X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
MGA Entertainment Inc., which requested $161 million in attorney fees and costs following its $88.5 million verdict against Mattel Inc., has acquiesced to a discovery master’s recommendation that it collect $108 million in attorney fees, according to recently unsealed court documents. In documents unsealed on July 8 and July 11, MGA wrote that the legal fee award recommended by discovery master Robert O’Brien, which was filed under seal on June 20, is “both fair and reasonable and supported by the record.” U.S. District Judge David Carter unsealed the recommendation on July 6. Mattel has disputed O’Brien’s findings and demanded a look at more than 9,000 pages of billing invoices that MGA turned over. In a document filed under seal on June 20, and unsealed by U.S. District Judge David Carter on July 6. O’Brien recommended that Mattel pay $84 million to compensate MGA for defending Mattel’s copyright infringement claims and $23 million to cover legal fees associated with MGA’s trade secrets claims against Mattel. Such an amount hardly amounts to a “windfall,” MGA wrote in its court papers. “MGA, in fact, spent significantly more than that amount in prosecuting its trade secret claims and defending against related and overlapping Mattel claims,” MGA wrote. “Even combining this $23 million with the $84 million recommended by the discovery master on the copyright claims leaves MGA short of recovering all fees. Moreover, through this litigation, Mattel was able to do significant harm to MGA and the Bratz brand, including the loss of many MGA jobs.” A jury found that Mattel, maker of Barbie, had stolen trade secrets from MGA by planting spies at industry trade shows. The jury rejected Mattel’s assertion that MGA had infringed on its copyright by hiring away a designer who took the Bratz doll concept with him, concluding that Mattel did not own the rights to the first four models of the Bratz dolls or two newer versions. The recently unsealed documents include invoices to MGA submitted by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; O’Melveny & Myers; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; and Keller Rackauckas of Irvine, Calif. Skadden represented MGA during the first trial in the dispute, in which a jury in 2008 awarded Mattel $100 million in damages. MGA submitted six invoices from 2007 and 2008 totaling $23.9 million, plus costs, according to a declaration by Stephen Schultz, vice president and controller at MGA. Skadden has replaced Orrick in a related copyright infringement case brought by a New York artist who claims he created the Bratz doll. Orrick, co-counsel for MGA during the second trial, moved to withdraw from the New York case, citing MGA’s failure to pay $1.2 million in attorney fees. In his declaration, Schultz submitted copies of three Orrick invoices from 2011 totaling $2 million, plus costs. He submitted $80,555 in additional invoices from special counsel hired by Orrick. Jennifer Keller, MGA’s lead counsel during the second trial, charged $67,200 in fees, plus costs, according to a 2011 invoice submitted by her firm, Keller Rackauckas. MGA submitted invoices for hundreds of thousands of dollars from vendors and two hotels–Mission Inn Hotel and Spa in Riverside, Calif., where the first trial took place, and the Irvine Hyatt Regency, located near the Santa Ana, Calif., courthouse where the second trial transpired. Arent Fox, where O’Brien works in the Los Angeles office, charged about $71,000 for his services, according to two invoices submitted by the firm. Mattel noted that Arent Fox recently hired Stephen Larson, a retired federal judge who heard the first trial. That development “creates an appearance of impropriety,” Mattel wrote. Mattel’s billing records have not been disclosed, but that could change. MGA argued that Mattel’s aggressive legal strategy is relevant to its own attorney fee request. “The magnitude of the expenditure, if it even approaches the $400 million estimated by analysts, would show that Mattel’s objective in bringing claims against MGA was not to vindicate an intellectual property right, but to destroy a competitor,” MGA wrote. Amanda Bronstad can be contacted at [email protected]. This article originally appeared in The National Law Journal .

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.