Souvenir v. Jordan
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-09335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Souvenir v. Jordan, Judge Seibel set deposition fees for three expert witnesses at reasonable hourly rates.
Shameka A. Souvenir, Kecia A. Jordan, Rockland Coaches, Inc., and the three expert witnesses whose deposition fees were set.
What happened
Souvenir v. Jordan concerns a vehicle collision involving Shameka A. Souvenir, Kecia A. Jordan, and Rockland Coaches, Inc. The parties later agreed to binding arbitration but asked the court to resolve disputes about expert-witness deposition fees.
Defendants sought a reasonable fee for Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Robinson, while Plaintiff sought reasonable fees for Defendants’ experts, Dr. Sherman and Dr. Coyne. The experts had requested flat fees, but the parties disputed the hourly rates and preparation and deposition time that should be compensated.
Judge Cathy Seibel ruled that Dr. Robinson was entitled to $1,900, Dr. Sherman to $1,350, and Dr. Coyne to $1,125 for their deposition preparation and testimony.
The detailed version
- Souvenir v. Jordan · No. 7:20-cv-09335
- Cathy Seibel
- Oct. 21, 2022
Background
This case arose from a collision between a vehicle owned by Rockland Coaches and driven by Kecia A. Jordan and a vehicle driven by Shameka A. Souvenir. The case began in state court, was later transferred to the Southern District of New York, and proceeded through discovery. The parties eventually agreed to resolve the matter through binding arbitration, but they asked the court to decide what reasonable fees should be paid for depositions of their expert witnesses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) requires the party seeking discovery to pay an opposing expert a reasonable fee for time spent preparing for and attending a deposition. The court explained that reasonable compensation generally should be based on an hourly rate rather than a flat fee. Relevant factors include the expert’s field, education and training, comparable rates, the nature and complexity of the discovery, geographic costs, and the fee charged to the retaining party.
Dr. Robinson
Dr. Robinson was Plaintiff’s treating physician and was board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation and electrodiagnostic medicine, with a separate sub-certification in pain management. He spent one hour preparing for the deposition and approximately three hours and forty-five minutes in the deposition, which took place by videoconference without travel.
Plaintiff requested $400 per hour and a total of $2,000. Defendants proposed $300 per hour, compensation for less deposition time, and a reduction for questions asked by Plaintiff’s counsel, producing a proposed total of $1,182. The court found that $400 per hour was reasonable and rejected the proposed reduction for questions by Plaintiff’s counsel. It awarded Dr. Robinson $1,900 for one hour of preparation and approximately 3.75 hours of deposition time.
Dr. Sherman
Dr. Sherman was Defendants’ board-certified orthopedic surgeon. He spent one hour preparing and approximately two hours in a videoconference deposition. Plaintiff proposed $400 per hour, or $1,200 total, while Defendants requested $500 per hour. Considering comparable awards and Dr. Sherman’s expertise, education, and training, the court set his reasonable rate at $450 per hour and awarded him $1,350.
Dr. Coyne
Dr. Coyne was Defendants’ board-certified radiologist. His deposition lasted just under one and a half hours. Although Defendants said he spent two hours preparing, his deposition testimony supported only one hour of preparation, and the court credited only that hour. The court set a reasonable rate of $450 per hour and awarded Dr. Coyne $1,125 for one hour of preparation and 1.5 hours of deposition time.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel concluded that the experts were entitled to the following reasonable deposition fees: Dr. Robinson, $1,900; Dr. Sherman, $1,350; and Dr. Coyne, $1,125. The opinion resolved the expert-fee dispute while the parties’ underlying matter was headed to binding arbitration.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.