Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-25/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher R. Harris
Plaintiff
San Jose Mercury News, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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 RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION

(Docket Nos. 333, 336)

On July 21, 2006, Plaintiff Christopher Harris filed a letter, asking for clarification of the

Court’s order of July 14, 2006, regarding the deposition of his expert Jane Kinne. See Docket No.

333. More specifically, Mr. Harris asked that the Court require Defendant San Jose Mercury News,

Inc. to pay Ms. Kinne’s fees by a date certain. In response, the Mercury News argued that there is no

need to grant such relief because “[f]ederal law does not impose any deadline for the payment of

expert deposition fees.” Docket No. 336. The Mercury News added, however, that, if the Court

were to “mandate[] a deadline for [its] payment of Ms. Kinne’s fees for her July 18 deposition,” then

it should also “set the same deadline for Plaintiff’s payment of the deposition fees for the Mercury

News’ expert, including the fees and costs incurred in connection with Mr. Harvey’s and Mr.

Turnage’s travel.” Id. (emphasis added). According to the Mercury News, each of its two experts

spent 3 hours traveling from Marin County to Menlo Park, where Mr. Harris’s counsel is located.

Having considered the parties’ letters and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

orders that any outstanding expert fees -- whether Mr. Harris’s expert or the Mercury News’ -- be

paid by August 15, 2006. While there may be no law imposing a specific deadline for expert fees,

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 338 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

they should not be put off indefinitely. As for the Mercury News’ contention that the travel fees for

its experts should be paid, the Court notes that only a “reasonable fee” is required by Rule

26(b)(4)(C). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C). The Mercury News was willing to absorb travel fees if

the depositions were held in San Francisco instead of Menlo Park. Accordingly, the Court shall

require Mr. Harris to pay for only 1.5 hours of travel time per expert. Moreover, the experts shall not

be paid their full fee for their travel time but rather shall be paid a reduced fee. See Frederick v.

Columbia Univ., 212 F.R.D. 176, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (ordering that expert be compensated at an

hourly rate of $ 375 for his deposition and $ 200 per hour for travel time). The parties should meet

and confer regarding an appropriate reduced rate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 338 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2