MAFC

Marc J. Randazza (Nevada Bar No.: 12265)

211Ronald D. Green (Nevada Bar No. 7360)
Alex J. Shepard (Nevada Bar No. 13582)
311RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
411Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: 702-420-2001
5 Facsimile: 305-437-7662
[email protected]

6
711

FILED
DEC 0' 20\5
~~.~

....

CLERK OF COURT

Attorneys for Defendant

TMI Productions, Inc.

__j

C)

DISTRICT COURT

10

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

12

Plaintiff,

w
__j

<1:
N
N

<1:

Z
<1:
Q::

Case No.: A-15-722801-C

Dept. No.: XXXII

11" DAN BRANDON BILZERIAN, an Individual

13

DEFENDANT TMZ PRODUCTIONS,

INC.'S MOTION FOR COSTS,
ATTORNEYS' FEES,AND DAMAGES
UNDER NRS 41.670

vs.

14" DIRTY WORLD, LLC, a Delaware limited

1511liability company,
d/b/a THEDIRTY.COM;
HOOMAN KARAMIAN, an individual,
1611d/b/a Nik Richie; TMZ PRODUCTIONS,
INC., a California Corporation;
DOES I-X,
1711lnctusive: and ROE BUSINESSENTITIESI-X,
Inclusive
18
Defendants.
19
11

20
21

Defendant,

22" Attorneys'
23

Fees, and Damages

This Motion

2411authorities,
25 permitted

TMZ Productions,

the

is based
papers

and

Inc.

hereby

files

its Motion

for

Costs,

Under NRS 41.670.

upon

the

pleadings

attached

memorandum

on file herein,

and

of points

and

any oral argumen

by this Court.

26
27
- 1 TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

NOTICE OF MOTION

CL

:=J

0
a<::

C)
__j

211To:

Brian W. Boschee and Kimberly Stein, attorneys for

311

Plaintiff Dan Brandon Bilzerian

and

Paul A. Shprt. attorney for

Defendants Dirty World LLC and Nik Richie

PLEASETAKE NOTICE that the foregoing Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees,

8 and Damages will be heard on the

10
11

C)
w
__j

13
14

N
N

15

<1:

16

day of JOIn

UCUt.{, ,201!;_ at

Dated this 1st day of December 2015.

RANDAlZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLCI
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. Randazza
Attorneys for Defendant,
TMI Productions, Inc.

17

<C
Q::

_i:CC-

9 _.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

12

<1:

jJ_

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-2TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

MEMORANDUM

OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2111.0

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Dan Bilzerian ("Bilzerian") filed this lawsuit against Defendant

4 Productions, Inc. ("TMZ") in violation of the Nevada Anti-SLAPP statute.

511filed a vague complaint

against Defendants

TM

Bilzeriori

Dirty World, LLC and Nik Richie.,

611TMZ, as is its right and responsibility under the Free Press clause of the Firs
711Amendment,
811reported

investigated

on these facts.

the underlying facts of the complaint

Its reward for praiseworthy journalism was a frivolou

911lawsuit by Mr. Bilzerian seeking to suppress TMZ's FirstAmendment

10
__j

C)
w
__j

1111as Bilzerian's are subject to quick review and dismissal. But early dismissal is onl
12110ne part of how the statute protects First Amendment
1311the remedial

N
N

15 damages.

As TMZ prevailed

<1:

1611statutorily entitled to its attorneys'

1711case warrants the Court's exercise of its discretion

<C
Q::

rights. The other part i

portion of the statute, which provides for mandatory

allows for a discretionary

rights.

Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute, NRS41.635 et seq., ensures that lawsuits such

14 costs, and

<1:

and accuratel

award

fees and

of up to $10,000 in statuto

in its motion under the Anti-SLAPP act, TMZ i

fees and costs. The particular nature of thi
to also award

$10,000 inl

18 statutory damages.
19112.0

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2011

On August

2111comment

1, 2015, the Jane

Doe defendant

on the website <thedirty.com>

in this case posted

claiming that she had recently slep

2211with Bilzerian and that he had given her the sexually transmitted disease ("STD")
2311chlamydia.

(See

comment

on <thedirty.com>,

attached

2411August 7, 2015, Bilzerian filed his original Complaint

25 World, LLC and Nick Richie for defamation

as Exhibit 1.)

against Defendants

based on this comment.

On
Dirt

On Augus

26 10, 2015, TMZ posted an article on its website, <tmz.com>, discussing the lawsui
2711and quoting a portion of the August 1 comment

containing

the allegation

-3TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-72280 1-C

Bilzerian giving Jane Doe chlamydia.

211The following
311defendant,
411

day,

(See TMZ article, attached

Bilzerian amended

his Complaint

On October

12, 2015, TMZ filed an Anti-SLAPP motion.

611were on a matter of public concern.

711TMZ also easily prevailed.

911nor at the hearing.

__j

<1:
N

1111Court recognized

that its communication

estoblishinq

claim as to TMZ, neither in his written opposition

The Court granted

that the defendant

1211"ought to be commended

TMZ easily met th

On the merits-based prong of the statute,

1011finding that TMZ's article was protected

C)
w

TMZ as a

Bilzerian failed to provide any evidence

811any element of his defamation

to include

claiming that the article was defamatory.

511first prong of the Anti-SLAPP statute, demonstrating

__j

as Exhibit 2.)

TMZ's motion on November

by Nevada's

fair report privilege.

1311hearing on Anti-SLAPP motion, attached

LEGAL STANDARDS

1511

Under NRS 41.670(1)(a) "[t]he

(Transcript

court shall award

reasonable

1611attorney's fees to the person against whom the action was brought"

Z
<1:

1711added).

Q::

as Exhibit 3, at 49:25-50: 1.)

<1:

Th

was simply doing its job and that TM

for looking and doing their homework."

14113.0

17, 2015,

costs and
(emphasi

The statute also provides that "[t]he court may award, in addition t

1811reasonable

costs and attorney's

fees awarded

pursuant to paragraph

(a), ani

1911amount of up to $10,000 to the person against whom the action was brought."
201lNRS41.670(1)(b).
21 4 0
11 .

22

ARGUMENT
4.1
TMZ Is Entitled to Costs and Attorneys'

Fees

NRS 41.670(1)(a) mandates an award of costs and attorneys' fees to a

23
2411successful Anti-SLAPP movant.
This award is not limited to costs
2511incurred directly in connection

with the motion, either; the statute directs tha

the court shall award "fees to the person against whom the action wa
2611
"brought."
NRS41.670( 1)(a). If there is any ambiguity in this language, it is laid t
27
-4TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

rest by reference to California case law regarding entitlement to fees under tha
2 state's Anti-SLAPPstatute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16. It is appropriate for thi
3 Court to rely upon California caselaw when interpreting the Anti-SLAPPact. See
4 John

v. Douglas

Cnty.

Sch.

Dist.,

125 Nev. 746, 756 (2009) ("we conside

5 California case law because California's anti-SLAPP statute is similar in purpos

6 and language to Nevada's anti-SLAPPstatute").
7
CL

:=J

0
a<::

C)
__j

C)
w
__j

<1:

The 9th Circuit found, in interpreting California's Anti-SLAPPstatute, tha

8 when an Anti-SLAPPmotion disposes of every cause of action, it is appropriat

9 to award all attorneys' incurred in connection with the case, even if not directl
10 related to the Anti-SLAPPmotion, because the successful movant "incurred th
11 expenses Plaintiffs dispute in responding to a lawsuit the district court found
12 baseless." Graham-Suit
13 Graham-Suit
14

v. Clainos, 738 F.3d 1131, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirmed in

v. Ciainos, 756 F.3d 724, 752 (9th Cir. 2014).

Additionally, an award of Anti-SLAPPcosts and fees includes fees incurred

N
N

15 after the motion is granted. See Wanland

<1:

16 Chiurazzi,

Z
<1:
Q::

v. Law Offices of Mastagni,

Hoistedt

&

141 Cal. App. 4th 15, 21 (2006) (finding that fees recoverable unde

17 California Anti-SLAPPstatute include all post-motion fees, such as fees on fees,

18 fees in connection with defending an award of fees, and fees on appeal of ani
1911
order granting an Anti-SLAPPmotion).
2011

The statute does not require TMZto attempt to compromise the amount

2111fees and costs sought, but it did make such an attempt in this case, as a matte
2211of judicial economy.
2311parties could

Despite a good faith meet and confer on the matter, th

not come

to an agreement.

(See

Declaration

of Marc J.,

2411["Randazza Decl."], attached as Exhibit 4, at ~25.)

2511

4.2

2611

Under Nevada

The Fees Sought Are Reasonable

law, a court can consider the following factors whenl

2711determining whether a litigant's claimed fees are reasonable:

-5TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

The

The character
the

prominence

the litigation;

1111See Schouweiler

education,

intricacy,

importance,

and skill;

the

responsibility

imposed

1311district

court

has discretion

1511amount."

Shuette

<1:

16112005).

1711reasonably

reasonable

performed

by the

the attorney

lawyer;

the

th
0

skill, time

was successful and what

Co,

101 Nev. 827, 833-34 (1985) (citing

to employ
amount,

"any

approach

method

including

v. Beazer Homes Holdings

"The lodestar

1811(quoting
1911

and

of the parties and the importance

1211Go/den Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349 (1969). In determining

N
N

Q::

training,

and

given to the work; and;

v. Yancy

<1:

his ability,

benefit

were derived.

1411calculate

<1:

and character

The result; whether

10

__j

skill required,

actually

attention

advocate;

of the work done; its difficulty,

and

The work

C)
w

time

the

professional standing,

of

experience,

__j

quality

involves

TMZ was represented

rationally

designed

121 Nev. 837, 864 (Nev.

'the

number

hourly rate.'"

'lodestar'

of hour

Id. at 864 n.9

105 Nev. 586, 590 (1989)).

by experienced

Anti-SLAPP counsel.

2011Bilzerian and his counsel knew or should have known that his defamation
2111against

TMZ was baseless, that TMZ was protected

2211and that there was nothing

false about

Corp.,

multiplying

on

based

Health Ins. Of Nevada,

in this action

a fee award,

those

spent on the case by a reasonable

Herbst v. Humana

Brunzell v.

by the fair report

the article.

cloi

privilege,

The lack of any liability crt

2311the part of TMZ was obvious from the outset.

24
25

4.2.1

The Number of Hours Worked is Reasonable

The time spent by TMZ's attorneys

2611in the timesheet

attached

in connection

as Exhibit 5 to this motion.

2711hours on work prior to the Court granting

with this case is detailed

Mr. Randazza spent 22.91

TMZ's Anti-SLAPP motion, and 2.9 hour

-6TMZ Motion

for Costs, Attorneys'

Fees, and Damages
A-1S-72280 1-C

Under NRS 41.670

following the Court granting the motion.

Attorney Ronald D. Green spent 6.

211hours prior to the Anti-SLAPP order, and 1.2 hours following the order.

Attorne

311Alex J. Shepard spent 43.4 hours on work prior to the Anti-SLAPP order, and 18.
411hours following the order. Paralegal Trey Rothell spent 11.7 hours on work prior t
511the Anti-SLAPP order, and 1.8 hours following the order.

Paralegal Danielle Dia

611spent 2 hours on work prior to the Anti-SLAPP order. TMZ's attorneys spent a totall
7110f 72.9 hours prior to the Anti-SLAPP order, and 22.5 hours thereafter.

Suppor

811staff spent a total of 13.7 hours prior to the order, and 1.8 hours thereafter.

Th

911total lodestar number of hours spent on the case is thus 95.4 for attorneys, and
101115.5for staff. This distribution of hours demonstrates a preference
__j

C)
w
__j

11110f tasks to lower cost timekeepers,

1211when deemed

and using higher-priced

for delegationl

timekeepers

onl

necessary.

All the time spent by TMZ's attorneys on this case was necessary. TMZ filed

13

1411an answer because it was not prepared

to file its Anti-SLAPP motion within 2

N
N

1511days of service of Bilzerian's Amended

Cornploint ' (nor was it required

<1:

1611Attorney Ron Green attended

1711parties were required to attend.

<1:

<1:
Q::

1811Bilzerian' s eleventh-hour

the early case conference

attempt

TMZ additionally

because counsel fo

had to prepare a response t

to impose an overbroad

1911because the hearing on Bilzerian's application

to):

protective

orde

was set for the same time as th

2011Anti-SLAPP hearing, and TMZ would have been subject to the consequences

2111the order, had the Court entered it,2

2211

The time spent by TMZ's attorneys

2311 reasonable.

(See Declaration

on each

of these tasks was als

of Wayne Smith ["Smith Decl."],

attached

24
25111TMZ is based in California and does not have regular counsel in Nevada. After it was served,
TMZ spent over a week investigating

and interviewing

potential

counsel before

retainin

2611Mr. Randazza.
2The

court may recall that the motion was filed on short notice, ex parte, giving TMZ very littl

27 11time to respond.
-7TMZMotion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

Exhibit 6, at ~~12-17; Declaration

of Mark Hinueber, ["Hinueber Decl."], attached

211as Exhibit 7, at ~~13-15; Declaration

311attached

of F. Christopher Austin ["Austin Decl."].

as Exhibit 8, at ~~10-12; Randazza Decl. at ~~19-24.) The significan

411First Amendment
511preparation

implications

of this case

required

at all stages of the proceedings.

611every reasonable effort to avoid duplication

711fees TMZ incurred.

thorough

Additionally,

briefing

and

TMZ's counsel mad

of work and otherwise minimize th

(See Smith Decl. at ~16; see also Austin Decl. at ~11.) Almos

811all of the work was performed

by one partner, Marc Randazza, with ossistonce

911primarily from one associate,

Alex Shepard.

To maximize

cost efficiency,

1011Mr. Randazza had Mr. Shepard take primary responsibility for functions that a
__j

C)
w
__j

<1:
N
N

1111lower-level associate
1211research,

could

and drafting

handle

memoranda,

1311strategy and made the ultimate

at a lower rate, including

while Mr. Randazza provided

1411(See Randazza Decl. at ~24.)

1511

The recent California case of Wynn v. Chonos, 2015 US. Dist. LEXIS80062,

1611*6 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015) provides

1711reasonability

Q::

litigation

decisions as to the motions and pleadings.,

<C

<1:

investigation,

a useful point

of reference

of the hours TMZ's attorneys spent on this case.

1811found that it was reasonable

1911hours in connection

for the defendant's

The court ther

attorneys to spend 582.6

with an Anti-SLAPP motion, despite the fact that thes

2011attorneys did not have any particular expertise in FirstAmendment

21 II litigation.
2211connection

Id.

TMZ's attorneys

with

the

for th

entire

only spent a small fraction

case.

The number

or Anti-SLAP

of such hours in

of hours worked

is thu

2311reasonable.
2411
2511

4.2.2

TMZ's Attorneys' Rates Are Reasonable

The hourly rates TMZ's counsel charged

2611stakes of the case and their special expertise.

TMZ are reasonable,

given th

(See Smith Decl. at ~~12-17;'

2711Hinueber Decl. at ~~13-15; Austin Decl. at ~~10-11; Randazza Decl. at ~~1-17.)

-8TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-722801-C

Mr. Randazza customarily bills at $650 per hour, but out of respect for the Firs
2 Amendment

issues in this case, discounted

his hourly rate to $520.

(See

3 Randazza Decl. at ~~12, 18.) Mr. Green customarily charges an hourly rate
4 $475, but discounted his rate on this matter to $380.

(See id. at ~~13, 18.)

5 Mr. Shepard customarily charges an hourly rate of $325, but discounted his rat
6 for this matter to $260. (See id. at ~~14, 18.) Mr. Rothell normally bills at $150 pe
7 hour, but discounted his rate to $140 per hour. (See id. at ~~15, 18.) Ms. Diaz bill
CL

:=J

0
a<::

C)

8 at $50 per hour. (See id. at ~16.) Regardless of these discounts, however, court
9 routinely award fees at the market rate, rather than the rate the client actuall
10 paid. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.886, 894-95 (1984) (stating that "reasonabl

__j

11 attorneys' fees are determined by their market value among reasonable partie

C)

12 who would pay for them, rather than what a client actually paid").

w
__j

<1:

13

Attorney Randazza accrued $11,908 in billing prior to the Anti-SLAPPorde

14 and $1,508 thereafter. Attorney Green accrued $2,508 in billing prior to the Anti

N
N

15 SLAPPorder and $456 thereafter.

<1:
0

16 prior to the Anti-SLAPPorder and $4,767thereafter. Mr. Rothell accrued $1,368 in

17 billing prior to the order and $294 thereafter.

<C
Q::

Attorney Shepard accrued $10,904 in billing

Ms. Diaz accrued $100 in billing

18 prior to the order. The total amount of fees charged to TMZis thus $26.788 prio
19 to the Anti-SLAPP order and $7,025 thereafter, for a total of $33,813. TM
20 requests, however, that the Court use a lodestar fee calculation and multipl
21 the total number of hours worked on this case by TMZ's counsel by thei
22 customary rates, resulting in a fee award of $43,555.
23

Marc Randazza's rate is justified, as he is an experienced attorney wh

24 specializes in FirstAmendment litigation, and is licensed to practice in the state

25 of Nevada, California, Arizona, Florida, and Massachusetts. Mr. Randazza wa
26 instrumental in the passage of Nevada's 2013 Anti-SLAPPlegislation, and played
27 a significant role in shaping the statute's 2015 amendment.

(See Smith Decl. a

- 9-

TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-1S-72280 1-C

~~5-7; Hinueber Decl. at ~6; Austin Decl. at ~3; Randazza Decl. at ~~8-9; Senat
211Committee

311 Exhibit

on Judiciary hearing on Nev. SB 286 (May 6, 2013) attached

9.)

When

Nevada's

Anti-SLAPP statute

4 Mr. Randazza successfully led the lobbying

was amended

in 2015,

effort to save the statute fro

5 repeal, and was instrumental in crafting the language in the statute today.
6 Randazza Decl. at ~9; see also Minutes on Assembly Committee on Judicia
7 hearing on SB444, April 24, 2015, attached

as Exhibit 10, at 35-38.)

Mr. Randazza is a nationally recognized expert on Anti-SLAPP legislationl

9 and free speech issues, and has assisted the judiciary committees

in bothi

10 Nevada and Pennsylvania on Anti-SLAPPlegislation. (See Exhibits 9-10; see also

__j

11 video of public hearing on Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1095, April 23, 2014, at 32:30

He is also a commentator

for CNN on Free Speech cases.

C)
w

12 43:47.3)

__j

13 Randazza Decl. at ~7.) And, he previously has been a commentator

<1:

14 News for First Amendment

(See

on FO

issues. (See Randazza Decl. at ~7.) Mr. Randazza

N
N

15 holds a JD from

<1:

16 Communications from the University of Florida (with a media law focus), and ani

17 international degree in the form of an LLMfrom the University of Turin, Italy. (See

Georgetown

University Law Center,

a Masters in Mas

<C
Q::

18 curriculum

vitae

of Marc Randazza, attached

as Exhibit 11.) Mr. Randazza ha

19 been a practicing attorney for 13 years. (See Smith Decl. at ~4; Hinueber DecL
20 at ~4; Austin Decl. at ~2; Randazza Decl. at ~ 1.) Mr. Randazza has taught Firs
21 Amendment

law at the law school level. (See Exhibit 11.) And, he has givenl

22 presentations to attorneys in CLEcourses on how to handle Anti-SLAPPlitigation.,

23 (See id.)

Former senator Justin Jones described Mr. Randazza as "one of th

24 preeminent experts on the issue" of Anti-SLAPPlitigation.

(See Exhibit 9, at 3.)

25
26
3

Available

at:

<http://judiciary.pasenategop.com/senate-bill-1

095-slapp-suits/>

27 11 November 25, 2015).

- 10TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-15-72280 1-C

(last visited

Mr. Randazza customarily bills at an hourly rate of $650.

211Laffey Matrix, attached

According to th

hereto as Exhibit 12, the standard acceptable

311rate for such an experienced

attorney is $661

per hour.

billing

Accordingly,

hi

411customary rate is appropriate even in the absence of any specialized expertise.

511However, given his specialized expertise in the issuespresented by this case, hi
611rate could be considered to be even a bit low.

(See Smith Decl. at ~~9-1 0;

711Hinueber Decl. at ~9; Austin Decl. at ~6.)

811

Attorney Shepard earned his JD from Washington UniversitySchool of Law,

911is licensed to practice in both Nevada and California, and has two years

1011experience primarily in FirstAmendment litigation, including defamation case

__j

C)
w
__j

<1:

1111and Anti-SLAPPmotions. (See Randazza Decl. at ~14.) According to the Laffe

1211Matrix, the standard acceptable

billing rate for an attorney of his experience i

1311$331 per hour, (see Exhibit 12), and his customary billing rate of $325 per hour i
1411reasonable. (See Smith Decl. at ~14; Hinueber Decl. at ~12; Austin Decl. at ~9.)

N
N

1511

<1:

1611a Nevada-licensed

1711several years of experience with defamation and FirstAmendment cases. (See

<1:
Q::

Attorney Green has a JD from Universityof Pittsburgh School of Law and i

attorney with 15 years of litigation experience, including

1811Randazza Decl. at ~13.)

1911acceptable

According

to the Laffey Matrix, the standard

billing rate for an attorney of his experience $661

per hour (see

2011 Exhibit 12), and his customary billing rate of $475 per hour is reasonable.

(See

2111Smith Decl. at ~13; Hinueber Decl. at ~11, Austin Decl. at ~8.)

2211

Mr. Rothell is a paralegal with 1.5 years of experience.

Under the Laffe

2311 Matrix, he is able to command a fee of $180 per hour, and his customary rate
2411 $175 per hour is reasonable.

(See Smith Decl. at ~14; Hinueber Decl. at ~12;'

2511 Austin Decl. at ~9.) Ms. Diaz's hourly rate is also reasonable. (See id.)
2611

These rates are particularly reasonable when compared to those in Wynn

2711 v. Chonos,

2015

U.S. Dist. LEXIS80062,

TMZ Motion

*6.

The court there found it wa

- 11 for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages

A-15-72280 1-C

Under NRS 41.670

reasonable

for the defendant's

senior attorneys to charge

an hourly rat

211between $1,035 and $1,085. Mr. Randazza's customary rate of $650 per hour i
311significantly lower than this, despite his special expertise in the areas of la
411germane to this case.

The Chonos court additionally

found that associat

511attorney rates of $570 to $710 per hour (for associates with four and six years 0
611experience, respectively) were reasonable.

Mr. Shepard's customary rate 0

711$325 per hour is significantly lower than this. The customary hourly rates of TMZ'
811attorneys are thus reasonable.
911
10

4.3

The Court Should Award TMZ $10,000 in Statutory Damages

NRS41.670(1)(b) permits a court, in its discretion, to grant an award of u

__j

11 to $10,000 in statutory damages

C)

12 provision of the statute is intended to put a price tag on SLAPPsuits over and

w
__j

<1:
N
N

1311
above attorneys' fees.

to a prevailing Anti-SLAPP movant.

When the plaintiff in a case such as this is a multi

1411
millionaire, the down-side of a few tens of thousands of dollars can be written of
1511
as a mere "cost of doing business." The additional damages available at th

<1:

1611
Court's discretion should be granted as a means of leveling the playing field.

1711

Because there is no case law interpreting entitlement to an award 0

<C
Q::

1811
damages, and there is no analogous provision in California's Anti-SLAPPstatute,
1911
entitlement to this damages award is a matter of first impression before thi
2011Court.

Nevertheless, the court should be guided by principles of equity and

2111deterrence in evaluating the $10,000 request.

2211

Thiswas never a close case.

Bilzerian admitted at the beginning of th

2311hearing on TMZ'sAnti-SLAPPmotion that he was a public figure. (See Exhibit 3 a

24114:11-17.) A public figure sued a media outlet for accurately

reporting on a

2511lawsuit he filed. There was never any question that Bilzerian's claims were based
26110nspeech protected

under the Anti-SLAPPstatute, and the FirstAmendmen

2711implications of the case are clear even to the casual observer.

- 12 TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-15-72280 1-C

It is equally obvious that Bilzerian's claims never had a legal or tcctuol leq
211to stand on.
311made

He provided

no credible

411unprivileged.

no evidence

argument

to support any of his allegations.

as to how TMZ's article

He made no attempt

was inaccurate

to distinguish the adverse case law TM

511provided in its motion and reply. He had no case, and he knew or should hav
611known this from day one. Simply put, Mr. Bilzerian was trying to censor the press.
71IThisis exactly the type of SLAPPsuit that Nevada's

statute is meant to preven

811from going forward.

9111tis proper for the Court to consider Bilzerian's considerable
1011determination
__j

C)
w
__j

<1:

as well.

It is likely, given his financial status, that the fee award

1111sought in this case likely amounts to a mere "rounding

1211budget.

wealth in making it

error" in his onnucl

In fact, the press is riddled with reports that Bilzerian routinely spend

1311multiples of such sums on luxury goods.

(See, e.g., "Dan Bilzerian Drops $650k On

1411VIPWristband for Rave," TMZ (July 30,2015),

attached

as Exhibit 13.)4 Whil

N
N

1511another $10,000 will likely not present much of a hardship to Bilzerian, it is th

<1:

1611maximum amount authorized under this portion of the Anti-SLAPP law.

1711the purpose of the Anti-SLAPP law is to provide financial disincentives to would

<C
Q::

Part

1811be SLAPP plaintiffs, and the Court should maximize that disincentive in a cas
1911that was so patently frivolous. The Court should award TMZ $10,000 in statutor
2011damages

under NRS 41.670( 1)(b). This will serve the statute's goal of deterrinq

2111SLAPPsuits in this state.

22115.0

CONCLUSION

2311

Bilzerian filed a SLAPPsuit in an attempt to censor the press, and Nevada'

2411Anti-SLAPP statute worked as intended

by dismissing this suit in its infancy.

2511entitled to recover its costs and attorneys' fees incurred in defending

TMZ i

itself fro

26
4

Available

at: <http://www.tmz.coml20

271Ia-million-vip/> (last visited December

15/07130/dan-bilzerian-electric-zoo-music-festival-half.
1, 2015).

- 13 TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-15-722801-C

Bilzerian's suit.

And because

this suit represents an egregious

211censorship on a matter of public concern,

311award of statutory damages

attempt

TMZ should also be entitled to ani

in the amount

of $10,000 to deter Bilzerian and

411other plaintiffs from bringing such claims in the future.

511

Accordingly,

611attorneys'

TMZ requests an award

fees, and

$10,000 in statutory

of $455.25 in costs, $43,555 in

damages,

for a total

award

711$54,010.25.
8
911Dated: 1st of December, 2015
10
__j

<

C)
w

__j

<1:

11
12
13
14

N
N

15

<1:

16

17

<C
Q::

18

~~u
~~ZAL
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. Randazza (Nevada Bar No. 12265)
Ronald D. Green (Nevada Bar No. 7360)
Alex J. Shepard (Nevada Bar No. 13582)
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Tel: 702-420-2001
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant
TMI Productions, Inc.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 14 TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-15-72280

1-C

Case No. A-15-722801-C

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December

1, 2015, I served

a true and correc

3
copy

of the foregoing

document

via electronic

mail and U.S. Mail to:

4
5
6
7
CL

:=J

0
a<::

C)

9
10

__j

11

C)

12

w
__j

<1:

13
14

HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH

FINE WRA Y PUZEY & THOMPSON
Brian W. Boschee, Esq..
Kimberly P. Stein, Esq.
400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
QQ_95_~b52e@nevQ_dafirm.S:::_9_m
~_~t~in@n~,{Q_g
a firQl_,c0 m
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
Josh Cole Aicklen, Esq.
Paul A. Shpirt. Esq.
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89118
[email protected]
EQLJI,~bpirt_@I~'v'\fi~l::>risQQi~,c:QID

N
N

15

<1:

16

Respectfully

17

:::f7VZ~l

Z
<1:
Q::

18

Randazza

Submitted,

Legal Group,

PLLC

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 15 TMZ Motion for Costs, Attorneys' Fees, and Damages Under NRS41.670
A-15-72280 1-C