With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim for damages many times what the statute permitted, Urban made a motion for partial summary judgment to limit Baker’s damages to $3,896, the amount of Urban’s profit on the plastic frames in which the Paper Insert was used. Urban seeks $21,248, a portion of the fees and costs incurred in making that motion. Based on Weingrad’s conduct and my review of Urban’s lawyers’ timesheets, that amount is entirely reasonable. 4. Withholding of Licensing Evidence As noted above, Baker and Weingrad acted in bad faith and unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied these proceedings with respect to the licensing evidence. Initially, Weingrad objected to production of documents on this issue on the ground that they were irrelevant — a position entirely without merit. See On Davis, 246 F.3d at 164-66 (<HOLDING>). Then, after production was ordered, Weingrad

A: holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion
B: holding that the fair market value of a lost license fee may be actual damages within the meaning of  504
C: holding that evidence of lost profits for purposes of determining fair market value of interest in coalbed methane exploration prospect in bulgaria was speculative
D: holding that actual as opposed to special damages arising from a conversion consist of the fair market value of the property converted
B.