.00/hr $120.00

Legal Services: Review declaration filed by A. Waxler regarding service on the additional parties ordered to appear at the 4/2 OSC re: Sanctions; prepare correspondence to A. Waxler regarding additional addresses to be used to effect service

03/20/2013 MP 0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00

Legal Services: Prepare exhibits and examination outlines for 4/2

04/01/2013 MP OSC hearing re: sanctions

10.20 $300.00/hr $3,060.00 04/04/2013 MP _ Legal Services: Appear at 4/4/13 OSC hearing re: sanctions 0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00

In Reference To: Pre-Service Litigation (Expenses)

Date By Expenses Amount 42/20/2012 MP oo Costs: One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice No. 1357 for $118.00 42/20/2012 MP aaa Costs: One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice No. 1330 for $118.00 12/20/2012 MP Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice No. 109038 for $44.00 $44.00

Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $113 for delivery of

CUA OOS: ME courtesy copies to Judge on 12/19/12

$113.00

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 16 of 22 PageID

#:2307 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba ia Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 gti x iv Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $43 for delivery of

ane MP courtesy copies to Judge on 12/21/12 oe Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $102.38 for delivery of eunOetle. ME courtesy copies to Judge on 12/03/12 $102.38 01/21/2013 MP Advanced Cosis: Investigator Fee $150.00 Advanced Cosis: Southwest Airlines for round-trip travel by Paul Godfread and Alan 02/20/2013 MP Cooper from MSP to LAX on March 10-11, 2013; Confirmation No. G3AL3H. Booed 02/26/2013 MP Advanced Cosis: Oscar Apperti, One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice $72.00 No. 1359 for $72 03/11/2013 MP Advanced Costs: Oscar Apperti, One-to-One, Inv. 1395 for $72.00 $72.00 Advanced Costs: Professional Fees for Blair Chintella for: Mailing: $19.95 Two Notaries: $7.50 03/11/2013 MP Gas/Paper/Toner: $10 $37.45 TOTAL: $37.45 03/18/2013 MP Advanced Costs: Kelli Norden and Associates, Inv. 82625, for Audiotape $75.00 Transcription 03/19/2013 MP Advanced Cosis: Katie Thibodeaux, Court Reporter, for transcript of proceedings $285.60 March 11, 2013. 03/25/2013 MP Advanced Cosis: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice No. 113213 dated 3/21/13, for $138.63 delivery of courtesy copies to Judge Total Hours 120.50 hrs Total Legal Services $36,150.00 Total Expenses $2,226.26 Total Invoice Amount $38,376.26

Previous Balance $0.00

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 17 of 22 Page ID

#:2308 The Pietz Law Firm 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 samba Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 we ave Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333 Invoice 20256

| Date | Apr 04, 2013

Terms

Apr 04, 2013

Balance (Amount Due) $38,376.26

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:2309

EXHIBIT E

—

(eS)

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 19 of 22 PageID

#:23

an E. Pietz Pen 260629) EPIETZ LAW FIRM

3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

mpietz@pietzlawfirm. com

Telephone: (310) 424-5557

Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Nicholas Ranallo 371 Dogwood Wa Boulder Creek, CA 95006

nick@ranallolawoffice.com Telephone: (831) 703-4011

Fax: (831) 533-5073

Attorney for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Liability Company Organized Under the Laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff, V.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

Case Assigned to: District Judge Otis D Wright, II

Discovery Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian

Case Consolidated with Case Nos:.: 2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv- 6662; 2:12-cv-6668

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

-|-

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:2311

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the State Bar of California and admitted to the state and federal Courts of the State of California.

2, I am co-counsel for the putative defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333-ODW-JC.

ey I graduated cum laude from Tulane Law School in May, 2007.

4. I passed the July 2007 New York Bar Examination and was admitted to practice in July, 2008.

oy I previously worked as an associate for Stern & Montana, LLP from approximately May, 2008 until September 2010 as a litigation associate.

6. While working at Stern & Montana, I passed the July 2010 California Bar Exam, and was admitted to practice in this state in January, 2011.

7. I have represented a large number of defendants and putative “Doe” defendants accused of similar BitTorrent copyright infringement, including successfully defendant a number of individuals sued by AF Holdings during its litigation campaign.

8. I have determined that my billing rate is reasonable by consulting three sources: (1) the “Laffey Matrix” issued by the United State Department of Justice; (11) the “Adjusted Laffey Matrix,” which is a similar measure used by private law firms; and (111) a recent survey of hourly billing rates published by the San Francisco Daily Journal.

9. According to the Department of Justice’s Laffey Matrix, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the year June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013, the benchmark for an attorney with 4-7 years experience (such as me) is $290 per hour. See Viveros v. Donahoe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46867 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013) (Morrow, J.) (noting that “The Laffey Matrix reports that. . .a reasonable rate for an attorney with four to seven years of experience is $290 an hour [fn 31]” but explaining

in footnote 31 that “The court's experience suggests that these average rates are somewhat

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 102-1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:2312

low for the Los Angeles legal community.”)

10. According to the “Adjusted Laffey Matrix”, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, prepared not by the DOJ, but by private litigants after reviewing DOJ methodology, the rate for a lawyer with 4-7 years experience is $383 per hour. See, Kempf v. Barrett Bus. Servs., No. C-06-3161 SC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89447 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007) (finding attorneys’ requested fees reasonable when compared to rates in the Adjusted Laffey Matrix).

11. According to the August 10, 2012, edition of the San Francisco Daily Journal, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the reasonable hourly rate for attorneys in the Los Angeles area is significantly higher than the rate suggested by the Laffey Matrix. According to this survey, the 2012 average billing rate in the Los Angeles market was $550 per hour for an associate, up from $516 per hour in 2011.

12. [have significant skill and experience dealing with this type of case and with this particular plaintiff. I estimate that I represent approximately 50+ John Doe defendants in similar actions, including several other cases that have been filed by the same plaintiffs’ attorneys, Prenda Law, Inc.

13. Based on my (1) big-firm experience, (11) sustained focus on intellectual property issues, (111) practical experience litigating this particular type of case, and (iv) with reference to the fee benchmarks noted above, I believe that my current billing rate of $300 per hour is reasonable, if not on the low end for an attorney with my skill and experience in these types of cases.

14. I have reasonably expended 6.5 hours in defense of this action. This is comprised of 6 hours in court on March 11, 2013 and another half hour in court on April 2, 2013. At a reasonable hourly rate of $300/hour, this amounts to $1950 in attorney fees.

15. In addition, I have incurred $333.60 in costs associated with this action,

comprised of two round trip tickets from Northern California to LAX, including

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS