Coronavirus Reporter Corporation et al v. Apple Inc

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CORONAVIRUS REPORTER
CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-08660-EMC
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES
FINAL DETERMINATION
Docket No. 107
This order determines the final amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to Defendant
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in this matter as a result of Plaintiffs’ sanctionable misconduct.
On May 29, 2026, this Court held that the lodestar amount of $661,673.88 represented a
reasonable measure of the attorneys’ fees Apple incurred as a direct result of
Plaintiffs’ sanctionable conduct. Dkt. 113 (Attorneys’ Fees Order) at 16. The Court observed,
though, that “[t]he relevant question is not whether Mr. Mathews can write a check for
$661,673.88, but what amount is reasonably necessary to deter this conduct and comparable
conduct going forward.” Id. at 15 (citing Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 956 (N.D.
Cal. 2015)). Although Mr. Mathews had submitted a declaration representing that full payment
would personally and professionally bankrupt him (and that corporate plaintiffs were insolvent),
the declaration was unsupported by documentary support or other evidence. Id. The Court
deferred final determination of the award amount pending Mr. Mathews’ final supplemental
financial disclosures. Id.
Mr. Mathews has now filed financial statements supporting his declaration, and a
supplemental declaration explaining his financial status. Dkts. 115, 116. The financial statements
Case 3:24-cv-08660-EMC Document 120 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
support Mr. Mathews’ supplemental declaration that he claims a modest income as a solo
practitioner. Dkt. 115 at 1, 14-15.
Plaintiff contends again in his supplemental declaration that anything above $5,000 to
$10,000 would “represent a significant financial burden and would have a substantial deterrent
effect.” Dkt. 116 at 3. The Court in its May 29, 2026 Attorneys’ Fees Order briefly examined
Mathews’ contention that a nominal $5,000 to $10,000 would be appropriate because he has
already been deterred from “taking on a challenge of this magnitude in the future.” Id. at 14
(quoting Dkt. 112–1). The Court noted that Mathews had previously represented that there is
“nothing left that requires deterrence,” but then “filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth
Circuit, [sought] en banc rehearing on the mandamus petition, and file[d] [a] twenty-seven page
opposition brief [] before the Court.” Id. And Mr. Mathews filed several iterations of the same
failed legal theory in multiple jurisdictions, then filed the mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit.
Id. at 14–15. Thus, the Court concluded that Mr. Mathews’ conduct undermined his declaration
contentions regarding his alleged deterrence. Id.
“The main objective of [Rule 11] is not to reward parties who are victimized by litigation;
it is to deter baseless filings and curb abuses.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enters.,
Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 553 (1991). Consistent with its prior reasoning, the Court considers a $5,000
Case 3:24-cv-08660-EMC Document 120 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
to $10,000 too low to provide a sufficient deterrent effect. Nonetheless, given Mr. Mathews’
status as a solo practitioner with insolvent (or near-insolvent) clients, his relatively limited income,
and significant debts and encumbrances, the Court concludes that a $25,000 sanction is reasonably
necessary to deter Mr. Mathews from this conduct in the future.
The Court orders the $25,000 sanction to be paid in monthly increments beginning
November 1, 2026, at a rate of no less than $1,000 per month.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
______ _____________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-08660-EMC Document 120 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3