Giannerini v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.

Filing 161

ORDER re 101 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Payment of Two Experts That Defendant Refuses to Pay for Discovery Deposition Time, 113 Defendant's Response in Opposition. It is ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a reply brief, not to exceed seven (7) pages in length, addressing the issues outlined in this Order. See PDF Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 3/26/2024. (MKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MARISSA GIANNERINI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:22-cv-2075-RBD-LHP

EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL
UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Payment of Two Experts That Defendant Refuses to Pay for Discovery Deposition
Time (Doc. No. 101) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 113).
Upon review, the Court will require a reply brief from Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of this Order,
Plaintiff shall file a reply brief, not to exceed seven (7) pages in length, addressing
the following:
1.

Defendant’s argument that both Tarek Aly, MD, MPH and Dawn Parr

Chappel, LMFT “are entitled to nothing more than the statutory witness fee
under 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b).” See Doc. No. 113, at 1.

2.

The reasonableness of the requested fees for the deposition time for

both Tarek Aly, MD, MPH and Dawn Parr Chappel, LMFT, based on the
factors set forth in Gluck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:19-cv-634-T-27AEP, 2020
WL 339593, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2020). Plaintiff shall include specifically
the rates normally charged by Dr. Aly and LMFT Chappel, as well as
authority demonstrating the prevailing rates for other comparable treatment
providers in their areas of expertise. See Costa v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No.
2:13-cv-655-FtM-38DNF, 2014 WL 12618110, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2014).
3.

Defendant’s representations in response that “Chappel testified

Plaintiff has not paid her at all for case-related work,” and that Dr. Aly
“testified he charged Plaintiff’s attorney $125 for a half-hour pre-deposition
meeting, yet seeks to charge ERAU an exorbitantly higher rate of
$550/hour—$300/hour more than charged to Plaintiff’s counsel.” See Doc.
No. 113, at 2–3. Plaintiff shall include with her reply evidence of the rates
Plaintiff has paid to Dr. Aly and LMFT Chappel for case-related work.
4.

The reasonableness of the requested fees for time expended outside of

deposition, to include time for preparation, travel, copying/scanning
documents, and consultation with counsel. See Doc. No. 101-4, at 2; Doc. No.
116-1, at 2. See also Gluck, 2020 WL 339593, at *2 (awarding different rates for
deposition time versus time spent in preparation).

-2-

5.

Failure to timely file a reply brief addressing each of these issues may

result in the summary denial of the motion. See Costa, 2014 WL 12618110, at
*1.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 26, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-