ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.

On February 19, 2019, the court received the neutral expert's monthly invoice for services rendered through January 31, 2019. In accordance with the district court's January 8, 2019 order, ECF No. 6064 at 5, the court reviewed the invoice and, by order filed February 26, 2019, directed the neutral expert to submit a new summary invoice omitting certain requested payments. ECF No. 6099. The revised summary invoice was distributed to the parties on March 1, 2019. See ECF No. 6064 at 5. A copy of that revised invoice is filed concurrently with this order, along with the detailed billing summary provided for the court's review, under seal.1 Attachment A, Email dated March 9, 209 from Benjamin Wagner, Esq. (filed under seal).

On March 8, 2019, defendants submitted objections to the proposed final invoice. See Attachment B, March 8, 2019 Letter from Supervising Deputy Attorney General Adriano Hrvatin to Honorable Deborah Barnes. On March 9, 2019, the neutral expert responded to defendants' objections. See Attachment C, March 9, 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' first objection is interposed to preserve certain rights before the district court and on appeal. Defendants' second objection has been satisfactorily addressed by the neutral expert in his response.

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 five days from the date of this order defendants shall pay to the neutral expert the amount of $342,771.94 as reflected in the final invoice for services rendered through January 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATTACHMENT B

RE: Coleman, et al. v. Newsom, et al. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB

Dear Magistrate Judge Barnes:

Defendants submit the following objections to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's February 6, 2019 invoice in the amount of $342,771.94 for services rendered in January 2019.

First, Defendants state and reserve their standing objection to Gibson Dunn's request that the Court withhold under seal its itemized billing records supporting the invoice that would otherwise allow the parties to evaluate the reasonableness of the work performed. The Court 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.) Defendants submit this objection to preserve their ability to challenge the amount billed by Gibson Dunn in this proceeding at the appropriate time before the District Court and on appeal. See Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2013) (requiring that a court "show its work" when evaluating fee demands).

Defendants similarly reserve their right to request that the Court allow Defendants to deposit funds deemed payable to Gibson Dunn in January 2019 and in connection with future invoices into the Court's registry to maintain the status quo pending Defendants' appeal of the Court's orders appointing Gibson Dunn as investigators under Federal Rule of Evidence 706.

Second, the invoice includes a number of questionable items billed as "costs/charges." For example, the invoice seeks $13,000 for "outside services/consultants." Gibson Dunn may only be compensated for work performed by team members approved by the Court. (See, e.g., Amended Appointment Order 2, Jan. 8, 2019, ECF No. 6064.) Without more information, Defendants and the Court cannot verify the propriety of this alleged billing entry. Moreover, the invoice seeks reimbursement for "travel-taxi and other modes/miles" in the amount of $281.87, and "travel-parking" in the amount of $107.50. The Court's appointment order provided that "[t]he expert shall not be compensated for travel time to and from Sacramento, California." (Id. at 5.) Defendants seek confirmation that Gibson Dunn has not billed for any time associated with travel to or from Sacramento. The invoice separately includes a $25.63 cost or charge for "court fees," although the case's docket reflects no Gibson Dunn filing requiring a "court fee."

Defendants appreciate this Court's analysis of Gibson Dunn's invoice for services rendered in January 2019, which the Court initially rejected because Gibson Dunn sought compensation for Christopher Karnes, who had not been approved as a member of the expert's team, and reimbursement for "Specialized Research." (Order 1-2, Feb. 26, 2019, ECF No. 6099.) Based on the issues identified above, Defendants here request further revision to Gibson Dunn's invoice.

ATTACHMENT C

Re: Coleman, et al. v. Newsom, et al.; Response to Defendants' objection

Dear Judge Barnes:

I am writing to respond to the defendants' letter dated March 8, 2019, objecting to the neutral expert's invoice for services rendered in January, which this Court reviewed as reflected in its Order of February 26, 2019. ECF 6099. The invoice was revised in accordance with that Order, and the revised invoice was submitted to the Court. We understand that a summary of the revised invoice was provided to the defendants on March 1 in accordance with paragraph C(1) of the district court's order of January 8, 2019. ECF 6064.

In their letter of March 8, the defendants state and reserve previously-stated objections. In addition, they assert three objections or requests for clarification. First, they object to the $13,000 for outside services/consultants, on the ground that, without more information, they cannot determine if that work was performed by someone approved by the Court pursuant to the Court's prior order. Second, they note that the invoices includes travel and parking costs totaling $389.37, and seek assurance that no compensation was sought for travel time involving travel to Sacramento. Third, they object to a $25.63 court fee, which is not reflected on the docket of the case.

The neutral expert responds by providing the following information with respect to these three items. On the first objection, the neutral expert represents, as it did to the Court, that the $13,000 expense for outside consultants 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. On the second objection, the costs identified by the defendants relate to parking and transportation costs incurred by the neutral expert team in connection with their attendance at meetings with the defendants and their counsel, and with other witnesses. As noted in the defendants' letter, the Court's order of appointment directed that the neutral expert "shall not be compensated for travel time to and from Sacramento, California." ECF 6064, at 5. Gibson Dunn has not billed for any time associated with travel to or from Sacramento. As to the final matter, the $25.63 court fee referenced in the invoice is to court fees incurred in obtaining good standing certificates required for key members of the neutral expert's team to be admitted to the Eastern District and enrolled in ECF in order to access relevant documents in the underlying litigation.

In accordance with the Court's order, we are submitting the final revised invoice for services rendered in January to the Court, and request that it be approved for payment. Sincerely,