ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, District Judge.

On April 25, 2019, the court received the neutral expert's monthly invoice for services rendered through March 31, 2019. In accordance with the district court's January 8, 2019 order, ECF No. 6064 at 5, the court reviewed the invoice. On April 29, 2019, at the direction of the court, the courtroom deputy to the undersigned sent an email to the neutral expert requesting "an itemization for the services rendered in connection with the $15,950.00 charge billed for outside services/consultants, including a description of the services rendered, by whom they were provided, the total hours spent, and the hourly rate billed." The neutral expert submitted the requested information on the same day.

Following review of the additional information, on April 30, 2019, the neutral expert's proposed summary invoice was distributed to the parties. See ECF No. 6064 at 5. A copy of that summary invoice is filed concurrently with this order, along with the detailed billing summaries provided for the court's review, under seal.1 Attachment A, Invoices dated March 12, 2019 and April 6, 2019 (filed under seal). On May 7, 2019, defendants submitted objections to the proposed final invoice. See Attachment B, May 7, 2019 Letter from Supervising Deputy Attorney General Adriano Hrvatin to Honorable Deborah Barnes. On May 10, 2019, the neutral expert responded to defendants' objections. See Attachment C, May 10, 2019 Letter from Benjamin B. Wagner, Esq. to Honorable Deborah Barnes.

The court has reviewed defendants' objections and the neutral expert's response to those objections. Defendants request that the court disclose all itemized billing records submitted by the neutral expert now that his investigation is over. See Attachment B at 1. That request should be directed to the district court. Cf. ECF No. 6083 at 4 (district court order holding, inter alia, that "detailed billing statements [of the neutral expert] will be made a part of the record, filed under seal, until the investigation is concluded, and so available for appellate review."). The neutral expert has responded to defendants' specific billing item questions. See Attachment B at 1-2; Attachment C at 1. Finally, defendants preserve "their objection to payment of this and future invoices pending resolution of Defendants' pending motion requesting leave to deposit any remaining funds deemed payable" to the neutral expert and they request "that this Court defer ordering payment of the current invoice until the Court resolves Defendants' motion." Attachment B at 2. The latter request is controlled by the district court's order denying defendants' request for stay pending ruling on their motion, ECF No. 6121, and is denied.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain Attachment A to this order under seal until further order of court; and

2. Within ten business days from the date of this order defendants shall pay to the neutral expert the amount of $396,589.74 as reflected in the invoice for services rendered through March 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATTACHMENT B

Dear Magistrate Judge Barnes:

This letter concerns Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's April 11, 2019 invoice seeking $396,589.74 for services rendered in March 2019.

Defendants request that the Court disclose Gibson Dunn's itemized billing records supporting the current invoice, and all prior invoices, so that Defendants may evaluate the reasonableness of the work performed to date in this matter. The Court previously held that "the detailed billing statements will be made a part of the record, filed under seal until the investigation is concluded, and so available for appellate review." (Order 4, Feb. 11, 2019, ECF No. 6083.) Gibson Dunn argued, and the Court accepted, that disclosing the itemized billing records during its investigation could compromise Gibson Dunn's work. (Id. at 4-5.) On April 22, 2019, Gibson Dunn submitted its final report (see Minute Order, May 3, 2019, ECF No. 6146), which the Court published on the public docket on May 3, 2019. (Neutral Expert Report, May 3, 2019, ECF No. 6147.) Because Gibson Dunn has concluded its investigation into all the matters that the Court requested (see id. at 1-6, 25-91), Defendants now should have a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the itemized billing records and reasonableness of Gibson Dunn's fees (which have surpassed $1.1 million), and the Court should resolve any objections so that there is an adequate record for appellate review. (See E.D. Civ. L. R. 292 (setting forth the rules for taxing costs such as compensation of court-appointed experts, which include giving the party against whom costs are claimed the opportunity to file specific objections).)

With Gibson Dunn's itemized billing records in hand, Defendants could, in addition to analyzing the over 500 hours of work performed by seven timekeepers, evaluate certain questionable items billed as "costs/charges" in the April 11, 2019 invoice. For example, the invoice seeks $15,950 for "outside services/consultants." Gibson Dunn may only be compensated for work performed by team members approved by the Court. (See, e.g., Amended Order 2, Jan. 8, 2019, ECF No. 6064.) Without more information, Defendants and the Court cannot verify the propriety of this billing entry, particularly given Gibson Dunn's past submission of an invoice seeking payment for an unauthorized timekeeper. (See Order 1-2, Feb. 26, 2019, ECF No. 6099.) As a further example of why the Court should provide the detailed bills, the invoice seeks $3,053.00 for "transcripts/digesting." Although Gibson Dunn transcribed various witnesses' interviews during the investigation, the summary invoice does not describe how "digesting" is a reimbursable expense or who performed that task. As Gibson Dunn has completed its investigation, Defendants should have access to the expert's itemized billing records to inform their objections to the current invoice, and past and future invoices.

Defendants also state and reserve their objection to payment of this and future invoices pending resolution of Defendants' pending motion requesting leave to deposit any remaining funds deemed payable to Gibson Dunn into the Court's registry, given Defendants' appeal of the orders appointing Gibson Dunn under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The Court denied that part of Defendants' motion seeking to stay payment of the then pending and approved invoices (Order, Apr. 9, 2019, ECF No. 6122), but has not yet resolved the remainder of the motion. (Minute Order, May 1, 2019, ECF No. 6139.) To maintain the status quo, Defendants request that this Court defer ordering payment of the current invoice until the Court resolves Defendants' pending motion.

ATTACHMENT C

Dear Judge Barnes:

I am writing to respond to the defendants' letter dated May 7, 2019, concerning the neutral expert's invoice dated April 11, 2019, for services rendered in March. In their letter, the defendants state and reserve previously-stated objections, and make other requests to the Court. I write only to address the two specific items in the invoice which the defendants raise in their letter.

First, defendants inquire about the $15,950 cost item in the invoice for "outside services/consultants." The neutral expert represents that this expense consists entirely of time incurred by Greg Nelson, an expert in litigation support services, who was included in the initial designation of the investigative team in the neutral expert's filing on December 17, 2018. ECF 6044. Second, the defendants inquire about the $3,053 cost item in the invoice for "transcripts/digesting." This cost is entirely for the preparation of transcripts of interviews of CDCR witnesses by the court reporter, which cost was necessitated by the defendants' decision to require formal transcripts of the interviews of their witnesses. There was no "digesting" of transcripts done — this reference is merely to a description of the category of costs that Gibson Dunn's billing department assigns to court reporting costs in invoices.

In accordance with the Court's order, we have submitted the final invoice for services rendered in march to the Court, and request that it be approved for payment.