New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Expert Entitled to Compensation from Deposing Party for Preparation as Well as Deposition Time, But Only at Rate Charged to Party That Engaged Him or Her

Download PDF

From Borel v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24379 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2010):

Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell while descending a fixed ladder on a bunk bed. To impute liability on defendant, plaintiff retained Robert E. Borison as an expert safety witness. Borison testifies for a living. Before his deposition, Borison notified defendant that he would not testify unless he received$ 1,500.00. Borison's deposition lasted approximately three hours. Borison allegedly earned almost $500.00/hour for the three-hour deposition when he only charged plaintiff's counsel $210.00/hour. Defendant now asks the Court to reduce Borison's fee to $ 210.00/hour and award him a total fee of $630.00 for three hours at the deposition.

To determine whether a fee request pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4)(C) is reasonable, courts consider seven criteria: (1) the witness's area of expertise; (2) the education and training required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates of other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality, and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the fee actually charged to the party who retained the expert; (6) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters; and (7) any other factor likely to assist the court in balancing the interest implicated by Rule 26. Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., 217 F.R.D. 329, F.R.D. 329, 333 (D. Del. 2003); Edin v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 188 F.R.D. 543, 546 (D. Ariz. 1999). "Ultimately," however, "it is in the court's discretion to set an amount that it deems reasonable." Fisher-Price, 217 F.R.D. at 333 (quoting Fleming v. United States, 205 F.R.D. 188, 190 (W.D. Va. 2000)). ***

[C]ourts do not hesitate to reduce an expert's fee when that expert charges one party more than another. See, e.g., Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 141 F.R.D. 493, 497 (S.D. Iowa 1992) ("Applying the factors discussed earlier, the court determines that $250.00 an hour is the outer limit of a reasonable fee for Dr. Nalecz. This is the current rate he is charging the Plaintiff for the most difficult work performed for him . . . ."). Plaintiff's counsel has given the Court no good reason why Borison charged plaintiff $210.00/hour and then charged defendant $250.00/hour. Accordingly, and applying the factors above, the Court will reduce Borison's hourly fee to $210.00/hour and award Borison fees in the amount of $630.00 (three hours at $210.00/hour) for time spent at the deposition.

The issue of first impression here is whether Borison is entitled to fees for time spent preparing for the deposition. Federal courts interpreting rule 26(b)(4) are split on whether the rule allows for parties to recoup fees from opposing parties for time spent preparing for the opposition's depositions. However, a slim majority provides for such recovery, on the condition that the recovered fees are reasonable. Compare Boos v. Prison Health Servs., 212 F.R.D. 578, 578 (D. Kan. 2002) (mem.) (allowing recovery of expert's reasonable fees for time spent preparing for depositions); Collins v. Vill. of Woodridge, 197 F.R.D. 354, 357 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (mem.) ("The Court believes the better reading of Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) is that the expert's reasonable fees for preparation time are recoverable by the party who tendered the expert."); McNerney v. Archer Daniels Midland, 164 F.R.D. 584, 587 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (allowing recovery of expert's reasonable fees for time spent preparing for depositions); Hose v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 154 F.R.D. 222, 228 (S.D. Iowa 1994) (disagreeing with "other cases denying an expert compensation for time spent preparing for the deposition"); Hurst v. United States, 123 F.R.D. 319, 321 (D.S.D.1988) (allowing recovery of expert's reasonable fees for time spent preparing for depositions); American Steel Prods. Corp. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 110 F.R.D. 151, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (same), and Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 553 F. Supp. 45, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (same), with 3M Co. v. Kanbar, No. C06-01225, 2007 WL 2972921 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007) (denying fees for time spent preparing for deposition unless case is complex or extenuating circumstances exist); M.T. McBrian, Inc. v. Liebert Corp., 173 F.R.D. 491, 493 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (allowing recovery for expert deposition preparation time only if the litigation is complex and there "has been [a] considerable lapse of time between an expert's work on the case and the date of his actual deposition"); S.A. Healy Co. v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 154 F.R.D. 212, 214 (E.D. Wis. 1994) (same); EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 138 F.R.D. 523, 526 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (agreeing with Rhee); and Benjamin v. Gloz, 130 F.R.D. 455, 457 (D. Colo.1990) (same); Rhee v. Witco Chem. Corp., 126 F.R.D. 45, 47 (D. Ill.1989) (allowing recovery under rule 26(b)(4) only in limited circumstances, "such as in a complex case where the expert's deposition has been repeatedly postponed over long periods of time by the seeking party causing the expert to repeatedly review voluminous documents"). Recently, a federal district court in Louisiana has followed the reasoning in Collins and held that an expert should be entitled to an award of fees for time spent preparing for a deposition. Paz v. Our Lady of Lourdes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-2693, at *4 (W.D. La. May 19, 2009) (Methvin, M.J.). ***

This Court ... holds that — as long as such fees are reasonable an expert may be compensated for time spent preparing for a deposition.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice