Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone
(Southern District of N.Y. (S.D. N.Y) 2026)
Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Southern District of New York (S.D. N.Y)
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
United States (J.) (unanimous Court)
willing
to
pay.”
A
rb
o
r
Hill
C
onc
ern
ed
Citizens
Neig
hb
or
ho
od
A
s
s
’n.
v.
Cnty.
o
f
Alba
ny
,
522
F.3d
182,
190
(2d
Cir.
2008).
Reasonable
fees
compensate
counsel
only
for
“hours
reasonably
expended
on
the
litigation,”
and
not
for
“hours
th
at
are
excessive,
redundant,
o
r
otherwise
unnecessary!)]”
He
nsl
ey
v.
E
cke
r
hart,
461
U.S.
4
2
4
,4
3
3
-
3
4
(1983).
In
setting
a
reasonable
hourly
rate,
courts
consider
case-specific
variables
known
as
the
John
son
factors,
whic
h
include:
(1)
the
time
and
labor
required;
(2)
the
novelty
and
difficulty
o
f
the
questions;
(3)
the
level
o
f
skill
required
to
perform
the
legal
service
properly;
(4)
the
prec
lusio
n
o
f
employment
by
the
attorney
due
to
acceptance
o
f
the
case;
(5)
the
attorney's
customary
hourly
rate;
(6)
whe
ther
the
fee
is
fixed
or
contingent;
(7)
the
time
limitations
imposed
by
the
client
or
the
circumstances;
(8)
the
amount
involved
in
the
case
and
the
results
obtained;
(9)
the
experience,
reputation,
and
ability
o
f
the
attorneys;
(10)
the
“undesirability”
o
f
the
case;
(11)
the
nature
and
length
o
f
the
professional
relationship
with
the
client;
and
(12)
awards
in
similar
cases.
A
r
b
o
r
Hill,
522
F.3d
at
186
n.3
(citing
John
son
v.
Ga.
Hi
ghw
ay
Exp.,
Inc.
,
488
F.2d
714,
717-719
(5th
Cir.
1974)).
“
A
district
court
need
not
recite
and
make
separate
findings
as
to
all
twelve
John
son
factors,
provi
ded
that
it
takes
each
into
account
in
setting
the
attor
ney
s’
fee
award.”
E.F.
ex
rel.
N.R.
v.
N.
Y.C.
D
e
p
’t
o
f
E
d
u
c
.
,
N
o
.
11
Civ.
5243,
2014
WL
1092847,
at
*3
(S.D.N.Y.
Mar.
17,
2014).
Once
a
reasonable
rate
o
f
pay
has
been
calculated,
“the
presumptively
reasonable
fee
is
calculated
by
.
.
.
multiplying
that
rate
by
the
num
ber
o
f
hours
reasonably
expended
litigating
the
case
.”
Trs.
o
f
N
.Y
.C
.
Dist.
Council
o
f
Carpenters
Pension
Fund,
Welfare
Fund,
A
n
n
u
it
y
Fund,
an
d
Apprenticeship,
Jou
rney
man
Retraining,
Educ.
&
Indus.
F
u
n
d
v.
Baroco
Contracting
C
o
rp
.,
No.
24
Civ.
1898,
2024
WL
4519836,
at
*3
(S.D.N.Y.
Oct.
17,
2024);
see
also
Hensley,
461
U.S.
at
433.
“
I
f
the
number
o
f
hours
recorded
by
counsel
is
disproportionate
to
the
work
performed,
the
Court
should
reduce
the
stated
hours
in
making
its
fee
award.”
Errant
Gene
Therapeutic,
LL
C
v.
Slo
an-K
ettering
Inst,
f
o
r
Cancer
Rsch.,
286
F.
Supp.
3d
585,
588
(S.D.N.Y.
2018),
a
f
f
d
sub
nom.
E
rra
nt
Gene
Therapeutics,
L
L
C
v.
Sloan
-Ke
tt
eri
ng
Inst,
f
o
r
Cancer
R
s
c
h
.,
No.
15
Civ.
2044,
2018
5
Case
1:24-cv-06290-DEH-BCM
Document
211
Filed
06/09/26
Page
5
of
10
concludes
that
the
rate
s
charged
in
this
m
atter
are
reasonable
for
federal
litigation
in
this
District.
See
Laba
v.
J
B
O
Worldwide
Supply
Pty
Ltd,
No.
20
Civ.
3443,
2023
WL
4985290,
at
*14
(S.D.N.Y.
July
19,
2023),
repo
rt
a
n
d
recommendation
adopted,
2024
WL
550252
(S.D.N.Y.
Feb.
12,
2024)
(collecting
cases);
Vista
Outdoor
Inc.
v.
Reev
es
F
amily
Trust,
No.
16
Civ.
5766,
2018
WL
3104631,
at
*6
(S.D.N.Y.
May
24,
2018)
(finding
hourly
rates
o
f
$
1
170-$1260
pe
r
hour
for
partners
consistent
with
rates
among
firms
in
N
e
w
York
City
eight
y
e
a
r
s
ago);
In
re
Relativity
Fashion,
LLC,
565
B.R.
50,
69-71
(Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.
2017)
(citing
cases
approving
similarly
high
hourly
rates
and
recognizing
hi
gher
rate
appropriate
in
connection
with
sanctions
motions);
TufAmerica
Inc.
v.
Diamond,
No.
12
Civ.
3
5
2
9
,2
0
1
6
WL
1029553,
at
*6
(S.D.N.Y.
Mar.
9
,2
0
1
6
)
(noting
th
at
average
hourly
rate
for
an
associate
in
this
di
strict
is
$531.21
and
awarding
a
rate
o
f
$560
for
a
senior
associate
more
than
ten
y
e
a
r
s
ago).
The
Court
also
finds
that
the
num
ber
o
f
hours
spent
opposing
the
struck
motions
was
reasonable.
Billing
records
indicate
th
at
the
majority
o
f
hours
were
performed
by
a
single
associate,
while
a
few
more
senior
attorneys
also
billed
to
the
matter.
See
Mem.
o
f
Law.
in
Supp.
o
f
Mot.
for
Sanctions
at
17-19,
ECF
No.
199;
see
also
Tackney
v.
WB
Imico
Lexington
Fee,
LLC,
2015
WL
1190096,
at
*7
(S.D.N.Y.
Mar.
16,
2015)
(finding
staffing
o
f
one
associate
and
two
partners
on
a
case
reasonable
where
the
associate
and
paralegals
performed
the
majority
o
f
the
hours
billed
and
both
pa
rtners
“worked
extensively
on
the
Related
Ac
tions”).
The
struck
motions
spanned
thir
tee
n
docket
entries
and
consisted
o
f
over
sixty
pages
o
f
briefing,
five
supporting
declarations,
and
sixty-five
pages
o
f
exhibits.
The
Court
concludes
th
at
62
hours
spent
preparing
responses
to
these
motions
is
reasonable.
See
Assoc,
o
f
Holocaust
Victims
f
o
r
the
Restitution
o
f
A
rt
w
o
rk
&
Masterpieces
v.
B
ank
A
us
tr
ia
Creditanstalt
A
G
,
No.
04
Civ.
3600,
2005
WL
3099592,
at
*6
(S.D.N.Y.
Nov.
17,
2005)
(holding
time
spent
on
“aggressive,
and
ultimately
successful
fight”
against
frivolous
lawsuit
seeking
to
obviate
previous
settlement
was
reasonable
given
client
8
Case
1:24-cv-06290-DEH-BCM
Document
211
Filed
06/09/26
Page
8
of
10
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
“
z
e
a
l
o
u
s
l
y
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
]
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
”
);
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
L
a
b
a
,
2
0
2
3
W
L
4
9
8
5
2
9
0
,
a
t
*15
(“
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
128
.7
h
o
u
r
s
t
o
b
r
i
e
f
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
f
o
r
a
n
e
v
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
r
y
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
/
o
r
a
l
a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
o
n
a
m
o
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
a
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
n
u
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
i
m
e
”
)
;
F
a
s
h
i
o
n
E
x
c
h
.
L
L
C
v.
H
y
b
r
i
d
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
,
L
L
C
,
N
o
.
14
C
iv
.
1
25
4,
2
0
2
0
W
L
4
7
5
0
6
0
0
,
a
t
*3
(
S
.
D
.
N
.
Y
.
A
u
g
.
17,
2
0
2
0
)
(
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
190
h
o
u
r
s
w
a
s
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
h
o
u
r
s
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
o
n
a
s
a
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
m
o
t
i
o
n
)
;
A
u
s
c
a
p
e
I
n
t
’l
v.
N
a
t
’I
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
S
o
c
’y
,
N
o
.
2
C
iv
.
6
4
4
1
,
2
0
0
3
W
L
2
1
9
7
6
4
0
0
,
a
t
*8
(
S
.
D
.
N
.
Y
.
A
u
g
.
19,
2
0
0
3
)
(
a
w
a
r
d
i
n
g
$
6
9
,
4
8
4
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
o
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
a
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
.
*
*
*
I
n
s
u
m
,
t
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
f
i
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
t
r
u
c
k
M
o
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
m
e
r
i
t
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
f
i
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
t
o
h
a
r
a
s
s
D
e
f
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
d
r
i
v
e
u
p
t
h
e
i
r
l
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
s
.
T
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
s
p
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
r
i
v
o
l
o
u
s
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
a
t
e
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
h
o
u
r
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
.
A
n
a
w
a
r
d
o
f
a
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
s
’
f
e
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
“
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
d
e
l
a
y
s
i
n
l
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
”
a
n
d
“
l
i
m
i
t
[]
t
h
e
a
b
u
s
e
o
f
c
o
u
r
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
.
”
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
v.
P
r
e
v
e
z
o
n
H
o
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
L
t
d
.
,
3
0
5
F.
S
u
p
p
.
3
d
4
6
8
,
4
7
8
(
S
.
D
.
N
.
Y
.
M
a
r
.
3
0
,
2
0
1
8
)
;
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
v.
I
n
t
'
l
Bh
d.
o
f
T
e
a
m
s
t
e
r
s
,
C
h
a
u
f
f
e
u
r
s
,
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
m
e
n
&
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
o
f
A
m
.,
A
F
L
-
C
I
O
,
9
4
8
F
.
2
d
1
33
8,
1345
(
2
d
C
i
r
.
1
9
9
1
)
(“
T
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
[§
192
7]
is
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
d
e
l
a
y
s
i
n
l
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
”
).
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,
t
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
a
w
a
r
d
s
$
8
5
,
0
5
6
f
e
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
§
19
27
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
t
’s
i
n
h
e
r
e
n
t
p
o
w
e
r
.
9
Case
1:24-cv-06290-DEH-BCM
Document
211
Filed
06/09/26
Page
9
of
10
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access
