CMT USA, Inc. et al v. Apex Tool Group LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
Civil Action No. 24-CV-00137-TMR-DCK

CMT USA, INC. AND CMT UTENSILI
S.P.A.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APEX TOOL GROUP LLC AND APEX
BRANDS, INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

Dated: August 13, 2026

Edgar H. Haug, Robert E. Colletti, Kaitlin M. Farrell, Brian E. Auricchio and
Malorie Ruggeri, Haug Partners LLP, of New York, N.Y., Joshua B. Durham and
Kevin Roak, Bell, Davis & Pitt PA, of Charlotte, N.C., for plaintiffs CMT USA, Inc.
and CMT Utensili S.p.A.

John F. Morrow, Jr., Aaron D. Johnson, David A. Jackson and Joy Tacy Allen
Woller, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, of Winston-Salem, N.C., for defendants
Apex Tool Group LLC and Apex Brands, Inc.

TIMOTHY M. REIF, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, Sitting by
Designation:

Before the court is the motion for award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs of defendants Apex Tool Group LLC and Apex Brands, Inc. See Defs.’ Mot. for
Award of Reasonable Att’ys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to Two Disc. Orders (“Defs.
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 1 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 2

Mot.”), ECF No. 405. Defendants seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in
connection with responding to two discovery motions for which the Court has ruled
previously that defendants should receive fees: “(1) Apex’s opposition to CMT’s
Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Third-Party Communications (Dkt. No.
127), for which Apex seeks $29,430.01; and (2) Apex’s opposition to CMT’s Motion to
Sanction Apex’s Failure to Complete and Correct Its Response to Interrogatory No.
6 (Dkt. No. 231), for which Apex seeks $28,623.40.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiffs CMT USA, Inc. and CMT Utensili S.p.A. oppose the motion on the
grounds that defendants “seek[] reimbursement for services beyond the scope of the
Court’s Orders, claim[] an unreasonable number of hours in opposing [plaintiffs’]
motions, and fail[] to support justifying [their] hourly rates.” Pls.’ Mem. in Opp’n to
Defs.’ Mot. for Award of Reasonable Att’ys’ Fees and Costs (“Pls. Br.”) at 1, ECF No.
415.
For the reasons discussed below, the court grants defendants’ motion in part.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts as set out in CMT USA, Inc. v.
Apex Tool Group LLC, 813 F. Supp. 3d 542, 547-49 (W.D.N.C. 2025), and recounts
only those facts relevant to the issues now before the court.
On October 31, 2024, plaintiffs moved to compel defendants to produce “all
communications between Apex’s law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
(“Lewis Roca”) and third-party Marksmen Brand Protection (“Marksmen”), along
with all related documents” and “all communications between Apex and/or Lewis
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 2 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 3

Roca and third-party saw blade manufacturers, along with all related documents.”
Mot. to Compel Defs. to Produce Third-Party Communications at 1, ECF No. 114.
On May 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to sanction defendants pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 37(c)(1), alleging that defendants failed to
supplement an inaccurate interrogatory response in violation of FRCP 26(e). See
CMT’s Mot. to Sanction Apex’s Failure to Complete and Correct Its Incomplete and
Erroneous Resp. to Interrog. No. 6, ECF No. 204.
On July 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Keesler denied plaintiffs’ motion to
compel and plaintiffs’ motion to sanction defendants and awarded “reasonable costs
and fees” to defendants. See Order at 20, ECF No. 246.
On August 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling pursuant to FRCP 72(a). See CMT’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
Keesler’s Order Dated July 29, 2025 (Dkt. 246) at 3-8, ECF No. 247.
On June 12, 2026, the Court sustained the Magistrate Judge’s order and
awarded defendants reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Sealed Op’n & Order,
ECF No. 368.
On July 8, 2026, defendants filed the instant motion. See Defs. Mot.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal law claims
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court exercises
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367.
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 3 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 4

In general, “[i]t remains for the district court to determine what fee is
‘reasonable.’” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he most useful starting point for
determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This
approach is referred to as the “lodestar method of calculation.” Pennsylvania v.
Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1986). The
lodestar method “provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of
the value of a lawyer's services.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; see also BAM Cap., LLC
v. Houser Transp., Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00105-KDB-DCK, 2020 WL 97459, at *2
(W.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2020).
To that end, “[t]he party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence
supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours
is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley, 461
U.S. at 433.
DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Third-Party Communications

The court concludes that defendants’ claimed award for the motion to compel
should be reduced.
Defendants seek $29,430.01 in connection with their opposition to plaintiffs’
motion to compel the production of third-party communications. Defs.’ Mem. in
Supp. of Mot. for Award of Reasonable Att’ys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to Two Disc.
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 4 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 5

Orders (“Defs. Br.”) at 1, ECF No. 406. Defendants submit three sets of billing
invoices to support this claim. See Decl. of David A. Jackson in Supp. of Mot. for
Fees (“Jackson Decl.”), Exs. 1-3.
Plaintiffs take issue with several aspects of the invoices. First, Plaintiffs
argue that “Apex spent over 150 hours to prepare oppositions to routine motions to
compel, which included time from five partners, two associates, and a paralegal.”
Pls. Br. at 5. Plaintiffs insist that “[t]hat amount of hours from seven attorneys is
reflective of duplication, not a reasonable amount of time.” Id. However, it is
difficult for the court to assess the reasonableness of the hours billed, or lack
thereof, when plaintiffs do not offer any counter evidence of the hours that their
counsel spent on the motion to compel. See id.
Second, plaintiffs object that “Apex did not provide any support for the
reasonableness of its hourly rates.” Id. at 12. While true of the original motion,
defendants remedy this deficiency in their reply brief. Defendants submit the 2025
American Intellectual Property Law Association Report of the Economic Survey,
which states that “[i]n 2024, the average hourly billable rate was $525.” Defs.’
Reply in Supp. of Fees Mot. (“Defs. Reply Br.”), Ex. A at 16, ECF No. 416-1. The
economic report of a subject-matter-specific bar association constitutes “specific
evidence that allows the court to determine ‘actual rates which counsel can
command in the market.’” Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long, 887 F.
Supp. 2d 704, 710 (E.D. Va. 2012) (quoting Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402
(4th Cir. 1987)); BAM Cap., LLC, 2020 WL 97459, at *2. The benchmark figure of
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 5 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 6

$525 is considerably higher than the $410 average rate that counsel for defendants
charged. See Defs. Reply Br. at 1; see also Jackson Decl. For that reason, the court
declines to scrutinize the hourly rate any further.
Plaintiffs argue also that “Apex’s total request includes numerous billing
entries that are either in whole or in-part completely unrelated to the work for
which the Court authorized a fee award.” Pls. Br. at 6. Plaintiffs note that “Apex’s
billing entries often include multiple tasks within a single time entry, making it
difficult to determine first, how much time counsel actually spent on any particular
task and second, whether the time allocated to that task was reasonable.” Id. at 9.
Plaintiffs highlight a series of entries from defendants’ invoices that allegedly
“include entirely unrelated or irrelevant services.” See id. at 6-8.
The court notes that the highlighted entries, and others throughout the
invoices, often include multiple tasks within a single entry. See generally Jackson
Decl., Exs. 1-6. Courts in this circuit have held that while this practice is not
prohibited, it may constitute nonetheless “a proper basis for reducing a fee award
because [block billing] prevent[s] an accurate determination of the reasonableness
of the time expended in a case.” Guidry v. Clare, 442 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294 (E.D. Va.
2006); see also Supler v. FKAACS, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-229-FL, 2013 WL 6713120, at
*4 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2013).
The highlighted entries that relate purportedly to the motion to compel add
up to 11.89 hours with a total fee of $5,117.19. See Pls. Br. at 6-8. Of that total, the
court notes 5.39 hours’ worth of entries that bill for tasks seemingly unrelated to
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 6 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 7

responding to the motion to compel. See e.g. id. at 7 (November 4, 2024 entry that
details “preparation of expert reports, and case management plan and litigation
strategy”); see also id. (November 5, 2024 entry that details “preparation of expert
reports, preparation of motion for summary judgment, and litigation strategy); see
also id. at 8 (November 13, 2024 entry that details an “[i]nternal strategy call”
regarding “motion to compel and expert disclosure strategy” (emphasis supplied)).
These unclear entries constitute roughly 45% of the highlighted entries. But
given that some of the entries within this 45% discuss work relating to opposition to
plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the court will reduce the fees pertaining to the
highlighted entries by 30% only. See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib.
Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding the district court’s 30%
reduction of fees associated with block-billed hours). Accordingly, the total amount
of fees awarded to defendants in connection with its opposition to the motion to
compel shall be $27,894.85.
II. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Concerning Interrogatory No. 6

The court concludes that defendants’ claimed fee award for the motion for
sanctions should be reduced as well.
Defendants seek $28,623.40 for their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to
sanction defendants’ alleged failure to complete and correct their response to
Interrogatory No. 6. Defs. Br. at 1. Defendants submit three sets of billing invoices
to support this claim. See Jackson Decl., Exs. 4-6.
Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 7 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 8

As with the motion to compel, plaintiffs highlight a series of allegedly
problematic entries in defendants’ invoices. See Pls. Br. at 8. The highlighted
entries add up to 11.6 hours with a total fee of $4,223. Id. And all five highlighted
entries contain tasks unrelated to the motion for sanctions. See, e.g., id. (May 22,
2025 entry listing “conference call with opposing counsel on meet-and-confer
obligations; additional conference calls and working on motion to continue or stay
action”); id. (June 4, 2025 entry listing “[r]eviewing ORDER of Judge Reif
suspending trial and all related deadlines pending summary judgment resolution;
corresponding with co-counsel regarding same” among other unrelated tasks).
Given that block billing makes it difficult to determine the relative weight to afford
each task, see Guidry, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 294, the court will reduce the fees
associated with the highlighted entries by 50%. Accordingly, the total amount of
fees awarded to defendants in connection with its opposition to the motion for
sanctions shall be $26,511.90.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is
GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall be awarded $54,406.75 in reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs.
SO ORDERED.

Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 8 of 9

Court No. 24-CV-00137 Page 9

Dated: August 13, 2026 /s/ Timothy M. Reif
New York, New York United States Court of International Trade
Sitting by Designation
United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina

Case 3:24-cv-00137-TMR-DCK Document 424 Filed 08/13/26 Page 9 of 9