Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sonicview USA, Inc. et al
Filing
131
ORDER Regarding Defendants' Expert Witness Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 10/13/2011.(mtb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DISH NETWORK, LLC, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
SONICVIEW USA, INC., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 09-1553-L(WVG)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
EXPERT WITNESS FEES
17
18
On September 12 and 14, 2011, the Court received letter
19
briefs from counsel regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to pay Defendants’
20
expert witness for the time he spent in his deposition. On September
21
15, 2011, the Court requested further briefing on the issues
22
presented in the letter briefs. On September 26, 2011, counsel
23
submitted the requested briefing. On October 13, 2011, the Court
24
held a Discovery Conference in this matter. Chad Hagan appeared on
25
behalf of Plaintiffs. David Clark appeared on behalf of Defendants.
26
Prior to the deposition and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a),
27
Defendants informed Plaintiffs that their expert, Richard Caylor,
28
charged $300 per hour for deposition testimony. Prior to the
1
09cv1553
1
deposition, Plaintiffs did not object to Mr. Caylor’s deposition
2
fee. However, at Mr. Caylor’s deposition, Plaintiffs learned that
3
Mr. Caylor charged Defendants $35 per hour for his work for them.
4
After the deposition was taken, Plaintiffs refused to pay $300 per
5
hour for Mr. Caylor’s deposition testimony.
6
In Jochims v. Isuzu, 141 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. IA 1992), the court
7
listed the following factors that courts should consider in deciding
8
whether to reduce an expert witness’ fee for deposition testimony:
9
10
11
(1) witness’ area of expertise;
(2)
education
and
training
required
to
provide
expert
insight;
12
(3) prevailing rates of other comparable experts;
13
(4) nature, quality and complexity of discovery responses
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
provided;
(5) the fee actually being charged by the party who retained
the expert;
(6) fees traditionally charged by an expert on related
matters;
(7) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court
in balancing the interests of the parties.
21
Jochims has been cited approvingly in SEC v. Berry, 2011 WL
22
2149088 (N.D. Cal. 2011) and Beecham v. City of W. Sacramento, 2009
23
WL 689729 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
24
Courts have reduced an expert’s deposition fees for twice and
25
three times more than they charge for work for the party who
26
retained them. Sublette v. Glidden, 1998 WL 398156 (E.D. PA 1998),
27
Ohuche V. British Airways, 1998 WL 240481 (S.D. NY 1998).
28
2
09cv1553
1
Here,
Plaintiffs
ask
for
a
reduction
of
Mr.
Caylor’s
2
deposition fee, which is almost ten times more than what he charged
3
Defendants for work for them.
4
The Court’s analysis of the Jochims factors is as follows:
5
A. Witness Area of Expertise
6
Defendants stated that Mr. Caylor’s expertise was in the
7
analysis of Sonicview’s receivers firmware and software and related
8
Sonicview products, Sonicview’s free-to-air marketing, uses and
9
services, inability of Sonicview receivers installed with factory
10
firmware to pirate encrypted Dish Network satellite programming,
11
satellite piracy and efforts to combat it.
12
B. Education/Training
13
Mr. Caylor has never been retained, nor qualified, as an
14
expert. His testimony is based on his experience in the satellite
15
television industry. He does not hold a post-high school degree. He
16
does not have any professional licenses or certifications. His
17
experience includes working for Defendants as a paid consultant. It
18
is alleged that he operates or operated a business through which he
19
sells or sold allegedly infringing Sonicview receivers. The Court
20
questions whether he will be qualified as an expert witness at
21
trial.
22
C. Prevailing Rates of Comparable Experts
23
Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants provide the Court with any
24
information regarding this factor.
25
D. Nature/Quality/Complexity of Expert Testimony
26
Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants provide the Court with any
27
information regarding this factor.
28
3
09cv1553
1
E. Fee Charged By Retaining Party
2
Mr. Caylor agreed to a lump sum payment from Defendants of
3
$2,500 for his report, which he claims took him over 100 hours of
4
work and includes reimbursement for $920 in travel expenses. If the
5
travel expenses are subtracted from the $2,500, Mr. Caylor actually
6
performed
7
Plaintiff offered to reimburse Mr. Caylor for his deposition time at
8
$35 per hour.
9
for
Defendants
at
approximately
$16
per
hour.
F. Fees Charged By Experts in Related Matters
10
11
work
Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants supply the Court with any
information regarding this factor.
12
The Court’s analysis of the Jochims factors leads to the
13
conclusion that $300 per hour for Mr. Caylor’s deposition testimony
14
is clearly excessive and unwarranted. Therefore, the Court finds
15
that Defendants shall pay Mr. Caylor $35 per hour for his deposition
16
testimony. On or before October 20, 2011, such payment shall be paid
17
directly to Mr. Caylor.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
DATED:
October 13, 2011
21
22
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
09cv1553
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?