G.T. v. United States
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-10901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In G.T. v. United States, Judge Netburn denied plaintiffs’ argument that defendants had agreed to pay their experts’ invoiced fees.
The plaintiffs, their experts Dr. Manganas, Dr. Root, and Dr. Weingarten, and the defendants were affected by the ruling concerning the reasonableness and payment of expert fees.
What happened
In G.T. v. United States, the plaintiffs asked for a conference about a dispute over the fees charged by their experts.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants implicitly agreed to the invoiced fees by not objecting before the experts’ depositions. The court said that failing to object at that time did not waive the defendants’ objections, and noted that the experts’ disclosed rates appeared different from their invoiced rates.
Judge Netburn denied the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants had to pay the invoiced fees on that basis. She directed the parties to discuss reasonable rates and allowed the plaintiffs to file a renewed conference motion within one week if they reached an impasse.
The detailed version
- G.T. v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-10901
- Sarah Netburn
- May 8, 2025
Background
On April 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a conference concerning the parties’ dispute over the reasonableness of fees charged by the plaintiffs’ experts. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ failure to object to the fees before taking the experts’ depositions amounted to an implicit agreement to pay the invoiced amounts.
Court’s analysis
The court held that, as a matter of law, the defendants’ failure to object before the depositions did not waive their right to challenge the fees. The court also stated that the experts’ disclosed rates appeared inconsistent with their invoiced rates, which undermined the plaintiffs’ waiver argument. The court explained that the party seeking compensation bears the burden of showing that the requested fees are reasonable. It found that the plaintiffs had not made that showing for fees sought by Dr. Manganas, Dr. Root, and Dr. Weingarten.
Ruling and next steps
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants had to pay the invoiced fees based on an implicit agreement. The parties were directed to meet and discuss what would constitute a reasonable rate. If they could not resolve the dispute, the plaintiffs could file a renewed motion for a conference within one week. The renewed motion was directed to address why the invoiced fees were reasonable under the factors discussed in Frederick v. Columbia Univ. The clerk was requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 99.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.