Plaintiff’s motion purports to seek relief under Rule 54(b) and “Local Rule 6” – presum- ably referring to Local Civil Rule 6.3. However, as previously explained, Rule 54(b) has zero applicability, both prior to the Summary Judgment Opinion and Order, and now. The correct rule governing Plaintiff’s motion is Rule 60, since Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are seeking “Relief from a Judgment Or Order.”

Pidgeon & Donofrio in fact did respond to the refiled motion, but not until 15 days after service (i.e., outside of the ten-day response period even if calculated from the date of the refilled motion). ATI-2480195v8 -8- Case 1:10-cv-02493-AKH Document 42 Filed 07/19/11 Page 8 of 12 inapplicable), the Respondent accuses Jones Day of engaging in an "unethical and deceitful" attempt to have Pidgeon & Donofrio "waive the protection" of Civil Rule 54 by entering into a proposed agreed scheduling order.

ek repayment of attorney’s fees and costs associated with unfounded and ill-conceived government forfeiture actions, it is wholly consistent to determine if any deadline restricts the mandatory fee-shifting provision in CAFRA, it is the more permissive thirty-day deadline contained in EAJA.1 It is the practice of federal courts to refer to similarly configured federal fee-shifting statutes and precedents, such as EAJA and case law interpreting EAJA, when interpreting CAFRA, unless the terms of the statute conflict with CAFRA. United States v. One Hundred Eight-Six Four Hundred Sixteen Dollars and No Cents In United States Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 754-56 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull No. 721, Named “Flash II”, 546 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm’n, 847 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1988). Like CAFRA, federal courts have declined to apply the more restrictive time limitations of Rule 54 and companion local rules to                                                              1 It appears that federal courts have yet to address the issue of the deadline for filing a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2465, although there is broad acknowledgment that the procedures for applying for attorney’s fees are often complex.

MOT. UNDER FRCP 54(D)(1) FOR COURT TO REVIEW CLERK’S ACTION TAXING COSTS Case No. 09-CV-5939 PJH (MEJ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Doc. No. 175-3)).

Thus, there is no justification for reducing damages simply because the jury’s Case5:08-cv-00882-PSG Document712 Filed02/04/14 Page12 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 5:08-CV-00882 PSG 9 OPP. TO HTC’S MOTION FOR COURT’S REVIEW OF TAXED COSTS PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(D)(1) infringement verdict was limited to one patent rather than four or five. HTC’s proposed apportionment should be rejected.

Therefore, the June 23, 2011 email by Ellman is fraudulent, unethical, and illegal. It is incredulous to contemplate that all attorneys and staff at Jones Day were completely Case 1:10-cv-02493-AKH Document 47 Filed 04/10/12 Page 5 of 7 SUR REPLY OF PIDGEON DONOFRIO - 6 unaware of the possible application of a 14 day deadline imposed by FRCP 54. Ellman's June 23, 2011 email fraudulently indicates that this Court had requested a stipulation many days after that 14 day deadline had passed.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion should be denied. Government Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on their Fourth Amendment Internet Content Interception Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), Jewel v. National Security Agency (4:08-cv-4373- JSW) 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: May 1, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Branch Director JAMES J. GILLIGAN Special Litigation Counsel /s/Rodney Patton RODNEY PATTON Trial Attorney rodney.patton@usdoj.gov JULIA BERMAN (Bar No. 241415) Trial Attorney julia.berman@usdoj.gov U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 7320 Washington, D.C. 20044 Phone: (202) 305-7919 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Attorneys for the Gove

Dated: January 5, 2015 By: /s/ Bruce A. Wagman Bruce A. Wagman, Admitted pro hac vice bwagman@schiffhardin.com SCHIFF HARDIN LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower Thirty-Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 901-8700 (415) 901-8701 (facsimile) Ralph E. Henry, D.C. Bar No. 982586 rhenry@humanesociety.org The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 452-1100 (202) 778-6132 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, Help Our Wolves Live, and Friends of Animals and Their Environment Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 54 Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 6 1   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Rule 54(d) Motion Relating to Attorney Fees and Costs, and the attached Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, was today served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record on this 5th day of January, 2015. /s/ Bruce A. Wagman Bruce A. Wagman Attorney for Plaintiffs The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, Help Our Wolves Live, and Friends of Animals and Their Environment   Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 54 Filed 01/05/15 Page 6 of 6

Confronted by this Plaintiffs, were wrongly compelled to ‘pull their punches’ and refrain from seeking the full measure of justice to which they are entitled. FRCP 54 Motion to Reconsider (Revise) ECF 49 11 CONCLUSION Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the within motion be granted in all respects, that defendants and counsels be ordered to admit or deny (or assert Fifth Amendment rights) the allegations herein and in the original “confidential” letter of April 7th, 2014, and that emergency conference be scheduled at the earliest conceivable date to coordinate the forthcoming evidentiary hearings which, never mind Judge Posner, simple fair play and the due administration of justice demand be scheduled, and request all other relief as may be just and proper. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, undersigned counsels hereby swear under penalty of perjury that the facts herein alleged are true and correct to the best of their individual knowledge and belief.

08 Accordingly, the Court should award Orgill “all costs and charges” incurred in enforcing the Amended Lease pursuant to Section 7.6. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and based on the Affidavits attached to this Motion, this Court should grant Orgill’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses under Section 7.6 of the Amended Lease entered into by the parties. 5 Orgill’s counsel have not yet received the invoice from Brett Cutchins at Lipscomb & Pitts, but expect to receive it within the next few days and will supplement at that time. 6 Orgill is submitting separately a Motion for assessment of statutory costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(1). These costs will include some advanced expenses set forth in this Affidavit.