N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT RENE R . R ODR IGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. FARM ER S INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY OF AR IZONA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-56031 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-06786-JGB AJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Je sus G. B e rna l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

2, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Pla intiff R e ne R odrigue z se ttle d a c la s s a c tion a ga inst de fe nda nt insura nc e c om pa nie s a nd a ske d the distric t c ourt to a ward attorne y s’ fe e s, e xpe rt fe e s, a nd c osts. Thedistric t c ourt a warde d R odrique z attorne y s’ fe e s a nd c osts, but de c line d 

# FIL ED M AY12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to a

w ard e xpe rt fe e s. On a

ppe a l, R odrique z c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of e xpe rt fe e s. W e a ffirm . W e re vie w a de nia l of fe e s for a n a buse of disc re tion; wem

ust the re fore

“ a ffirm unle ss the distric t c o urt a pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd or its findings we re illogic a l, im

pla u sible or without support in the re c ord.” TrafficSc hool.c om, Inc . v . Edriv e r Inc ., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th C i r. 2011). Distric t c o urts ha ve disc re tion to re im

burse e xpe rt witne ss fe e s if the e xpe rt’ s se rvic e s we re “ c ruc ia l or indispensa ble ” to the a c tion. Unite d State s v . C ity of Tw in Falls, Idaho, 806 F.2d 862, 878 (9th C ir. 1986), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds as re c ognize d

by Ass'n of Flight Atte

n d ants v . Horizon Air Indus., Inc. , 976 F.2d 541, 551-52 (9th C ir.1992); se e also In re Me dia Vision Te c h. Se c . Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1367 (N.D. C a l. 1996). An “ a pplic ation for e xpe rt witne ss fe e s should begive n ‘ c are ful sc rutiny ,’ and distric t c ourts should e xe rc ise the ir disc re tion ‘ spa

ringly .’ ” C

ity of Tw in Falls, Idaho, 8 06 F.2d a t 878. R odrique z ’ s m o tion for e xpe rt fe e s provide d virtua lly no e v i de nc e from whic h the distric t c ourt c ould de te rm ine whe t he r he r e xpe rts we re c ruc ia l or indispe nsa

ble , or e ve n whe the r the y we re qua lifie d. R o drique z ’ s m otion fa ile d to disc lose (1) how m a

ny hours thee xpe rts worke d, (2) wha t pre c ise ly

e a c h e xpe rt did, (3) why

e a c h e xpe rt wa s c ruc ia l to these ttle m e nt, or (4) whic h e xpe rts a c tua lly 2worke d on the c a se . Give n the de a rth of e vide n c e R odrique z provide d, the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l wa s c le arly “ support[e d] in the re c o rd” and thus not a n a buse of disc re tion. Se eTrafficSc hool.c om, Inc . , 653 F.3d a t 832. R odrique z sugge sts tha

t she should ha

v e be e n give n a

se c ond opportunity

to fix he r de fe c tive m otion. B ut whe n a pa rty fa ils to file

a prope r m otion a

nd lose s, the n late r fixe s he r m ista

ke and wa

nts thec ourt to re c onside r— she m ust m e e t the de m anding sta

nda rd a pplie d to a

m otion for re c onside ration. Se e Sc hool Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th C ir.1993) (re quiring a

showing of new e vide nc e , c le ar e rror, or an inte rve ning c ha nge in c ontrolling la

w). R odrique z ha s not a

rgue d for re c onside rat ion, nor is there any indic ation tha

t she c ould ha

v e m e t the re quire m e nts for re c onside ration. The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D .

3