Indeed. The judge has discretion to play around with the numbers a bit; he can increase or decrease the number from what Mr. Hardin asked. See, broadly, ARUP Labs. v. Pac. Med. Lab., 2:20-cv-00186 (D. Utah Aug. 25, 2023) (also Stella v. Davis Cnty., 1:18-cv-00002-JNP (D. Utah Aug. 18, 2023))
Now, good friends, what is it that the 10th Circuit has instructed the lower courts to be a reason enough to increase the attorney fees? Well, one of the accepted reasons is whether or not the plaintiff "was confronted with a real risk of not prevailing." To be clear, this is not a hindsight review, but one based from the facts and law as it were when the suit was filed. Whether any facts at the core of the case were disputed (oh, say for example, whether the book ever was on KF) is also a factor in considering. Though, this is something Mr. Hardin would have to make an issue of. See, broadly, Homeward Bound v. Hissom Memorial Center, 963 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1992)
Generally, Lodestar method is used (i.e multiplication of a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended.) On a first-foot basis, "reasonable hourly rate" would be whatever Mr. Hardin usually charges, provided it is not in conflict with with rates provided by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation for similar services. See, for example, Hollaar v. Marketpro S., 2:22-cv-559-TS (D. Utah Aug. 28, 2024). Reasonable number of hours is a lot less easily defined, but if it's not something obviously absurd (for example in Vic Mignogna case the lawyer for Funimation charged the company many hours to find out if calling someone a pedophile and a rapist is defamatory per se when any and all caselaw on the issue clearly stated that it was. Those number of hours were found unreasonable, if memory serves) it will probably stick (though I make no guarantees)
