Terrebonne Parish NAACP et al v. Jindal et al

Filing 178

RULING: The 81 Motion to Fix Expert Witness Discovery Fee and Time for Payment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted in all respects except that the travel time costs submitted by Ronald Weber is reduced by $1,000. Plain tiffs shall pay the expert fees and expenses, as fixed by thisruling, for Michael Beychock ($2,750.00), Bruce L. Adelson ($7,000.00, and Ronald Weber ($4,707.64), within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/28/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TERREBONNE PARISH BRANCH
NAACP, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 14-69-JJB-SCR

PIYUSH “BOBBY” JINDAL, THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO FIX EXPERT FEES
Before the court is the Defendants’ Motion to Fix Expert
Witness Discovery Fee and Time for Payment filed by defendants
Bobby Jindal, in his official capacity as Governor for the State of
Louisiana, and James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana (Defendants). Record
document number 81.

The motion is opposed.1

Defendants filed this motion fix the fees of defense expert
witnesses Michael Beychok, Bruce L. Adelson, and Ronald Weber
pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Plaintiffs deposed

these experts on May 15, May 27, and June 5, 2015, respectively.
With their supporting memorandum the defendants submitted itemized
invoices for each of the experts and provided detailed explanations
of the costs charged.2

1

Record document number 100.
Defendants filed a reply
memorandum. Record document number 116.
2

Record document numbers 81-3, 81-5, and 81-7.

Plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ motion is premature
based on then-pending Daubert objections.3
the

admissibility

of

an

expert’s

Plaintiffs argued that

testimony

determining the reasonableness of the fee.

is

a

factor

in

Thus, plaintiffs

argued, if their challenges are successful and some or all of the
defendants’ expert testimony is excluded, the defendants should not
have to pay fees to an expert whose testimony is excluded or
limited.

Because the admissibility of each expert’s opinion had

not yet been resolved, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’
motion is premature.

The district judge later determined that

Adelson’s testimony would not be allowed, and the determination of
whether the testimony of Beychok and Weber would be allowed was
deferred until the trial.4
Plaintiffs failed to provide any controlling legal authority
to

establish

testimony

3

that

affects

the
the

ultimate

admissibility

assessment

of

fees

of

an

expert’s

under

Rules

Record document numbers 87, 88 and 89.

4

Record document number 151, Ruling.
The district judge
determined “that Adelson’s report [and testimony] offers little
more than legal conclusions, and thus is not helpful to the trier
of fact.” Id. at 5. However, it is now unclear whether Adelson,
or any of the other experts, will be allowed to produce
supplemental expert reports. Record document number 175, Order,
directing “the parties to confer with the Magistrate Judge to set
new deadlines for the following: Defendants’ expert reports, expert
discovery, Daubert motions, pretrial order, pretrial conference,
motions in limine, and the trial.” Plaintiffs subsequently filed
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for
Reconsideration of the Order. Record document number 177.
2

26(b)(4)(E)(I). Rule 26(b)(4)(A) specifically applies to an expert
whose opinions may be presented at trial. Thus, a determination of
the admissibility of the expert’s testimony is not a prerequisite
for payment of a reasonable fee fixed by the court.
Plaintiffs also argued that the defendants failed to satisfy
their burden in demonstrating the reasonableness of the charged
expert

fees.

Rule

26(b)(4)(E)(i)

requires

a

party

seeking

discovery from an expert under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) to pay the expert
a reasonable fee for time spent in responding such discovery.

The

party

the

seeking

reimbursement

reasonableness of the fees.

bears

the

burden

of

proving

Factors considered in assessing the

reasonableness of an expert’s fee include:(1) the witness's area of
expertise; (2) the education and training required to provide the
expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates of other
comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality,
and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the fee
actually charged to the party who retained the expert; (6) fees
traditionally charged by the expert on related matters; and (7) any
other factor likely to assist the court in balancing the interests
implicated by Rule 26.

Ball v. LeBlanc, 13-368, 2015 WL 5793929,

1 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015); Miller v. Credit, 12-138, 2013 WL
1833310, 2 (M.D. La. May 1, 2013).
Plaintiffs argued that the hourly rates charged by the experts
is unreasonable.

Defendants’ experts charged the following hourly

3

rates for their depositions and discovery production: (1) Beychok
at $250.00 per hour; (2) Adelson at $500.00 per hour; and (3) Weber
at $250.00 per hour.

Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants

failed to show how the experts’ expertise, education, and training
justifies these hourly rates.
defendants

failed

to

Plaintiffs also argued that the

establish

similar

prevailing

rates

for

comparable experts and/or that the nature, quality, and complexity
of the discovery supports these rates.
A review of the record shows that the hourly rates charged by
Beychock, Adelson and Weber are reasonable.

Defendants provided

evidence to establish that the rates charged to the plaintiffs are
the same rates contractually charged to the defendants in this case
and are the same rates that were charged for services provided in
a case previous litigated in this district, Hall v. Louisiana, CV
12-657-BAJ-RLB.

Given the nature and complexity of the issues

presented in this case of 1965,

alleged violations the Voting Rights Act

high levels of expertise, education, and training are

necessary. Defendants established that their experts possess these
qualifications and they analyzed complicated data, including census
reports, election records, campaign finance records, other expert
reports, depositions and trial testimony.

With respect to the

higher rate charged by Adelson, the defendants showed that his
legal and expert witness credentials warrant the higher rate.5

5

Record document number 81-1, pp 4-5.
4

Plaintiffs also objected to the following specific charges:
two hours charged by Weber for collecting and producing documents;
equivalent hourly rates for deposition preparation and deposition
testimony;

seven

hours

charged

by

Adelson

for

deposition

preparation; and two hours charged by Weber for reviewing his
deposition transcript. Defendants provided detailed invoices which
are substantiated by the experts’ deposition testimony.

Although

Adelson testified at his deposition that he spent approximately six
hours preparing for the deposition but itemized seven hours for
deposition preparation in his invoice, this discrepancy does not
warrant a reduction to the invoice charge.
more

detailed

account

of

the

services

The invoice provides a
provided

and

will

be

credited.
None of the billed hours reflected in the invoices are
facially

egregious.

Plaintiffs

accounting of the hours billed.

did

not

dispute

the

actual

Instead, the plaintiffs made

conclusory arguments, based on non-controlling and distinguishable
case law, that charges for the above-mentioned services were
unreasonable.
were inflated.

But there is no evidence showing that the invoices
A review of the invoices shows that the services

listed are reasonable for providing the requested depositions and
discovery.

Plaintiffs’ objections to specifically billed charges

for services rendered are unsupported.
With respect to Weber’s travel expenses, the plaintiffs’

5

objection to payment because the defendants elected to have Weber
travel

to

Louisiana

for

his

deposition

is

without

merit.

Plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that they objected to
taking

his

deposition

deposition in Oregon.

in

Louisiana

or

offered

to

take

his

However, the defendants’ request for eight

hours of travel time at the full hourly rate of $250.00 charged by
Weber is unreasonable. This court has held that travel time should
be reimbursed at half the expert’s hourly rate.6

Accordingly,

Weber’s fees should be reduced by $1,000.00.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Fix Expert Witness
Discovery Fee and Time for Payment is granted in part and denied in
part.

The motion is granted in all respects except that the

travel time costs submitted by Ronald Weber is reduced by $1,000.
Plaintiffs shall pay the expert fees and expenses, as fixed by this
ruling,

for

Michael

Beychock

($2,750.00),

Bruce

L.

Adelson

($7,000.00, and Ronald Weber ($4,707.64), within 14 days.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 28, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Ball v. LeBlanc, supra.
6