Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

NO. CIV. S-10-1171 LKK/DAD P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of Magistrate

Judge Drozd’s decision to approve payment of Dr. Loman-Hoerth at

her customary hourly rate. See Pl’s Mot., ECF No. 120; 04/19/2013

Minutes, ECF No. 110. For the reasons provided herein, the court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Medical Facility

(“CMF”), is proceeding through counsel with an action filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims, in part, that he

was denied physical and occupational therapy prescribed by Dr.

1

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 137 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 5
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

Catherine Lomen-Hoerth, a medical provider at UCSF Medical Center

in San Francisco, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

Pl’s Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 19. 

In another case filed in this district, Plaintiff brings

claims against the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, for failing to provide

Plaintiff with access to prison activities and programs, including

physical therapy prescribed by Dr. Lomen-Hoerth. See James v.

Hubbard, et al., No. 2:08-cv-01857-RRC, at Fifth Am. Compl., ECF

No. 32.1

 Defendants noticed the deposition of Dr. Lomen-Hoerth for

April 23, 2013. Plaintiff requested that the deposition be

coordinated with the deposition of Dr. Lomen-Hoerth in Plaintiff’s

other action filed in this district, James v. Hubbard, No. 2:08-cv01857-RRC, and served a cross-notice of deposition under both

cases. 

On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Clarify

Deposition Procedures to “resolve . . . the issue of whether

federal practice allows for compensation in addition to the witness

fee of a treating doctor who has not been retained as an expert by

any party, and if so, what amount of compensation is appropriate.”

////

1

 Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Related Cases for each of

his cases filed in this district and the parties refer to these two

cases as being related. The cases are not, in fact, related.

2

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 137 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 5
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

Pl’s Mot., ECF No. 102.2 

On April 12, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Statement re:

Discovery Disagreements, pursuant to Local Rule 251, to set forth

their respective positions as to the appropriate fee, and the

burden of payment, for Dr. Lomen-Hoerth’s testimony. Joint

Statement, ECF No. 107. 

Plaintiff noted that “[f]ederal courts are split on whether

a treating doctor may be compensated in addition to the witness fee

and mileage for deposition or trial testimony” and sought

clarification from the court as to “whether the doctor can receive

an hourly fee for providing deposition testimony” in “excess of the

appearance fee.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff also requested “to incur

this cost from the Nonappropriated Fund under General Order 510.” 

Id. at 4; see also Pl’s Mot., ECF No. 109. 

Defendants contended that it was not “fair to have defendants

bear the entire cost of the deposition when it is plaintiff who

seeks to depose Dr. Lomen-Hoerth in the companion case” and that

“a reasonable resolution . . . would be for the parties to agree

to split the cost of Dr. Lomen-Hoerth’s $700 per hour fee with half

of the time being paid by the plaintiff and the other half of the

time being paid by the defendants.” Id. at 5. 

On April 19, 2013, following a hearing on the Motion to

Clarify Deposition Procedures, Magistrate Judge Drozd “approved

2

 The parties agree that the U.C. Regents’ standard

compensation is $700 per hour for time spent giving a deposition,

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.430. 

3

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 137 Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 5
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

payment of the customary hourly rate of Dr. Loman-Hoerth to acquire

testimony in the case” and determined that the “parties shall split

the cost.” See 04/19/2013 Minutes, ECF No. 100. 

On April 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Drozd approved Plaintiff’s

request to incur costs for Dr. Loman-Hoerth’s compensation, in the

amount of $700, from the Nonappropriated Fund. Order, ECF No. 121. 

On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Drozd’s decision to approve

payment of Dr. Loman-Hoerth at her customary hourly rate. Pl’s

Mot., ECF No. 120. 

II. STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION

Under Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(c), “A

party seeking reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s ruling shall

file a request for reconsideration by a Judge. . . . Such request

shall specifically designate the ruling, or part thereof, objected

to and the basis for that objection.” 

Local Rule 303(f) provides that “[t]he standard that the

assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly

erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A).” 

The latter statute provides: 

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the

contrary . . . a judge may designate a magistrate

judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter

pending before the court, except [certain specified

matters]. A judge of the court may reconsider any

pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where

it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

4

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 137 Filed 08/26/13 Page 4 of 5
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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

An order is “clearly erroneous” if “although there is evidence

to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395,

68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly

erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential. . . . .” 

Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508

U.S. 602, 622, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993). Under the

“contrary to law” standard, a district court may conduct

independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate

judge. Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50

F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (Whelan, J.). The movant’s

mere disagreement with a ruling is not grounds for reconsideration. 

United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131

(E.D. Cal. 2001) (Wanger, J.). 

III. ANALYSIS

Upon review of Plaintiff’s arguments and the relevant legal

authorities, the court determines that Magistrate Judge Drozd’s

decision to approve payment of Dr. Loman-Hoerth at her customary

hourly rate was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to

law.” 

The court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. See Pl’s Mot., ECF No. 120. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 23, 2013.

5

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 137 Filed 08/26/13 Page 5 of 5