Clemmons v. Flora Food US Inc.

Document and request

This document is Plaintiff Duval Clemmons’s counsel’s letter requesting a pre-motion conference. The anticipated motion would ask the court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E), to order Upfield US Inc. to pay $1,625 in fees for Plaintiff’s expert, Andrea Matthews, Ph.D. The letter states that counsel spoke with defense counsel on April 28, 2025, as required before seeking discovery-related relief, but that Upfield’s counsel did not agree to the requested relief.

Background

The letter states that Plaintiff retained Matthews to provide expert testimony and that Upfield deposed her on February 14, 2024. It also states that on March 31, 2025, the Clerk entered judgment after the court granted summary judgment to Upfield. The document does not describe the underlying claims or the court’s summary-judgment reasoning.

Arguments about the expert fees

The letter relies on Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which generally requires the party seeking discovery from an expert to pay a reasonable fee for the expert’s time responding to that discovery, unless exceptional unfairness would result. It argues that the fee request was not too late, even though it was made after the deposition and after summary judgment.

The letter also argues that Plaintiff’s status as the party that did not obtain summary judgment does not prevent recovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(E). It contends that Matthews’s hourly rate was reasonable because her rate increased from $450 to $500 in early 2024, she had expertise in survey and research methodology and marketing research, and her education included a Ph.D. in business marketing and a master’s degree in survey research and methodology. The letter further argues that her work was complex and that 1.5 hours of preparation across February 12, 13, and 14 were compensable, in addition to the 1.75-hour deposition identified on the invoice.

Finally, the letter argues that requiring payment would not cause the exceptional unfairness described in the rule because compensating an expert for deposition time is generally mandatory and the rule is intended to prevent one party from providing expensive discovery for another party’s benefit without reimbursement.

Disposition

The supplied text is a party’s request for a pre-motion conference, not a court order deciding the request. It does not state that Judge Castel granted or denied a motion, ordered Upfield to pay the fees, or otherwise disposed of the request.