ENGLISH v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1:16-cv-02335
D.D.C.Nov 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chimwala F. English brought wrongful death and survival claims after Reginald Burrell was struck by a WMATA bus and died days later; WMATA admits the driver was acting in scope but denies negligence.
- WMATA’s medical expert, Dr. Romergryko G. Geocadin, was deposed June 9, 2017; Plaintiff paid the deposition fee at that time.
- WMATA later invoiced Plaintiff $5,950 for Dr. Geocadin’s deposition preparation time; Plaintiff has not paid the invoice.
- WMATA moved to compel Plaintiff to pay the expert preparation fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E).
- Plaintiff opposed, arguing (1) WMATA failed to meaningfully confer as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m) and (2) WMATA failed to prove the reasonableness of the billed time and rate.
- The magistrate judge denied WMATA’s motion without prejudice, finding WMATA did not satisfy Local Civil Rule 7(m)’s good-faith confer requirement and therefore the court did not reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should compel Plaintiff to pay expert’s deposition-prep fees under Rule 26(b)(4)(E) | WMATA failed to meaningfully confer under Local Civ. R. 7(m); merits unripe | WMATA seeks reimbursement for expert preparation time and billed rate as required when a party notices a deposition | Denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. R. 7(m); WMATA may renew after meaningful conferral |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Dist. of Columbia, 272 F.R.D. 135 (D.D.C. 2011) (expert prep time for a deposition is compensable under Rule 26(b)(4)(E))
- Schmidt v. Solis, 272 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (time preparing for deposition constitutes responding to discovery)
- Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 729 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2010) (party seeking reimbursement bears burden to prove fee reasonableness)
- Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 460 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2006) (Local Civ. R. 7(m) requires real steps to confer; failure can justify denying nondispositive motions)
- United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., 235 F.R.D. 521 (D.D.C. 2006) (duty to confer under local and federal rules is mandatory and failure may warrant denial of motion)