Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYNTHIA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-1312 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

RE STEPHEN PRATER’S EXPERT

DEPOSITION FEE

[Re: Docket No. 83]

On July 26, 2005, this court heard defendants’ “Motion for Protective Order Regarding

Stephen Prater’s Expert Deposition Fee.” Plaintiff Cynthia Mendez opposed the motion. Upon

consideration of the papers submitted, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion

in part and denies the motion in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for bad faith breach of an insurance contract. Plaintiff has designated Stephen

Prater as an expert to testify at trial on claims handling procedures. Defendants plan to depose him. 

At issue in the instant motion are Prater’s hourly fees for deposition testimony. Prater charges $485

per hour for deposition testimony and $550 per hour if the deposition is videotaped. Defendants do

not dispute that they are obliged to pay Prater a reasonable fee. However, they contend that his

hourly fees are excessive and unreasonable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C). They seek a protective

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 6
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

order reducing Prater’s deposition fee to $300 per hour, whether or not the deposition is videotaped.

Plaintiff’s opposition is three-fold. First, she contends that defendants’ motion for protective

order is untimely under the District Court’s scheduling order. Second, she argues that defendants have

conceded the reasonableness of Prater’s fees because they have previously paid his fees without

complaint in other litigation. Third, plaintiff contends that Prater’s fees are reasonable in any event.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Upon a showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) authorizes courts to “protect a party

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery. 

The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that the protection is warranted. 

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c).

With respect to expert fees, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) provides:

Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that

the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time

spent in responding to discovery under this subdivision; and (ii) with

respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule

the court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other

party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by

the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(4)(C). “What constitutes a ‘reasonable fee’ for purposes of Rule 26(b)(4)(C)

lies within the Court’s sound discretion.” Edin v. The Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 188 F.R.D. 543,

545 (D. Ariz. 1999) (citing 8 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE, Civil 2d, § 2034 at 469-470 (2d ed. 1994)).

III. DISCUSSION

As for plaintiff’s procedural objection, this court is unpersuaded that the instant motion is

untimely under the scheduling order entered in this action. She points out that under the District

Court’s November 11, 2004 Scheduling Order, “[a]ny party objecting to the qualifications or

proposed testimony of an expert must file, serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any

portion of the expert’s testimony in writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no

later than June 20, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.” (See November 11, 2004 Scheduling Order, Docket No. 16). 

However, this court does not view the issue as to Prater’s stated fees to be equivalent to a dispute

over his “testimony,” as plaintiff suggests.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 6
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 Plaintiff argues that Prater’s fees should be compared to those charged by

defendants’ expert, Dr. Curtis, who charges $500 per hour for depositions. The record indicates

that Dr. Curtis is a Board Certified medical doctor who specializes in rheumatology. (See Burnite

Decl., Ex. H). Given the considerable difference between the areas of claimed expertise of Dr.

3

Plaintiff next argues that defendants have conceded the reasonableness of Prater’s deposition

fees. Here, she directs the court’s attention to a number of other cases in which defendants have paid

Prater’s deposition fees in full without objection. Most of the cited examples appear to involve fees

which are lower than those at issue here. However, the record presented indicates that defendants

have paid Prater’s $550 hourly fee for videotaped depositions on at least two occasions within the last

seven months in other litigation. (See Prater Decl., ¶ 16; see also Rubin Decl., ¶ 5). Defendants’

agreement to pay such fees in the past does raise some question as to why they have only now

decided to challenge the claimed reasonableness of the same. Nevertheless, the court does not find

that defendants’ past acquiescence necessarily bars them from now seeking a protective order

permitting them to pay a lower fee.

As for the substantive dispute over Prater’s deposition fees, this court must determine whether

defendants have shown “good cause” for a protective order decreasing Prater’s fee to $300 per hour. 

In determining a “reasonable fee,” the court may consider the following factors:

(1) the witness’s area of expertise;

(2) the education and training required to provide the expert insight

which 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 interests

implicated by Rule 26.

Edin, 188 F.R.D. at 546. Here, defendants argue that Prater’s fees are unreasonable because (1)

they are grossly disproportionate to the fees charged by other comparable experts; and (2) there is no

justification for charging a higher fee for videotaped depositions.

Defendants have not convincingly demonstrated that Prater’s standard $485 hourly fee is

excessive when compared to the other experts they highlight in their motion – i.e., Mary Fuller, Frank

Caliri III and Don Kelly.1 According to defendants, for deposition testimony, Fuller charges $250 per

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 3 of 6
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 Curtis and Prater, the court does not believe that a comparison between their stated fees is helpful

in resolving the instant motion.

4

hour, and Caliri and Kelly both charge $350 per hour. Plaintiff contends that defendants’

representations as to the current fees charged by Fuller, Caliri and Kelley are not accurate. Her

counsel attests that Fuller charges $300 per hour (with a four-hour minimum); Kelley charges $350

per hour; and Caliri charges between $350 and $375 per hour depending upon the complexity of the

case. (See Rubin Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7). In any event, unlike Prater, neither Fuller nor Caliri has a law

degree. (See Burnite Decl., Exs. B-D). Moreover, defendants’ papers indicate that Caliri charges a

four-hour minimum fee for any deposition. (See id., Ex. D). Furthermore, the record indicates that

Prater’s claimed experience in the insurance field, which includes work with the government, academia

and the private sector, appears to be broader than that of Fuller, Caliri or Kelly. (See id., Exs. B-E;

see also Prater Decl, Ex. 1).

At the same time, however, the court is persuaded that defendants should not be required to

pay Prater’s $550 hourly fee for videotaped depositions (as opposed to non-videotaped depositions). 

Prater’s reasons for the higher fee appear to be based upon the additional cost and time it takes to

review such depositions. He says that he is obliged to charge a higher rate for videotaped depositions

because (1) he “must purchase the video or DVD that records the deposition in order to have it to

review”; and (2) “it takes longer to review transcripts and deposition which are videotaped as well as

transcribed.” (Prater Decl., ¶ 7). He offers the deposing party the option of paying his standard rate

of $485 per hour for videotaped depositions, so long they pay for his copy of the videotape or DVD. 

(Id.) Nevertheless, he “will charge [the deposing party] [his] hourly rate should reviewing the

deposition require extensive review of the video record because of the quality of the transcript.” (Id.)

Although neither party has cited any authority on this precise issue, this court concludes that

defendants should not be required to pay for costs or time involved in Prater’s review of the

deposition. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) (requiring payment of “a reasonable fee for time spent in

responding to discovery . . ..”); see also Patterson Farm, Inc. v. City of Britton, 22 F. Supp.2d

1085, 1095-96 (D. S.D. 1998) (concluding that the deposing party was obliged to pay for an expert’s

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

review of a deposition transcript where the deposing party requested that such a review be conducted,

but the deposing party was not required to pay for the experts’ review of their own testimony).

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendants’ motion for protective order is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendants shall pay Prater’s standard deposition fee of $485 per hour, whether or

not the deposition is videotaped.

2. Defendants shall not be required to pay for Prater’s copy of the deposition transcript

or videotape, nor for his time spent reviewing the same.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

5:04-cv-1312 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. jodie@bohnlaw.com, info@bohnlaw.com 

John T. Burnite jtb@kelher.com 

John C. Ferry jferry@kelher.com 

Richard Henry Friedman rfriedman@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Michael G. Glanzberg mgg@kelher.com 

Thomas M. Herlihy herlihy@kelher.com 

Barbara L. Lyons blyons@cpsmlaw.com 

Jeffrey K. Rubin jrubin@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 111 Filed 07/26/05 Page 6 of 6