Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01143/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01143-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 80, 82, 83 and 84.

2

 Defendants took Dr. Sperry’s deposition by video and paid him the full fee. Defendants

request that the Court order a partial refund of the payment.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA MAHACH-WATKINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LARRY DEPEE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1143 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR REFUND OF EXPERT

FEE

This order addresses the parties’ dispute concerning the deposition of plaintiffs’ forensic

pathologist, Dr. Kris Sperry.1 Defendants object to Dr. Sperry’s $750/hour rate for deposition

testimony, and request that it be reduced to $450 per hour.2

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C), “[u]nless manifest injustice would result,

the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in

responding to discovery.” In determining whether an expert’s fee is reasonable, district courts have

applied a number of factors: 

(1) the witness’s area of expertise, (2) the education and training that is required to

provide the expert insight that is sought, (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably

respected available experts, (4) the nature, quality, and complexity of the discovery

responses provided, (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area, (6) the fee

being charged by the expert to the party who retained him, ( 7) fees traditionally charged

by the expert on related matters, and ( 8) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the

court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26. 

Frederick v. Columbia Univ., 212 F.R.D. 176, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 85 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The Court finds that Dr. Sperry’s rate is not unreasonable, and accordingly DENIES defendants’

motion. According to the materials submitted by plaintiffs, Dr. Sperry is the Chief Medical Examiner

for the State of Georgia, he is licensed to practice medicine in three states, and he has multiple board

certifications in forensic pathology. Dr. Sperry has been published over 50 times, and has taught at

various medical schools over the past 15 years. Dr. Sperry states that since he raised his rate to

$750/hour, he has been deposed eight times in cases from throughout the country, and that he has been

paid his rate “without complaint or comment.” On this record, the Court finds that defendants are

required to pay Dr. Sperry’s rate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 85 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2