Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DEPOSITION

COSTS

(Docket No. 244)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is a professor and photographer who holds the copyright on a photograph used with

permission in the interior of a book entitled The Life You Save May Be Your Own by Paul Elie. That

book was reviewed by Defendant San Jose Mercury News, a daily newspaper of general circulation. 

Defendant published a reproduction of the photograph in its review of the book without the

permission of Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends Defendant has followed a pattern and practice of

publishing copyrighted photographs from the interior of books it reviews. Asserting copyright

infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Plaintiff seeks damages and

injunctive relief in this action.

Trial in this matter is set for June 12, 2006. Defendant has identified five experts it has

retained for trial. Expert reports have been disclosed pursuant to the trial judge’s order herein. 

Three of the experts will address issues such as practices in the news industry relative to book

reviews and the use of interior photographs, the market for photographic prints, practices pertaining

to permission for the use of photographs and the effect of exposure on the market – relevant to such

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 256 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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

issues as fair use, consent and damages. A fourth expert, Robert Harvey, is a statistician who

designed and implemented a survey research study on industry practices regarding the publication of

interior book photographs in newspapers’ book reviews. A fifth expert, Michael Wagner, is an

economist who will opine on the lack of damages suffered by Plaintiff and the fact that Defendant

did not realize any economic gain from the publication of the photograph.

Plaintiff seeks to depose these experts before trial. In this motion, he asks to be relieved

from paying the expert fees charges by Defendant’s experts as he normally would under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(4)(C) which provides:

Unless 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 . . . .

Plaintiff contends this case presents a situation where “manifest injustice” would result absent relief

from this Court directing Defendant, rather than Plaintiff, to pay the cost of expert fees for the

depositions.

Plaintiff’s motion came on for hearing on May 11, 2006. Having considered the papers filed

in support of and in opposition to the motions and the argument of counsel, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the relief sought by Plaintiff.

II. ANALYSIS

The Advisory Committee Notes explain that the court “can protect, when necessary and

appropriate, the interests of an indigent party.” Advisory Committee Notes to 1970 Amendments,

48 F.R.D. 505. Case law interpretation of this provision is sparse. One court has observed the

manifest injustice exception is a “stringent standard.” Reed v. Binder, 165 F.R.D. 424, 427 (D.N.J.

1996) quoting Gorlikowski v. Tolbert, 52 F.3d 1439, 1444 (7th Cir. 1995). To apply the exception,

the court must find that the plaintiff is either “indigent or that requiring him to pay a deposition fee

incurred in litigation that he voluntarily initiated would create an undue hardship.” Edin v. The Paul

Revere Life Insurance Co., 188 F.R.D. 543, 547 (D. Ariz. 1999). In making the determination of

undue hardship, the court must “weigh the possible hardships imposed on the respective parties . . .

[and] balance the need for doing justice on the merits between the parties . . . against the need for

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 256 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

maintaining orderly and efficient procedural arrangements.” Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 427-28, quoting

Gorlikowski, 52 F.3d at1444.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is indigent in the conventional sense (as measured for

instance by qualification for in forma pauperis status) since he owns a house and is employed fulltime by a university. Cf. Edin, 188 F.R.D. at 548 (plaintiff receives over $3500 per month from sale

of dental practice and received a substantial settlement in another case) with Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 426

(plaintiff had limited family income since wife’s death). In the instant case, Plaintiff, though not

indigent, has demonstrated he is suffering significant financial hardship. His monthly expenses

exceed his income, he has substantial debt totaling $34,000, his house which is encumbered with a

second mortgage, and he has no personal savings or any other personal financial assets. He has

recently had serious health problems. Though perhaps not indigent, he appears insolvent. He had to

obtain a loan to pay for his sole expert in this case. Under his attorney engagement agreement, he is

responsible for payment of out-of-pocket costs and thus he, not his attorney, will have to pay for the

costs of the expert depositions. He cannot afford to pay the expert fees normally required were he to

depose Defendant’s experts prior to trial. The issue, therefore, is not Plaintiff's indigence, but

whether he is faced with an “undue hardship.” Edin, 188 F.R.D. at 547.

Here, Defendant has identified five experts. This presents a financially daunting task for

Plaintiff. Four of Defendant’s experts charge between $150 and $300 per hour. A fifth charges

$575 per hour. Without relief, Plaintiff will not be able to afford to take the expert depositions. On

the other hand, unlike the situation in Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 428-31, Defendants have supplied

Plaintiff with reasonably detailed expert disclosure reports thus mitigating the risk of “ambush at

trial.” Cf. Delgado v. Sweeney, 2004 WL 228962 (E.D. Pa. 2004) at * 2 (detailed expert disclosure a

factor in court’s decision to deny relief from expert deposition costs). Moreover, Plaintiff has an

expert who can testify at trial in his case-in-chief and in rebuttal to many of the points raised by the

first three of Defendant’s experts.

Plaintiff faces, however, significant hardship in connection with the expert testimony of Mr.

Harvey, since Plaintiff’s expert is not a statistician and may not be able to effectively rebut Mr.

Harvey’s testimony. Plaintiff is also disadvantaged in responding to the expert testimony of Mr.

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 256 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Wagner, since he has no economist expert. Both experts will testify on matters that are relatively

complex and technical. While Plaintiff would thus suffer significant hardship in preparing for trial

absent the opportunity to depose these two experts, Defendant has not established it would suffer

any substantial financial hardship should it, rather than Plaintiff, be required to absorb the cost of

these two depositions, especially if they are kept short.

In addition to the balance of hardships, the Court must consider the need to do justice. Reed,

165 F.R.D. at 427-28. In this regard, the Court notes that this litigation presents a matter of public

significance. Both parties have represented to the trial court that the practice in question is not

unique and that the case raises important legal issues – e.g. of whether publishing book interior

photographs in the context of book reviews constitutes fair use – which could have a substantial

impact on the publishing industry. Hence, the integrity of the truth seeking process of trial has

added significance here. The integrity of that process is enhanced by the pretrial discovery

including depositions of key expert witnesses.

Balancing the parties’ relative hardships and the need to do justice, the Court concludes that

under these circumstances, Plaintiff should be relieved of the cost of taking reasonable short and

concise depositions of Mr. Harvey and Mr. Wagner sufficient to give him a chance to prepare for

cross-examination at trial. The Court will allow a 3-hour deposition of each of these two witnesses,

with Defendant being responsible for the expert fees therefor. As to the other three experts, Plaintiff

has previously deposed one of the experts, has been given reasonably detailed expert reports, and

has his own expert covering many of the issues to which they will testify. No manifest injustice will

occur should Plaintiff not be able to take their depositions for financial reasons.

This order disposes of Docket No. 244.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 256 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 4