Carranza v. Unnamed Defendants

Filing 206

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application 203 for Reimbursement of Expert Fees. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/20/19.(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SELVIN O. CARRANZA,
CDCR #T-67780,

15

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPERT
FEES

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00773-GPC-AGS

vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor,
et al.,

16

Defendants.

[Dkt. No. 203.]

17
18
19

Plaintiff, Selvin O. Carranza, by and through Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

20

(“Morgan Lewis”), court-appointed pro bono counsel for Mr. Carranza in the above-

21

captioned action, has applied to this Court ex parte for reimbursement of out-of-pocket

22

expert witnesses expenses Morgan Lewis will necessarily incur in the prosecution of this

23

action. Morgan Lewis currently anticipates that expert witness costs in this case will total

24

approximately $29,775.

25

The Local Civil Rules governing the Pro Bono Fund provides that the “Pro Bono

26

Fund must be used for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, necessarily incurred by

27

court-appointed attorneys representing indigents pro bono in civil cases not covered by

28
1
3:14-cv-00773-GPC-AGS

1

the Criminal Justice Act, provided that approval for such expenses is first obtained from .

2

. . the district judge assigned the case. . . Application for such funds must be approved by

3

the court.” Local Civ. R. 83.8(a)(2)(a). The Local Rules provide that pro bono counsel

4

obtain prior approval of any request for reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses

5

necessarily incurred. Id. Expert witness fees may be recovered if they are “necessarily

6

incurred” and reasonable. Roberts v. Hensley, No. 15cv1871-LAB(BLM), 2019 WL

7

2618124, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2019).

8
9

Here Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel seeks pre-authorization of $29,775 for out-ofpocket expert witness expenses that will be incurred for two experts. First, Plaintiff seeks

10

reimbursement for expert fees of Dr. July Ho, a licensed and triple board-certified

11

Clinical Neuropsychologist who is a tenured Associate Professor at Pepperdine

12

University and a published author. (Dkt. No. 203-1, Mundell Decl. ¶ 5.) Dr. Ho will

13

administer a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff and provide a written expert report.

14

(Id. ¶ 6.) Dr. Ho will also educate the trier of fact about the nature of Plaintiff’s relevant

15

mental health issues, and CDCR policies concerning treatment of inmates with mental

16

health issues. (Id.) Her consulting rate is $375 per hour for non-testifying work, and

17

$650 per hour for testimony. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff anticipates her fees will total around

18

$18,3751 which includes one day of trial attendance and testimony (8 hours), deposition

19

preparation (3 hours), one day of deposition testimony (7 hours), and time spent

20

reviewing the case, evaluating Plaintiff and writing and expert report (20 hours). (Id.)

21

Plaintiff has also engaged William Adams, an expert on CDCR policies,

22

procedures and general prison information and has over 25 years of experience working

23

with the CDCR. (Id. ¶ 8.) He will provide expert opinion “on performance standards

24

expected of correctional officers, supervisors, managers, and non-peace officer staff

25
26
1

27

According to the Court’s calculation based on the number of hours and Dr. Ho’s hourly fee, the
approximate fees total $16,450, not $18,375.

28
2
3:14-cv-00773-GPC-AGS

1

members, by reference to CDCR’s rules, policies.” (Id. ¶ 9.) His testimony will assist

2

the trier of fact in understanding the standard of conduct required of correctional officers

3

and whether Defendants complied with CDCR policy when interacting with Plaintiff.

4

(Id.) Adam’s consulting rate is $300 per hour. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff expects his fees will

5

total around $11,400 which includes one day of trial attendance and testimony (8 hours),

6

deposition preparation (3 hours), one day of deposition testimony (7 hours), and time

7

spent reviewing case records, CDCR policies, incident reports, and writing an expert

8

report (20 hours). (Id.)
Plaintiff seeks pre-approval of reimbursement of up to $29,775 2 for the costs

9
10

associated with retaining the two experts. While the Court finds that these experts are

11

necessary, it has concerns that the amount sought is excessive as this large amount is not

12

typically granted to pro bono counsel and the Pro Bono Fund is a limited resource. For

13

example, Dr. Ho’s fee of $650 per hour for trial testimony is excessive in light of the fact

14

she typically charges $375 per hour for non-testifying work. See Roberts, 2019 WL

15

2618124, at *2 (reducing hourly rate of dental expert from $475 per hour to $250 per

16

hour).

17

Thus, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s ex parte application for pre-

18

approval of reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $29,775 for out-of-pocket expert

19

witness expenses from the Court’s Pro Bono Fund.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: November 20, 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27

2

According to the Court’s calculation, the total amounts to $27,850.

28
3
3:14-cv-00773-GPC-AGS