This case involved a motion by the plaintiff requesting that the defendant pay fees associated with the plaintiff’s photography expert witness. Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., No. 14-cv-1158, 2016 WL 8729928 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2016). The defendant responded by requesting the court only require the defendant to reimburse the expert for time spent travelling to and participating in his deposition, as the defendant argued that the additional fees that were requested were not reasonable. Id. The defendant argued that it is unreasonable to pay for the expert’s time spent preparing for the deposition. Id. The court found that “the deposing party is required to pay the expert’s fees for time reasonably spent preparing for the deposition only in complex cases or extenuating circumstances.” Id.
The defendant in this case had agreed to pay for the hours the witness spent preparing, however the defendant argued that the number of hours spent preparing is unreasonable. Id. Instead the defendant argued that it should only have to pay for the number of hours of preparation that are included in multiplying the deposition length times a 1.5 multiplier. Id. Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that a multiplier of 3 should be used. Id. The expert witness reported preparing 29 hours for the deposition, and the court found this number of hours for a one-day deposition to be unreasonable. Id. Thus, the court did not require the defendant to pay for all of the hours the witness spent preparing, and instead agreed that the 1.5 multiplier was an appropriate standard to use to calculate the number of hours spent preparing that the defendant would reimburse the plaintiff for. Id.