Transcript Judge Barton 1.30 Pm Mar 20 2008

8/13/2019 Transcript Judge Barton 1.30 Pm Mar 20 2008

1/71

BERRYHILL & ASSOCIATES, INC.501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1225

Tampa, Florida 33602- -

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTYGENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J. GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff,C AS E NO : 0 5- CA -0 07 20 5

vs.D IV IS IO N: " C"

B AR KE R, R OD EM S & C OO K, P . A .,

a Florida corporation; andWILLIAM J. COOK,

Defendants./

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES M. BARTONCircuit Judge

TAKEN AT: Hillsborough County CourthouseTampa, Florida

DATE: March 20, 2008

TIME: 1:30 p.m.

REPORTED BY: BEVERLY ANN HUNTERNotary Public

S ta te o f F lo ri da a t L ar ge

STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED (ORIGINAL__)COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION (COPY __)


2/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Plaintiff:

R OB ER T W . B AU ER , ESQUIREAttorney At LawFB N: 1105 82815 NW 13th StreetSuite 200EGainesville, Florida 32609-2865352-375-5960 Telephone352-337-2518 [email protected] E-mail

On behalf of the Defendant:

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIREB ar ke r, R od em s & C oo k, P . A .F BN: 9 47 65 2400 North Ashley DriveSuite 2100Tampa, Florida 33602-4300813-489-1001 Telephone813-489-1008 [email protected] E-mail


3/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



I N D E X

WITNESS: PAGE:

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMSTestimony by Mr. Rodems: 11Cross Examination by Mr. Bauer: 15

JOHN WILLIAM GARDNERDirect Examination by Mr. Rodems: 32Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Bauer: 35Direct Examination by Mr. Rodems(con't): 39Cross Examination by Mr. Bauer: 46

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER: 59


4/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



P R O C E E D I N G S

T HE C OU RT : H ow 's e ve ry bo dy d oi ng ?

M R. R O DE MS : G oo d, J u dg e.

MR . BA UER : F in e, s i r.

TH E COURT : Good. All rig ht. We 're here

this afternoon in Gillespie versus Barker, Rodems

and Cook.

MR . RO DE MS: Y es , si r. O ri gi na lly , we w er e

scheduled on the hearing on the attorney's fees

a nd t he n M r. B au er f il ed a m ot io n t o c on ti nu e a nd

w e w er e t ol d y es te rd ay t ha t w e w ou ld t ak e t ha t u p

this morning, or this afternoon first, and see

where things went from there.

T HE C OU RT : Y ea h, I m ea n, i t' s b e en c on ti nu ed

s ev er al t im es b ef or e. A nd w he n d i d t he n ot ic e g o

o ut o n t hi s?

M R. B AU ER : I t' s o nl y b ee n c on ti nu ed o nc e,

Your Honor.

TH E COURT : H uh?

M R. B AU ER : I t' s o nl y b ee n c on ti nu ed o nc e.

T HE C OU RT : R ig ht, b ut t he n ot ic e w en t o ut,

for this hearing, January the 30th.

MY BAUER: Y es, sir.

T HE C OU RT : A nd t he m ot io n w as f ile d w he n?

M R. R OD EM S: T he n ot ic e, o r t h e a f fi da vi t o f


5/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



a tt or ne y' s f ee s a nd t he n ot ic e o f h ea ri ng f or t he

original hearing were both filed in November.

T HE C OU RT : L as t ye ar ?

MR . R O DE MS: Or N ov em be r o f 2 00 7.

T HE C OU RT : S o, I m ea n, we 're w ay d ow n t he

l in e h er e. I t' s b ee n c on ti nu ed o nc e a nd i f w e

c on ti nu e i t a ga in , f or w ha t, a c ou pl e o f y ea rs ?

Would that be enough time?

MR. BAUER: No, s ir. No, sir. All I n eed is

t wo w ee ks a t m os t, o r e ve n a w ee k, j us t e no ug h

t im e I - - w e h av e b ee n s ea rc hi ng f or a n e xp er t

t ha t - - i n t hi s a re a t ha t w as w il li ng t o d o a

r ev ie w o f t he h ou rs a nd m ak e a d et er mi na ti on o f

it. W e h av e sp en t a pp ro xi ma te ly 3 0 h our s in o ur

office since December, since before the original

hearing was scheduled. We've been unsuccessful.

W e h av e b ee n c on ta ct in g f am il y f ri en ds o f s om e o f

o ur s ec re ta ri es t o t ry a nd g et s om eb od y a nd o nl y

- - n ot y es te rd ay b ut t he d ay b ef or e, l at e i n t he

afternoon, finally got a Frank H. Gassler to agree

to be a bl e t o r ev ie w t he se b ut he ne ed s t o c om e up

a nd l oo k t hr ou gh a ll of o ur f il es a nd l oo k a t a ll

t he -- f in d a ll t he d if fe re nt i ss ue s a s f ar a s t he

letters --

TH E COURT : Okay. Was h e told w hen t he


6/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



hearing was?

MY B AU ER: Y es, s ir , b u t, I m ea n, t ha t' s - -

it w as -- he 's d ow n h ere in T am pa --

T HE C OU RT : D id y ou t el l h i m t he m ot io n h ad

b ee n f il ed l as t y ea r a nd h ad b ee n c on ti nu ed o nc e

a nd t ha t i t m ig ht n ot b e c on ti nu ed a ga in , s o

p le as e c om e a nd l oo k at t he f il es a nd - -

MR . B AU ER : I d on' t t hi nk h e w as -- w as n't

a va il ab le to be a bl e to c ome t ha t qu ic k. It 's

o nl y o ne d ay , Y ou r H on or , t ha t w e h ad f ro m T ue sd ay

a ft er no on . I t hi nk , y ou k no w, i t' s a pp ro pr ia te t o

g iv e o ur e xp er t a s uf fi ci en t a mo un t o f t im e t o

c om e a nd l oo k a t t he se t hi ng s a nd f or u s t o b e

a bl e t o d is cu ss w it h h im so t ha t w e c an h av e a

g oo d o pi ni on o f t he d if fe re nt i ss ue s a nd b e a bl e

to forward our position for our client.

I m ea n, I d o u nd er st an d, y ou k no w, t he

Court's comments on the time period.

Unfortunately, part of the problem with this case

is it' s j us t be en t he t yp e of c as e t ha t i t i s w he n

i t' s a p ro s e l it ig an t o ri gi na ll y w as s ui ng a n

a tt or ne y. U m, m os t a tt or ne ys d on 't w an t t o h av e

a ny th in g t o d o w it h t ha t a nd t he c li en t - -

T HE C OU RT : O h, I h ea r t he s am e p ro bl em w hen

a d oc to r i s g ett in g s ued -- oh , w e d on 't - - b ut


7/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



s om eh ow p eo pl e f in d a w ay t o g et w it ne ss es a nd ,

y ou k no w, it c an t ak e a wh il e b ut, y ou k no w, at

s om e p oi nt t he c lo ck 's g ot t o s to p t ic ki ng .

Well, what says the defendant?

MR . R OD EM S: W el l, Ju dg e, w e d id fi le a

r es po ns e i n w ri ti ng b ut , y ou k no w, b ac k i n

N ov em be r w he n w e s er ve d o ur a ff id av it a nd s et t hi s

h ea ri ng a nd w e w er e a sk ed t o m ov e i t f ro m

J an ua ry 4 th t o J an ua ry 1 1t h, a nd t he n f ro m J an ua ry

1 1t h t o M ar ch 2 0t h, n ob od y e ve r s ai d t o m e t ha t

there was a problem with obtaining an expert.

T HE C OU RT : W el l, u nt il n ow .

MR . R OD EM S: U nt il n ow, r igh t. B ut, c le arl y,

y ou k no w, t hi s t hi ng h as b ee n g oi ng o n s in ce

N ov em be r o f 2 00 7, i n t er ms o f s et ti ng t hi s f or a

h ea ri ng o n t he f ee s a nd I 'v e p re pa re d M r. G ar dn er

t wi ce n ow a nd , y ou k no w, I 'm r ea dy t o g o f or wa rd

a nd I' d l ik e to g et t his p or ti on o f t he c as e ta ke n

care o f s o that we c an move on with th e rest of

the case.

Y ou k no w, I r ea ll y -- I r ea ll y t hin k t ha t at

t hi s p oi nt h e' s b ee n t he b en ef ic ia ry o f o ne

continuance, Mr. Bauer has, by agreement and

a no the r o ne m ov in g i t f ro m t he 4t h t o t he 11 th o f

J an ua ry , a nd I h av e M r. G ar dn er h er e, I 'm r ea dy t o


8/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



go a nd, y ou k no w, I w as o nly c on ta ct ed , I t hi nk it

w as t wo d ay s a go , a bo ut t ry in g t o c on ti nu e t hi s

one.

W he n I w as a sk ed t o c on ti nu e t he h ea ri ng f ro m

J an ua ry 1 1t h, 2 00 8, i t w as b ec au se M r. B au er h ad

an op po rt un ity to m ee t wi th a c li en t i n a n ew

m at te r o f s om e l eve l. I b el ie ve i t i nv ol ved a

serious catastrophic injury of some sort and I

c er ta in ly w ou ld n ot h av e w an te d M r. B au er t o m is s

o ut on an o pp or tu ni ty to t ak e t ha t c as e, s o I

agreed to continue this hearing with the

understanding that we would get it rescheduled and

we couldn't get it rescheduled until March 20th.

A nd n ow h er e we a re a nd t wo d ay s a go h e w an ts to

r es ch ed ul e i t a ga in . T hi s t im e n o t b ec au se o f h i s

o wn s ch ed ul e b ut b ec au se o f t he f ac t t ha t h e w as

unable to find an expert and, quite honestly,

J ud ge , t he n ot io n t ha t h e c ou ld n' t f in d a n e xp er t

b ec aus e o f t he n at ur e of t he c as e I f in d t o b e

h ar d t o b el ie ve s im pl y b ec au se t he i ss ue i n t hi s

c as e i s a bo ut a tt or ne y' s f ee s o we d f or h is

client's violation of this Court's orders and for

filing frivolous pleadings. It's not a situation

w he re s om eb od y c am e i n a nd s ai d, m y t im e w as n ot

worthwhile, or whatever, that it would create, you


9/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



know, animosity or something like that.

S o, I m ea n, j us t t o b e h on es t, J ud ge , w e' re

h er e, w e' re r ea dy t o g o a nd w e t hi nk w e s ho ul d

move forward.

MY B AU ER: I f I c ou ld r es po nd , Y ou r H on or.

T HE CO URT : S ur e.

MR. BAUER : As f ar as it being hard to

believe, I've never been anything but open and

frank and honest with this Court and opposing

counsel, so.

We have discussed with many individuals and,

y ou k no w, it 's b ee n a l oo k of, w el l, w e w an t to

keep an ongoing, good relationship in this town.

W e d on 't w an t t o b e g oi ng u p a ga in st l oc al

attorneys.

T he re 's a ls o b ee n t he i ss ue i s p eo pl e n ot

w an ti ng t o b e q ua li fi ed o n t he i ss ue b ec au se o f

t he re 's t he a pp el la te i ss ue a s t o w he th er o r n ot

they're going forward with appellates. Many of

the attorneys that we contacted felt that they

didn't have experience in all of the different

areas as far as malpractice and appellate issues

a nd t he y f el t t ha t t he y c ou ld n' t c om e b ef or e t he

Court and qualify them as experts.

W he th er - - t ha t is t he r oa d b lo ck s w e r an up


10/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

a ga ins t. Y es , w e h av e - - w e h a ve r un u p a g ain st

s om e m a ny p eo pl e u nw il li ng . W e, f or t he l on ge st

t im e, f el t t ha t, w el l, w e' re t ry in g t he b es t t ha t

we can to get experts . We just ca n' t g et an

e xp er t, s o w e' ll h av e t o g o f or wa rd w it h t he

hearing.

T wo d ay s a go - - w e' ve c on ti nu ed t he w ho le

t im e t o t ry a nd g et e xp er ts , a nd f in al ly w e f ou nd

o ne a nd n ow t ha t w e h ave I' ve a ls o f ou nd - -

there's case law, Carpenter v. Carpenter, First

A pp el la te , 1 9 84 , 4 51 S o. 2n d 9 14 . T he C ou rt f ou nd

t ha t i t w as a bu se o f d is cr et io n f or t he C ou rt n ot

t o g ra nt a c on ti nu an ce w he n a p ar ty f ou nd a n

e xp er t w it ne ss o ne d ay b ef or e a t ri al , t ha t t he y

w ou ld h av e b ee n a bl e t o t es ti fy o n v ar io us i ss ue s

a s f ar a s d am ag es .

I think it's appropriate in this situation

t ha t - - I a pp re ci at e t ha t t hi s h as , y ou k no w, b ee n

c on ti nu ed b ef or e. W e h av e b ee n h o ne st ly a nd i n

g oo d f ai th a tt em pt in g t o t ry t o g et a n e xp er t a nd

only recently have gotten one.

T HE C OU RT : A nd I a gr ee w it h t he s ta te me nt o f

l aw a pp li ed h er e b y t he F ir st D is tr ic t C ou rt o f

Appeal back in 1984, that special circumstances

m ay r eq ui re a c on ti nu an ce w he re t he re h as b ee n - -


11/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

there has not been sufficient time to complete

d is co ve ry - - u nl ik e h er e w he re t he re h as - - a nd

properly prepare for trial -- unlike here where

t he re h as b ee n - - a nd w he re a c on ti nu an ce c au se s

no substantial prejudice or injustice to the

opposing party, which, again, it's been delayed

f or -- at le as t o nc e f or a c ou pl e of t hr ee m on th s

a nd n ow h as s om eb od y t ha t i f t he y h av en 't p ai d

them, they're obligated to pay them.

So I' m g oi ng to d en y t he m ot io n f or a

continuance. So, counsel, you may proceed.

MR . RO DE MS: T ha nk y ou, Y ou r Ho no r. I w ou ld

l ik e t o f ir st t es ti fy a bo ut m y f ee s.

T HE C OU RT : D o y ou b ot h s wea r o r a ff ir m t o

t el l t he t ru th , t he w ho le t ru th , a nd n ot hi ng b ut

the truth?

MR. RODE MS: Yes, si r, I do .

MR. G ARDNER: I d o.

Thereupon,

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS,

A w it ne ss , b ei ng f ir st d ul y s wo rn t o t el l t he t ru th , t he

w ho le t ru th a nd n ot hi ng b ut t he t ru th , w as e xa mi ne d a nd

testified as follows:

M R. R OD EM S: J ud ge , a g ai n, I 'm R ya n

Christopher Rodems. I'm the attorney that's


12/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

representing the defendants in this action. This

a ct io n w as f il ed b ac k in 2 00 5, at a t im e w he n

M r. G il le sp ie w as p ro s e.

During the course of the litigation before

Mr. Bauer became involved, we served discovery on

M r. G il le sp ie . H e d i d n ot c om pl y w i th i t t i me ly .

We h ad to f il e a m ot io n to c om pe l wh ic h w as

granted by the Judge Nielsen.

Subsequently, Judge Nielsen faced a motion to

disqualify by Mr. Gillespie which was determined

by Judge Nielsen to be legally insufficient;

however, on his on volition, Judge Nielsen recused

h im sel f f r om t he c as e. At th at p oi nt,

Mr. Gillespie immediately filed a motion for

rehearing on the July 24th, 2006 discovery order,

a nd t he c as e w as a ss ig ne d t o J ud ge I so m.

We h ad a h ear in g i n f ro nt o f J ud ge I so m a nd

she declined to change Judge Nielsen's rulings on

the discovery order, and before that hearing was

even concluded then before Judge Isom, Mr.

Gillespie announced the intent to disqualify Judge

I so m. S he s to pp ed t he h ea ri ng a t t h at p oi nt ,

requested that he put his motion in writing, which

M r. G il le sp ie t he n d id . J ud ge I so m r ev ie we d i t,

found the motion to be legally insufficient, but


13/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

as did Judge Nielsen, several days later recused

herself of her own volition.

A t t ha t p oi nt , w e c am e b ef or e Y ou r H on or b y

-- along the way Mr. Gillespie apparently decided

to withdraw his defenses to our counterclaim, to

our client's counterclaim. We had previously

before that filed a motion for sanctions under

5 7. 10 5. T he re w er e s ev er al o cc as io ns w he n I w ro te

t o M r. G il le sp ie , p ro s e a t t he t im e, a nd

e xp la in ed t o h im t ha t t he d ef en se s t ha t h e w as

alleging to our counterclaim for defamation had no

basis in l aw or fact. H e h ad pled things such a s

the Economic Loss Rule. Ultimately, Mr. Gillespie

d is cl os ed t ha t t he r ea so n h e p le d t he d ef en se s h e

p le d i s b ec au se h e r ea d o ur a ns we r t o h is

complaint which sounded in tort and contract and

just repeated our defenses.

In a ny e ve nt , w e h ad to go t hr ou gh o ne

h ea ri ng o n a m ot io n - - o n h is m ot io n t o d is mi ss

during which Judge Nielsen began denying the

various attacks that Mr. Gillespie had filed.

Shortly before Mr. Bauer took over, or possibly

e ve n r ig ht a ft er M r. B au er t oo k o ve r,

Mr. Gillespie withdrew the remainder of the

o ff en di ng d ef en ce s. S o w e s et a h ea ri ng b ef or e


14/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

Y ou r H on or o n t he m ot io n f or s an ct io ns p ur su an t t o

57.105 and Your Honor granted that motion and

determined that sanctions would be awarded against

Mr. Gillespie.

I h av e p re pa re d a nd f il ed w it h t he C ou rt a n

a ff id av it o f t he t im e t ha t I h av e s pe nt i n t hi s

c as e o n t he se t wo i ss ue s; t he J ul y 2 4t h, 2 00 6

o rd er g ra nt in g t he m ot io n t o c om pe l, a nd t he i ss ue

relating to Mr. Gillespie's counter-defense --

defenses to our counterclaim and the total amount

o f t im e t ha t I h av e i nc ur re d i s 3 5 h ou rs .

T he - - m y a ff id av it d oe s c on ta in a d et ai le d

l is tin g o f t he t im e t hat I sp en t. T he t im e t ha t I

spent was recorded contemporaneously. These are

t he h ou rs t ha t I w ou ld h av e b il le d t o a ny c li en t

w ho w oul d h av e h ir ed o ur l aw f ir m, a nd I h av e

r ev ie we d a ll o f t he e nt ri es a nd I b el ie ve t ha t a ll

o f t he se e nt ri es d o r el at e t o t he t as ks t ha t w er e

necessitated by Mr. Gillespie's failure to provide

discovery leading to the July 24th, 2006 order,

and by Mr. Gillespie's filing of the defenses

w hi ch h ad n o l eg al o r f ac tu al b as is .

I a m b oa rd -c er ti fi ed i n c iv il t ri al l aw a nd

I 'v e b e en p ra ct ic in g l aw s in ce 1 99 2. I 'm a ls o A V

r at ed b y M a rt in da le -H ub be ll . I a m - - I h av e b ee n


15/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

a m em be r o f t he W il li am T er re ll H od ge s I nn s o f

C ou rt f or s ev er al y ea rs a nd I h av e p ub li sh ed o r

co-authored two books. I've also taught business

l aw a t H il ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y C ol le ge . I 'v e b ee n

t ry in g c as es f or t he l as t 1 6 y ea rs . I t hin k th os e

qualifications are sufficient to be awarded an

a tt or ne y' s f ee of in e xc es s of $3 00 p er h ou r b ut I

do have Mr. Gardner to testify about attorney's

f ee s f r om t ha t s t an dp oi nt . A nd I b el ie ve t ha t

a wa rd in g a tt or ne y' s f ee s o f 3 5 h ou rs i n t hi s c as e

is appropriate given the work that was required by

Mr. Gillespie's actions.

T ha t w ou ld b e t he s um o f m y t es ti mo ny , Y ou r

Honor.

TH E COURT : Okay. Cross ?

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY Y BAUER:

Q. How many 57.105 actions have you been involved

in?

A. I f il ed I b el ie ve t wo i n t h is c as e a nd I m ay h av e

f il ed o ne or two o the r o ne s in my c ar eer b ut I c ou ld n' t

be sure exactly.

Q. So you were familiar with the proceedures prior

t o t hi s c as e?

A. I'm familiar with the proceedures.


16/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

Q. For filing a 57.105?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I n ot ed q ui te a f ew i nd ic at io ns o n y ou r h ou rl y

write-up; it has you personally preparing notices, you

p er so na ll y p re pa ri ng l et te rs f or f il in g. I s i t

c us to ma ry i n o ur p ra ct ic e f or t he a tt or ne ys t o d o - - t o

do that?

A. To do -- ce rt ain ly . I d ic ta te t he l et te rs a nd

then I review them when they've been transcribed.

Occasionally, if the letter is short enough, I'll go

ah ead and do my own typing. As f ar a s n otices , I do

d ic ta te w ha t n ee ds t o b e i n th e n ot ic e a nd t he n I d o

review those after they've been transcribed and, you

know, when necessary, make the editing changes, yes,

sir.

Q. A nd y ou b el ie ve i t' s r ea so na bl e t ha t i t t ak es y ou

1 2 m in ut es , p ro ba bl y u p t o 1 5, d ep en di ng o n h ow y ou

r ou nd w it h y ou r . 2 n um be rs , t o d o a v er y s im pl e n ot ic e

of hearing?

A. W hic h o ne a re y o u r ef er ri ng t o? Is t he re a

specific entry?

Q. It w ou ld be - - o ne of t ho se i s r ef er en ce d on

9/12/2006, prepared a notice of hearing regarding motion

f or o rd er t o s ho w c au se .

A. Y es , i n t ha t c as e t ha t w as d ef in it el y t he


17/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

s it ua ti on b ec au se w e - - w e h ad a s it ua ti on w he re w e h ad

t he J ul y 2 4t h, 2 00 6 o rd er , m ul ti pl e l et te rs b y m e t o M r.

Gillespie, or contacts between me and Mr. Gillespie, and

I n ee de d t o r ev ie w t he f il e. I m ea n, Mr . B a ue r, as

y ou 'r e n ow a wa re , t hi s f il e h as b ee n g oi ng o n s in ce 2 00 5

s om et im e a nd M r. G ar dn er b ro ug ht m y f il e w it h h im t od ay

an d it now takes up three boxes . So there is quite a

b it t o r ev ie w a nd i n p re pa ri ng t ha t n ot ic e, I d id n ee d

t o f am il ia ri ze m ys el f w it h w ha t w en t o n i n t he c as e.

So between dictating it, reviewing it and

r ev ie wi ng t he f il e, I t hi nk 1 2 m in ut es i s p ro ba bl y

fairly conservative.

Q. B ut n on e o f t ho se o th er c om me nt s t ha t y ou h av e

are actually contained in your statement here; is that

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Th e o nly issue that you have here i s 1 2

m in ut es f or p re pa ri ng a n ot ic e o f h ea ri ng a nd n ot ic e o f

hearings are most often prepared by secretarial staff,

correct?

A. Y es . I w o ul d n ot h av e b il le d f or t he s e cr et ar y' s

time to prepare it.

Q. A nd y ou h av e a l et te r t o J ud ge N ie ls en r eg ar di ng

h ea ri ng o n m o ti on f or o rd er to s ho w c au se . Do y ou - -

t ha t' s a lm os t 30 m in ut es o n a l et te r. D o y ou k no w w h at


18/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

t he s iz e o f t ha t l et te r w as ?

A. Ca n y o u g iv e m e t he d at e.

Q. 1 0/ 3/ 20 06 . I t' s o n th e f ir st p a ge .

A. Ye s, I s ee t h at . I c ou ld r et ri ev e t ha t l et te r i f

you'd like.

Q. Please.

A. Okay. I d o have i t here. It's a t wo-page

letter.

Q. Did you type that yourself?

A. According to the letter, there's initials down at

t he b ot to m S CR /S M. T ha t u su al ly i nd ic at es t ha t m y

assistant did the actual typing.

Q. So you would've dictated that?

A. Y es , a lt ho ug h I m ay h av e - - i t' s p os si bl e t ha t I

m ay h av e t yp ed p ar t of it b ut I d on' t k no w b ut d ic ta ti on

probably makes since.

Q. W ou ld i t n or ma ll y t ak e y ou a lm os t h al f a n h ou r t o

d ic ta te w ha t is -- y ou s ay i t' s a f ul l t wo p ag es?

A. Yes.

Q. T he l et te ri ng - - t he - - t he re 's o nl y - - w el l,

let's see, one, two, three, four, five full paragraphs,

correct?

A. R ig ht , b ut i f y ou 'l l n ot e t ha t i n t he l et te r o ne

of the issues that we're addressing is Mr. Gillespie's

request that the court appoint him an attorney under the


19/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1

Americans With Disabilities Act and I actually quote

from the 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Section

35.135 --

T HE R EP OR TE R: I 'm s o rr y?

MR. RODE MS: I' m so rry. I apologize. Code

of Federal Regulations, Section 35.135, and I can

t el l y ou f ro m l oo ki ng at t hi s l et te r, I h ad t o

reference also three letters that Mr. Gillespie

wrote; September 25th, 2006, September 27th, and

O ct ob er 2 nd , 2 00 6. M r. G il le sp ie w ro te m an y

l et te rs . S om e o f t he m w e re l on ge r t h an o th er s b u t

reviewing those three letters, composing this

letter to Judge Nielsen, opening up Lexis and

g et ti ng t hi s e xa ct q uo te o f t hi s C od e o f F ed er al

R eg ul at io ns a nd t he e di ts , a . 4 o r 2 4 m in ut es f or

t hi s l et te r I t hi nk i s k in d o f r ea so na bl e.

BY R. BAUER:

Q. Y ou d on 't h av e a ny o f t h e r es ea rc h t h at y ou

conducted noted in your hourly summation notes; is that

correct?

A. No. T o b e h on est, the way I would bill a letter

l ik e t hi s n or ma ll y w ou ld b e t o c al cu la te t he a mo un t o f

t im e a nd t he n n ot e t ha t t he l et te r, y ou k no w, w as d on e.

I d on 't - - I don 't p ut e ve ryt hi ng t ha t w as i n t he l et te r

a nd I d id n't put in h er e t ha t i n o rd er t o c om po se t he


20/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

l et te r I h ad to re vie w t he f il e a nd op en up L ex is t o g et

t he p ro pe r q uo te f or t hi s p ro vi si on o f t he C od e o f t he

Federal Regulations.

Q. G oi ng u p t o F e br ua ry 2 4, 2 00 6?

A. Yes.

Q. Di d y ou - - i t's g ot 1 .2 h our s w ri ti ng a 57 .1 05

motion?

A. F eb ru ar y 2 4t h, o f 2 00 6, y es . I f y ou 'l l n ot e, i t

w as t o p re pa re t he m ot io n a nd a ls o r ev ie w 5 7. 10 5 a nd

recent cases.

Q. I 'm j us t t ry in g t o u nd er st an d e xa ct ly w ha t - - I

mean, because from everything that you've said and

e ve ry th in g t ha t I 'v e r ev ie we d a bo ut y ou , y ou d o s ee m t o

h av e a s ig ni fi ca nt l ev el o f e xp er ie nc e. I 'm n ot s ur e

w hy s om eo ne w it h s o m uc h e xp er ie nc e w ou ld r eq ui re - - a nd

that experience goes into the hourly rate that we're

g oi ng t o b e c ha rg in g - - w hy it 's g oi ng t o t ak e 1. 2 h ou rs

t o w ri te w ha t i s i n m y l im it ed e xp er ie nc e a f ai rl y

simple motion?

A. W el l, let me g et t he m ot io n, a nd if i t' s o ka y

I 'll ke ep t al ki ng w hi le I 'm d oin g t ha t. T he - -

r eg ar dl es s o f h ow e xp er ie nc ed y ou a re , m y p ra ct ic e a s a n

a tt or ne y h as a lw ay s b ee n t ha t w he n I s ig n a d oc um en t a nd

s ub mi t it to the C our t, I c an' t r ea ll y g o f ro m my

k no wl ed ge o r u nd er st an di ng o f t he l aw e ve n w it h t he m os t


21/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

b as ic t hi ng s. I a lw ay s c on su lt t he s ta tu te s a nd a lw ay s

revie w things . In fact, I got a call from an

out-of-town attorney today who asked me something about

t he s ta tu te o f l im it at io ns , a nd e ve n t ho ug h I k ne w o ff

t he t op o f m y h ea d i t w as f ou r y ear s, I op ene d up t he

s ta tu te s a nd r ev ie we d i t w it h h im w hi le h e w as o n t he

p ho ne b ec au se I d on 't w an t t o m ak e a m is ta ke .

T HE C OU RT : N ow, i s t he re a s ep ara te e nt ry

for the memorandum that was submitted in support

of t he m ot io n o r n ot ?

MR . R OD EM S: I d on' t b el ie ve s o b ut I w ou ld

h av e c o ns id er ed t ha t p ar t o f t hi s. A nd , a g ai n,

that was on February 24th.

T HE C OU RT : B ec au se t he re w as a m em o, a

separate memo filed about a month later, so.

MR . RO DE MS: L et 's g e t to t ha t mo ti on . O kay .

I d o have it .

T HE C OU RT : I t' s b ro ke n.

M R. R OD EM S: T he a ct ua l s e rv ic e d at e w a s

F eb ru ar y 2 8 th . I w ou ld h av e e n te re d t h e t im e f o r

w he n t he w or k w as d on e o n i t a nd I 'm n ot s ur e w ha t

e di ti ng t oo k p la ce o ve r t he n ex t f ew d ay s b ut i t

was a three-page motion.

BY R. BAUER:

Q. A nd y ou h av e n on e o f t ha t e d it in g n ot ed i n y o ur


22/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

particular breakdown; is that correct?

A. W ha t? E di ti ng t hi s?

Q. Yes.

A. No . B ut it' s a t hr ee -p ag e m ot ion a nd i t d oe s

track those parts of Mr. Gillespie's filing that were

w it ho ut s uf fi ci en t f ac tu al o r l eg al b as is . I t d oe s

q uo te d ir ec tl y f ro m t he - - f ro m t he c om pl ai nt t ha t - - o r

the pleading that Mr. Gillespie filed and, you know,

o bv io us ly , I h ad t o r ev ie w t he c om pl ai nt a nd p re pa re a n

a pp ro pr ia te m ot io n f or i t, y ou k no w, s o I t ho ug ht t ha t

t he h ou r a nd 12 m inu te s t ha t I h av e f or it w as

appropriate.

Q. In reviewing -- I'm actually reviewing the

defendant's amended motion for sanctions which required

a n a dd it io na l -- I t ho ug ht i t w as .5 but I c an 't f in d i t

right now.

A. M ay 2 5t h, 2 00 6, i s t ha t w ha t y ou 'r e r ef er ri ng t o?

Q. It w as .3 . Thank y ou . In r eviewing t his

d oc um en t, t hi s a pp ea rs t o b e a l ot o f l an gu ag e t ha t

c om es u p o n t he s ta nd ar d m ot io ns . T he s ta nd ar d l an gu ag e

of defendants coming forward pursuant to a statute that

y ou h ad f il ed 2 1 d ay s p ri or , a v er y b ri ef e xc er pt o f

w ha t t he f ac ts a re t ha t g i ve r is e to t hi s. T he re 's

l it tl e o r n o c as e l aw c it ed o r a s up po rt in g m em or an du m

o f l aw c it in g it . I t' s n ot h ea vi ly l oa de d w it h


23/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

different statutes and only has one exhibit attached.

W oul d you a gre e t hi s is no t a n a dv an ced or a

difficult motion?

A. I d on 't k no w w ha t y ou m ea n by a dv an ce d o r

d if fi cu lt bu t I put d ow n t ha t i t t oo k me 18 m in ute s to

d o t he a me nd ed m ot io n a nd t o p re pa re t he n ot ic e o f

filing.

Q. And what was the change between the original

motion and the amendment?

A. If I r ec al l c or rec tl y, a nd I' d h av e t o l oo k a t

t he t wo o f t he m, I t hi nk i n on e i ns ta nc e we w er e a ski ng

t he C ou rt t o r eq ui re M r. G il le sp ie t o r et ai n c ou ns el t o

g o f or wa rd b ec au se o f s om e o f t he t hi ng s t ha t h e w as

d oi ng . B ut I t hi nk in t he s ec on d on e, w e w er e s eek in g

just attorney's fees.

Q. O ka y. S o t he f i rs t o ne i s s ub st an ti ve ly v e ry

s im il ar t o t he a me nd ed c om pl ai nt - - o r e xc us e m e - - t he

a me nd ed m ot io n a bs en t w ha t y ou j us t - -

A. Y es , s ir , I w ou ld a gr ee w it h t ha t, y es , s ir .

Q. - - s ta te d? S o, a ga in , i t' s v er y s ho rt , v er y

b ri ef , s uc ci nc t, n ot a l ot o f c as e l aw c it at io ns o r

anything like that?

A. If that's your characterization of it, I wouldn't

have any reason to disagree with that.

Q. An d y ou t es ti fi ed t ha t i t w as -- the c au se o f M r.


24/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

G il le sp ie f il in g s om e o f t he se w as t ha t h e l oo ke d o ve r

y ou r d ef en se s t o t he f il in g o f h is c om pl ai nt a nd h e j us t

copied those over into his motion; is that correct?

A. Y es , s ir , a nd I 'm t ry in g t o r em em be r i f h e t o ld

m e t ha t o r y ou t ol d me t ha t bu t I d ef in it el y r ec al l

h ea ri ng t ha t f ro m y ou o r h im .

Q. And those similar defenses, when you forwarded

t he m, d id y ou p re va il o n t he m?

A. W el l, m y d ef en se s w er e l is te d i n r es po ns e t o h is

c la im t ha t w e h ad b re ac he d a c on tr act a nd t ha t we - - a nd

I s ay " we " I m ea n m y c li en ts - - h ad c om mi tt ed s om e s or t

o f f ra ud a ga in st h im a nd t he d ef en se s w e f il ed w er e

a pp ro pr ia te f or a b re ac h o f c on tr ac t a ct io n a nd a f ra ud

action whereas we had countersued Mr. Gillespie for

defamation --

Q. I f I c ou ld , j u st d id y ou p re va il o n t h em ?

A. T he y h av en't a ll b ee n d ec id ed yet . T he c ase is

still at issue.

Q. The defenses, actually, all of them were denied

a nd h is c om pl ai nt c on ti nu ed o n. T he re w as o nl y - - t he

o nl y g ra nt in g f ro m y ou r m ot io ns t ha t h e p ar ro te d w as a

removal of about four sentences from his complaint in

regards to professional conduct; do you recall that?

A. No, I d on 't. I'm s orry. As far a s it g oes

though because our defenses were affirmative defenses,


25/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

those would continue on until they're resolved by the

C ou rt a nd s om e o f t he m h av e n ot b ee n a dd re ss ed b ef or e

t he C ou rt . Y ou w ere h er e f or t he l as t h ea ri ng on t he

m ot io n f or j ud gm en t o n t he p le ad in gs , s o, I m ea n, y ou

k no w s om e o f t he se i ss ue s h av e a lr ea dy c om e u p a nd a re

under consideration by the Court.

Q. I'm looking at a 10/18/2006, receipt and review

of October 18, 2006 filing by Gillespie and preparing

response and motion to strike.

Ca n y ou e xp la in to us a nd t he Co ur t w hy t his on e

s in gu la r r es po ns e t oo k y ou 2 .2 h ou rs t o b e a bl e t o

respond to?

A. Ye s. The O ct ob er 1 8t h, 2 00 6 l et te r b y M r.

G il le sp ie w as i n r es po ns e, i f I r ec al l c or re ct ly , t o t he

Court's direction to Mr. Gillespie when Judge Nielsen

was presiding that Mr. Gillespie identify to the Court

his intentions about proceeding, and what had happened

was when Mr. Gillespie didn't respond to the discovery,

w e h ad f il ed a m ot io n f or an o rd er t o s ho w c au se.

Shortly before that, Mr. Gillespie had requested a

continuance and also a court-appointed attorney under

the Americans With Disabilities Act and then he also

advised Judge Nielsen that his mother's homeowner's

insurance company was contemplating providing him a

defense based on our counterclaim for defamation. After


26/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

t ha t, t he j ud ge - - J ud ge N ie ls en d ec li ne d t o g o f or wa rd

w it h t he o rd er t o s ho w c au se o n t ha t d at e b ec au se o f

t he se i ss ue s a nd a sk ed M r. G il le sp ie t o f il e a r es po ns e,

which I believe was Mr. Gillespie's October 18th letter.

T ha t l et te r w as m an y p ag es l on g, s in gl e s pa ce d, a nd i t

w en t f ar b ey on d w ha t J ud ge N ie ls en d ir ec te d h im t o d o.

It contained attacks, if I recall correctly, on Judge

N ie ls en f or m at te rs t ha t h ad n ot hi ng t o d o w it h t hi s

case . It had a ttacks o n m e. I t had attacks o n m y

former partner, Jonathan Alpert, and it was about the

m os t i nf la mm at or y p ie ce o f w ri ti ng I 'v e s ee n f il ed i n a

c ou rt f il e i n q ui te s om e t i me. I do n't kn ow i f I ' ve

e ve r se en a m ore i nf la mm at or y o ne . S o i n r es po ns e t o

t ha t l en gt hy l et te r, I f il ed a l en gt hy m ot io n t o s tr ik e

and the combined time of reading his letter, evaluating

i t i n l ig ht o f t he f ac ts o f t hi s c as e a nd p re pa ri ng a

r es po ns e a nd a m ot io n t o s tr ik e t oo k m e 2 .2 h ou rs .

Q. M an y o f t ho se i ss ue s t ha t y ou w ou ld h av e

addressed in that, you've already said that you

researched in the 10/3/2006 letter to Judge Nielsen,

also researching on your 2/24/2006, 57.105, preparing

f or t ho se i ss ue s. A ll t ho se a re v er y s im il ar i ss ue s a nd

y ou w ou ld h av e u se d t ha t p re vi ou s k no wl ed ge t o g o i nt o

that motion; isn't that correct?

A. N o. T he m ot io n t o s tr ik e d e al t s p ec if ic al ly w it h


27/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

Mr. Gillespie's October 18th, 2006 letter and those

t hi ng s t ha t h e s ai d i n t he re t ha t s ho ul d h av e n ot e ve r

b ee n f il ed i n t he c ou rt f il e a nd , q ui te f ra nk ly , a s a n

o ff ic er o f t he c ou rt , t he t hi ng s t ha t M r. G il le sp ie s ai d

about Judge Nielsen were quite inappropriate and I felt

a s i t w ou ld b e a pp ro pr ia te t o m ov e t o s tr ik e t he se

things because, you know, regardless of the fact that

M r. G il le sp ie i s n ot a n a tt or ne y, t he re 's s ti ll a

minimal expected level of decorum in court filings.

Q. Is it your responsibility to ensure court decorum

o r i s i t t he j ud ge' s?

A. W el l, i t i s m y r es po ns ib il it y t o m ak e s ur e t ha t

t he d oc um en ts t ha t a re f il ed i n t he c ou rt f il e a re

appropriate and Mr. Gillespie had far exceeded with his

acidic letter what Judge Nielsen had requested that he

d o i n c om pl ia nc e t o t he o rd er t o s ho w c au se h ea ri ng

b ei ng d el ay ed a t M r. G il le sp ie 's r eq ue st . A nd I w ou ld

p oi nt o ut t ha t a ll o f t hi s, al l o f t hi s, t he 2 .2 h ou rs ,

t he m ot io n t o s tr ik e h is l et te r, a ll t hi s f lo we d f ro m

M r. G il le sp ie c om in g i n w he n h e s ho ul d h av e b ee n

r es po nd in g t o w hy h e h ad n ot f il ed t he d is co ve ry t ha t

J ud ge N ie ls en h ad o rd er ed b ac k i n J ul y 2 4t h, o f 2 00 6,

and Mr. Gillespie's actions in requesting an attorney

under the ADA, asking the Court to delay proceedings

because he had an insurance company that might defend


28/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

his counterclaim, and those things all resulted from

t ha t m ot io n f or an o rd er t o s h ow c au se. A nd t he n, o f

c ou rs e, M r. G il le sp ie , a s y ou k no w a nd a s h e r ep or te d t o

Judge Nielsen, directed the insurance company to not

p ro vi de h im a d ef en se e ve n t ho ug h i t w as w il li ng t o d o

so because Mr. Gillespie --

MR. BAUER: Objection, that's hearsay.

T HE C O UR T: A ny e x ce pt io n?

MR . R OD EM S: W el l, Mr . G il le sp ie is a p ar ty

so it's an admission and Mr. Gillespie already

disclosed this to the Court.

T HE C OU RT : E xc ep ti on t o t h e h ea rs ay r ul e

a dm is si on? A ll r ig ht . I'l l o ve rr ul e th e

objection.

TH E W ITNESS: A s I was saying -- if it' s

overruled, as I was saying, Mr. Gillespie advised

t he i ns ur an ce c om pa ny n ot t o p ro vi de h im a d ef en se

because he found out that the insurance company

was interested in resolving the counterclaim and

so Mr. Gillespie instructed the insurance company

n ot to d ef en d h im a nd n ot t o s et tl e t he

counterclaim.

BY R. BAUER:

Q. A nd i t w as - - h e i ns tr uc te d t he i ns ur an ce c om pa ny

n ot t o e nt er a n a dm is si on o f g ui lt o r a ny th in g t ha t


29/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

a pp ea re d t o b e a n a dm is si on o f g ui lt o n h is b eh al f;

isn't that correct?

A. I d on 't k no w i f h e h ad t ha t t op ic o f d is cu ss io n

w it h t he m o r n ot b ut w e c er ta in ly w ou ld n ot h av e

requested an admission of guilt. Most settlements that

I've ever experienced involved no admission of liability

o n e it he r s id e. We t ho ug ht it wa s a g oo d o p po rt un it y t o

resolve our counterclaim in a fair manner but

Mr. Gillespie intervened in that and told the insurance

c om pa ny t ha t h e d id n' t w an t t he d ef en se a nd h e

disclaimed coverage under the policy which was his

right.

Q. And that would have required him resolving his

claim as well, correct?

A. No . T he in su ran ce c om pa ny m ad e i t p l ai n t o m e

w he n t he y w er e t al ki ng t o m e t ha t t he y h ad n o a ut ho ri ty

t o a ct o n M r. G il le sp ie 's b eh al f o n h is c la im s a ga in st

o ur l aw f ir m a nd t ha t a ny s et tl em en t w it h u s w ou ld o nl y

involve the counterclaim and we were perfectly fine with

that.

Q. A nd a s f ar a s a ll t he i ss ue s o f i na pp ro pr ia te ne ss

towards Judge Nielsen, is the judge empowered and able

to handle those issues himself?

A. Ye s, s ir, of c ou rs e, an d t ha t was t he b as is o f

t he m oti on t o s tr ik e t o h av e a v eh ic le f or t hi s i ss ue t o


30/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

b e b ro ug ht u p a nd f or t he ju dg e t o r ul e on i t.

Q. So without that, that judge sua sponte couldn't

have addressed those issues and handled the decorum of

t he c ou rt on his o wn ?

A. O h, I 'm s ur e h e c o ul d h a ve , y e s, s ir .

Q. S o y ou r m o ti on t o s tr ik e, g oi ng a ft er t he

inappropriate things addressed to the Court actually was

superfluous, it was completely unnecessary because the

C ou rt , i f t he y h ad b ee n i ns ul te d b y t he m, c ou ld h av e

handled it itself?

A. Well, the statements against Judge Nielsen were

only a small part of it. A large part o f i t was

d ir ec te d a t m e a nd f or w ha te ve r r ea so n I d on 't

understand directed at my former partner from more than

s ev en y ea rs a go , J on at ha n A lp er t, b ut y ou k no w, a l ot o f

the things that were in that letter were completely

unrelated to this case and should have been stricken

f ro m t he r ec or d. I b el ie ve t he y' re s ti ll p ar t of t he

r ec or d. I d on't k no w t ha t t he m ot ion to s tr ik e e ve r

a ct ua ll y w as h ea rd b y t he w ay .

Q. A nd b ey on d t he o ne s t ha t w e' ve p oi nt ed o ut ,

there's several entries in here where you provide what

could be described as secretarial services; preparing

notices, preparing letters, preparing them for filings;

is that correct?


31/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

A. I w ou ld n' t d es cr ib e s om e o f t ho se t hi ng s a s

secretarial services. If you're talking about pure

t yp in g, t ha t' s - - I t hi nk t ha t c ou ld b e d es cr ib ed a s a

s ec re ta ri al s er vi ce b ut m y p ra ct ic e a ls o i s t ha t w he n I

am sending something to the court or specifically

d ir ec tl y t o t he j ud ge , I d o h av e t o r ev ie w e ve ry th in g

a nd m ak e s ur e t ha t i f m y s ec re ta ry h as a ss is te d m e i n

pulling those documents, that they're the correct

d oc um en ts . I m ea n, I' m s ur e t ha t yo u h av e t he s ame

p ra ct ic e o f, y ou k no w, i f y ou s en d a l et te r o ut u nd er

y ou r s ig na tu re a nd s om eb od y o pe ns i t u p a nd i t c on ta in s

t he w ro ng t hi ng s, t ha t a r ef le ct io n o f y ou a s t he

att orney. So I try to -- I try to always g o t hrough

w ha te ve r i s g oi ng o ut o f t he o ff ic e. In f ac t, my

secretary demands it.

Q. Bu t i t o nl y t a ke s a m in ut e or two to r ev ie w a

secretary-prepared notice of hearing, confirm it's the

right date, confirm the certificate of service is

c or re ct , t ha t t he s ty le i s c or re ct . I t d oe sn 't t ak e t wo

- - i t d oe sn 't t ak e 1 2 m in ut es ; i t t ak es o ne o r t wo ?

A. Well, it might because sometimes what happens,

a nd I d on 't k now if t hi s i s th e c as e, b ut i f t he w ro ng

t hi ng i s a tt ac he d, I 'l l g o t o t he f il e a nd c li p i t a nd

t ha t w ay s he k no ws e xa ct ly w ha t t o a tt ac h a nd I j us t

d on' t k no w w ha t it w as b ut , yo u k no w, t he w ay I d o


32/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

thing s is that I , y ou know, I have -- if you g o t o m y

o ff ic e, I 've got a c lo ck o n th e w al l, I' ve g ot a c lo ck

o n m y s he lf, I'v e g ot a c lo ck o n m y c om pu te r, I 'v e g ot a

w rist w at ch. I' m a time p erson . I love c locks. I k eep

c lo ck s. I t a ke c are o f t h e d ock s. A p r ed om in an t

majority of my clients do require detailed hourly

b il li ng s a nd t he y w an t t o b e b il le d f or r ea l t im e a nd

t ha t' s w ha t I do , I b il l i n i ncr em ent s o f . 1 t o a ct ua l

time.

MR. B AUER : Okay. That' s all I h ave .

T HE CO URT : A ll r ig ht . A ny r ed ire ct ?

MR. R ODEMS: No. I'd l ike to call M r.

G ar dn er i f I c ou ld , Y ou r H on or .


Thereupon,

JOHN WILLIAM GARDNER,

A w it ne ss , b ei ng f ir st d ul y s wo rn t o t el l t he t ru th , t he

w ho le t ru th a nd n ot hi ng b ut t he t ru th , w as e xa mi ne d a nd

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY R. RODEMS:

Q. M r. G ar dn er , f or t he r ec or d, w ou ld y ou g iv e u s

your name, your address and your occupation?

A. W el l, I s ho ul d p oi nt o ut a ga in t ha t I 'v e b ee n

s wo rn . M y na me i s J oh n Wi ll ia m Ga rd ne r. M y


33/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

professional address is 221 East Robertson Street,

B ra nd on , F lo ri da , 3 35 11 . I 'm a n a tt or ne y l ic en se d t o

p ra ct ic e i n t he st at e o f F lo ri da. I h av e b ee n so

l ic en se d s i nc e A p ri l 2 1 st , 1 98 8. I a m a l so a dm it te d t o

t he M id dl e D is tr ic t o f F lo ri da . I 'm a ls o a c er ti fi ed - -

a Florida Supreme Court certified family law mediator,

and I've been so for approximately six months.

Q. M r. G ar dn er , w ha t a re as o f p ra ct ic e a re y ou

involved in currently?

A. The broad label is general civil practice.

Within that, I practice personal injury and worker's

c om pe ns at io n. I a ls o d o a p re tt y b ro ad c ol le ct io ns

p ra ct ic e a nd t he n I h av e w ha t I w ou ld c al l o th er c as es .

Things, frankly, such as this one are very interesting

t o m e . T ha t' s t h e s o rt o f t h in gs t ha t I g et i nv ol ve d

w it h. G en er al c iv il l it ig at io n, I t hi nk , i s t he b es t

description for that.

Q. H av e y ou t es ti fi ed a s a n e xp er t b ef or e a ny o th er

judges?

A. Yes , s ir, I believe that I have. I was trying t o

r ev ie w t ha t f or t hi s h ea ri ng a nd I d o n ot r ec al l w he n

b ut I b el ie ve t ha t y ou h av e c al le d m e in a p re vi ous c as e

to testify.

Q. Okay.

A. I just couldn't remember when and I couldn't


34/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

remember the case or the circumstances.

Q. Al l r ig ht . H as y ou r o pi ni on a s a n e x pe rt e ve r

been disqualified?

A. No, sir, it hasn't.

Q. Okay. Your Honor, I would -- oh, let m e a sk you

t hi s. M r. G ar dn er , a re y ou f am il ia r w it h t h e r at es t ha t

attorneys charge in this community?

A. Ye s, I a m.

Q. A nd h ow a re y ou f am il ia r w it h t ha t?

A. I've practiced in Hillsborough County for -- next

mo nth will be 20 years . I d o t his on a daily basis.

T hi s is t he w ay I s up po rt my w if e an d f am il y.

Q. Have you ever pursued court-awarded attorney's

f ee s f or w or k o n y ou r c as es ?

A. Y es , I h a ve .

Q. Have you had experts testify on your behalf?

A. Y es , I h a ve .

Q. O ka y. A nd h a ve y ou c o ns ul te d w it h o th er

a tt or ne ys i n t he a re a t o f in d o ut w ha t p eo pl e a re

charging in this marketplace?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. R ODE MS: Okay. Your H onor , I w ould

t en te r M r. G ar dn er a s a n e xp er t o n t he m at te r o f

hourly rates for attorneys and the sufficiency of

t he h ou rs i n t hi s c as e.


35/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

TH E COURT : A ny --

M R. B AU ER : J us t a f ew q ue st io ns , Y o ur H on or .


VOIR DIRE EXAMINA TION

BY R. BAUER:

Q. In your practice, have you had any experience

with 57.105?

A. Yes.

Q. H ow m an y h av e y o u f i le d?

A. I h av e t wo p re se nt ly p en di ng a nd - - o r e xc us e m e

- - a ct ua ll y, I h av e t wo s ep ar at e c as es w it h 5 7. 10 5' s i n

t he m. In on e c as e I h av e t wo 5 7. 10 5' s; one a ga ins t on e

p ar ty a nd o ne a ga in st t wo p ar ti es w it hi n t he s am e c as e.

A si de f ro m t ha t, I h av e p r ob ab ly f il ed t hr ee o th er s. I

h av e n ot k ep t t ra ck of t he m bu t I do h av e t ho se

presently pending.

Q. So I' m s or ry a bo ut -- h ow m an y t ota l is t hat

approximately?

A. About five.

Q. A bou t f i ve. A nd h ow m an y h ou rs o f r es ea rc h h av e

you conducted on 57.105's?

A. W el l, I f il ed t he m os t r ec en t -- ex cus e me - - t he

s ec on d t o t he m os t r ec en t 5 7. 10 5' s t ha t I f il ed w as i n

approximately January 2008, and I realized that there

h ad b ee n s o me c ha ng es t o t h at . I n p r ep ar in g t h at


36/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

January 57.105 motion, I called another attorney, Mike

E de nf ie ld , a nd I h ad h im g o t hr ou gh t he d et ai ls w it h m e

a nd f ro m t ha t I w ent a nd l ook ed a t t he s ta tu te a nd t he n

I did run a West Law ch eck o f i t and I w ould th ink that

I probably spent about three hours doing that one.

No w, w hen I d id t he s ec on d on e in t he s ep ar at e

c as e a bo ut - - a bo ut s ev en - - a bo ut s ev en w ee ks l at er , I

d id n ot g o b ac k a nd r ed o t ha t r es ea rc h b ec au se I f ig ur ed

t ha t t hi ng s h ad not c ha ng ed m uc h i n s ev en m on th s. S o

t he s ec on d o ne I d id n' t r es ea rc h a t a ll b ec au se I h ad

j us t d on e i t.

Q. S o I 'm s or ry t he re w er e a c ou pl e o f n u mb er s

there. If I can make s ure. Was i t - - so y ou h ave a

t ot al o f t hr ee h ou rs o f r es ea rc h o n 5 7. 10 5' s?

A. T hr ee h ou rs i n J an ua ry , 2 00 8, a nd n o r es ea rc h i n

- - i t w as a bo ut F eb ru ar y, l at e F eb ru ar y, w he n I f il ed

t he s ec on d - - f il ed t he 5 7. 10 5 i n t he s ec on d c as e.

Q. A nd h av e y ou - - h av e y ou w ri tt en a ny a rt ic le s o n

57.105's?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you participated in any board discussions on

57.105's?

A. Well, aside from Mike Edenfield and I talking

a bo ut i t a nd , o f c ou rs e, R od em s a nd I t al ki ng a bo ut i t,

I d on 't k no w if t hat q ua li fi es as a b oa rd b ut I f ee l


37/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

l ik e I 'v e p re tt y w el l t al ke d a ro un d t he i ss ue a nd I f ee l

like I'm pretty familiar with it.

Q. Bu t a re y ou - -

A. I d o not hold mysel f out to be an expert o n that

p ar ti cu la r i ss ue . I h av e n ot d on e a ny p ar ti cu la r s tu dy

t ha t wo ul d q ua li fy m e a s a n e xp er t o n 57 .1 05 . I' m n ot

sure that there is such a thing . I think that as a

general civil litigator that I do have sufficient

knowledge and understanding of 57.105 to comment on

M r. R od em s' u se o f t ha t i n t hi s c as e o r a pp li ca ti on o f

t ha t i n t hi s c as e.

Q. B ut y ou w ou ld n' t s pe ci fi ca ll y b e a n e xp er t o n h ow

m uc h t im e i t w ou ld t ak e, w ha t t he c om pl ex it y o f a 5 7. 10 5

o r a ny o f t he p ar al le l m ot io ns t ha t w er e f il ed w it h i t?

A. I f w e m ig ht a dd re ss t he 5 7. 10 5, I t hi nk t ha t,

y es , I d o h av e a s uf fi ci en t u nd er st an di ng t ha t I f ee l

t ha t I a m c om pe te nt t o c ha rg e p eo pl e t o r ep re se nt t he m

i n f ro nt o f j ud ge s o n 5 7. 10 5 m ot io ns a nd I h av e d on e

t ha t in t he se t wo c as es t ha t I 've --

Q. Bu t a r e y o u a n e xpe rt o n t h at ?

A. Am I a n e xp er t? W el l, I 'm k in d o f g et ti ng t he re .

I th in k t ha t I a m q ua li fi ed an d d oe s t ha t m ak e me a n

e xp er t t ha t I w ou ld c ha rg e p eo pl e m on ey a nd t ha t t he y

w ou ld p ay m e m on ey t o r ep re se nt t he m i n c ou rt o n t ha t?

I w ou ld t hi nk t ha t, y es , t ha t w ou ld q ua li fy m e a s a n


38/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

exper t. Will I tell y ou I'm an expe rt? No , I 'm not

g oi ng t o c la im t o b e a n e xp er t bu t I do be li ev e t ha t

w he n I go i nt o c ou rt a nd I h av e s om eb od y's c as e o n t he

l in e a nd w he n t he y' re p ay in g m e m on ey t o d o t ha t, I

b el ie ve t ha t I b et te r k no w w ha t I 'm d oi ng .

MR . BA UER : T ha t's a ll. Y ou r Ho no r, I w ou ld

o bj ec t t o t he w it ne ss b ei ng q ua li fi ed a s a n e xp er t

specifically on the issues of 57.105, how much

t im e i t t ak es , w as i t a n a pp ro pr ia te a mo un t o f

t im e. I t hi nk h e' s c l ea rl y q ua li fi ed t o, t o o f fe r

h is o pi ni on t ho ug h a s t o t he s pe ci fi c h ou rl y r at e

a s e xp er ie nc ed i n a ll o f t ho se i ss ue s b ut I t hi nk

he's clearly articulated himself that he can't

p ro vi de a ny th in g t o t he C ou rt t ha t t he C ou rt i n

its own experience, and really any attorney's

e xp er ie nc e a s t o w ha t 5 7. 10 5' s a re a nd h ow m uc h

research they take and what different issues are,

I d on 't t hi nk t hi s w it ne ss h as a ny th in g t o a dd i n

those particular areas.

T HE C OU RT : A ll r ig ht . We 're n ot t al ki ng

about an expert in the substantive 57.105 field

but simply time and effort, research required for

an otherwise competent lawyer to research and get

up to speed on a 5 7.105 motion. So I thi nk h e's

got enough qualifications to comment on those


39/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

a re as a s h e w ou ld on a ny o the r a re a t ha t h e' s

familiar with and by experience he's filed enough

5 7. 10 5 m o ti on s t o g iv e t h os e k i nd o f o p in io ns . S o

I'm going to overrule your objection.

MR . B AU ER : Y es, Y ou r H on or .

T HE C O UR T: Y ou m a y c on ti nu e.

BY R. RODEMS:

Q. T ha nk y ou . M r. G ar dn er , a r e y ou f am il ia r w it h m e

as an attorney?

A. Ye s, s ir. Y ou a nd I h a ve p ra ct ic ed t og et her . I

d id g o b ac k a n d l ook a t t ho se c as es. We w er e t og et he r

o n a fe de ra l c as e i n 2 00 3. We co -c ou ns ele d t he c as e a nd

t he n in 1 99 4, y ou a nd I h ad a c as e a ga in st e ac h o th er

t ha t w en t t o t he F ir st D is tr ic t C ou rt o f A pp ea l, a nd I

w as s uc ce ss fu l b y t he w ay .

Q. All right.

T HE C OU RT : S o th er e.

MR. R ODE MS: I w ill - -

T HE W IT NE SS: I 'm n ot s ur e y o u w an t t ha t o n

the record but anyway.

MR . R OD EM S: I w ou ld d ul y n ot e t ha t a n d p ut

t he f la me s o ut on my -- s eat o f m y p an ts r ig ht

after the hearing.

BY R. RODEMS:

Q. W el l, h av in g k no wn m e s in ce - - b y t he w ay , a ft er


40/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

-- that case was Karzonowski versus Turner Tree and

Landscape (phonetic)?

A. An employer/carrier.

Q. Okay.

A. It was definitely Karzonowski.

Q. O ka y. A ft er 1 99 4, a nd u p u nt il 1 9 93 , w he n w e

co-counseled on a case together, did you have occasions

t o o bs er ve m e a s a n a tt or ne y?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. An d what is your opinion o f m e a s a

practitioner, or how would you describe my

qualifications to the Court?

A. I h av e t he h ig he st o pi ni on o f y ou r

qualifications, your ethics, your representations of

p eo pl e. I c al l y ou p er io di ca ll y, a t l ea st o nc e e ve ry

o th er m on th , w he n I w an t t o k ic k s om et hi ng a ro un d a nd

y ou' re a lw ay s v er y h el pf ul t o m e. Y ou a lw ay s h av e a n

a ns we r or yo u a lw ay s h av e s om e s or t o f d ir ec ti on. I

b el ie ve t ha t y ou a re o ne o f t he m os t s ki ll ed l it ig at or s

in this county.

Q. W el l, by the w ay , w ha t w a s it ab ou t t he c ase in

2 00 3 t ha t y ou c al le d m e t o c o- co un se l w it h y ou ?

A. Th e m a tt er w as a f ed er al c as e and I a m - -

a lt ho ug h I a m a dm it te d t o t he M id dl e D is tr ic t, I d o n ot

- - I d on 't r eg ul ar ly p ra ct ic e i n f ed er al c ou rt a nd t ha t


41/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

particular case was an automobile crash where our client

r an i nt o t he b ac k o f a p ar ke d m ov in g van t ha t h ad p ar ke d

i n t he m id dl e o f t he s tr ee t t o u nl oa d s om e e qu ip me nt .

The gentleman hurt himself pretty badly.

Q. Al l r ig ht . H av e y ou, i n t hi s c as e t ha t w e'r e

h er e o n t od ay , h av e y ou r ev ie we d m y a ff id av it o f t im e?

A. Y es , s ir . M or e s p ec if ic al ly I r ev ie we d t h e

affidavit bearing certificate of service date of

N ov em be r 6 , 2 00 7, I a ls o r ev ie we d a p le ad in gs i nd ex a nd

I did look through several pleadings that I've

s pe ci fi ca ll y n ot ed h er e. I h av e n ot r ev ie we d t he o th er

t wo b ox es b ut I d id g o t hr ou gh y ou r p le ad in gs b ox .

Q. Okay.

A. An d t ha t is a n 8 1 /2 by 11 s tan da rd s to ra ge b ox

a nd t he re a re t hr ee b ox es f ul l f or t hi s c as e.

Q. O ka y. A nd d o y ou h av e a n u n der st an di ng of w ha t

t he e ve nt s w er e t ha t l ed t o t he C ou rt e nt er in g t wo

orders entitling me as the defendant's counsel to be

paid an attorney's fee?

A. Ye s, s i r, I d o.

Q. Okay. And briefly, what is your understanding?

A. T he f ir st m at te r w as a d is co ve ry i ss ue w it h

regard to interrogatories and requests to produce that

w er e p ro po un de d o n M a rc h 2 8t h, 2 00 6. T he re w as a m ot io n

t o c om pe l, a r es po ns e t o t ho se . S ub se qu en tl y, t he re w as


42/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

a -- I b el ie ve t he re w er e t wo s ho w c au se o rd er s. T he re

also was a certiorari application for appeal with regard

to the discovery. There was a reconsideration motion.

I w as n ot a wa re o f t h e d is qu al if ic at io n m ot io ns . I

d id n' t s ee t ho se i n y ou r a ff id av it a nd I d id n' t r ev ie w

t ho se b ut a pp ar en tl y t he re w er e a t l ea st t wo i ss ue s w it h

r eg ar d to r ecu si ng t he j ud ge a nd t ha t w as a ll t ha t I h ad

noted with regard to those.

T he re w as a s ec on d m at te r w it h r eg ar d t o t he

5 7.1 05 m ot io n. You f il ed a m ot io n t o d is mi ss o r a

m ot io n t o s t ri ke o n F e br ua ry t he 8 th , 2 0 06 . T he re w as

a n a me nd ed m ot io n t ha t w as f il ed 2 1 d ay s l at er a s i s

a pp ro pr ia te . T he re w as a ls o a m ot io n t o r ec on si de r

t ha t. Yo u h ad f i le d a m em ora nd um of law . T he p la in ti ff

r es po nd ed a c ou pl e o f t im es . T he re w as a r eq ue st t ha t

t he b ai li ff s s ho w u p f or a ll p ro ce ed in gs i n t hi s c as e.

I d id r ev ie w t he p le ad in gs t ha t w er e f il ed b y t he

p la in ti ff t ha t y ou h ad m ov ed t o s tr ik e a nd I f ou nd t he m

to be nonsensical, I believe, is the most appropriate

way to describe them. They weren't appropriate

responses to your requests.

Q. D id y ou r ev ie w t he s pe ci fi c t as ks i n t he i te mi ze d

s he et t ha t w as a tt ac he d t o m y a ff id av it f or t he h ou rs

that I'm seeking compensation for?

A. I did. I went through the -- I read both of the


43/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

o rd er s t ha t a re a tt ac he d t o y ou r a ff id av it a nd I

r ev ie we d e ve ry s in gl e t im e e nt ry a nd t he n o n a c ou pl e o f

o cc as io ns I d id g o a nd c om pa re t he m t o t he p le ad in gs

in dex. I did no t t hen go back to the pleading to s ee

t ha t it w as e ig ht p ag es o r 1 2 p ag es b ut I d id r evi ew

those two in conjunction with each other.

Q. B as ed o n y o ur r ev ie w o f t h e f i le a nd y ou r

e xp er ie nc e a s a l aw ye r, a re t he t as ks t ha t I 'm s ee ki ng

to be compensated for reasonable tasks to be performed

in connection with these two matters?

A. I d o b el ie ve t ha t t he t as ks a re r ea so na bl e a nd I

d o b el ie ve t ha t t he a mo un t o f t im e t ha t y ou s pe nt t o

perform those tasks are reasonable as well.

Q. O ka y. Do y ou - - b as ed o n m y e xp er ie nc e a nd

q ua li fi ca ti on s a s y ou k no w t he m t o b e a nd a s I 'v e

t es ti fi ed t o h er e t od ay , d o y ou h av e a n o pi ni on o n w ha t

t he a pp ro pr ia te h ou rl y r at e i s f or a p er so n s uc h a s m e?

A. Y es , I d o h a ve a n o p in io n.

Q. O ka y. A nd w ha t is t ha t o pi ni on?

A. I n ot e t h at y ou h av e r e qu es te d - - t hi s i s

Paragraph 3 of your affidavit -- you're requesting $350

pe r h our. I do believe that $3 50 an hour i s

a pp ro pr ia te . I k no w o f t wo o th er a tt or ne ys , b ot h o f

t he m p ra ct ic e i n m y s pe ci fi c a re a i n B ra nd on w ho a re

c ha rg in g $ 40 0 p er h ou r. O ne i s p re do mi na te ly a f am il y


44/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

l aw a tt or ne y. T he o th er i s a c on do mi ni um l an d u se

a tt or ne y a n d b ot h o f t ho se a re c ha rg in g $ 40 0. I b el ie ve

t ha t y ou r s ki ll s f ar e xc ee d t ho se a tt or ne ys . I a m v er y

familiar with both of those attorneys and their skills

h av in g b ee n e mp lo ye d f or f iv e y ea rs b y o ne o f t he m.

I a ls o m en ti on ed M ik e E de nf ie ld . I 'v e t al ke d

w it h h im a bo ut h is h ou rl y r at e an d h is i s $ 325 an h ou r.

I b el ie ve t ha t y ou a nd M ik e h av e s im il ar e xp er ie nc e a nd

similar qualifications but I do note that you practice

i n T am pa. I do re co gni ze t ha t e xp en ses in T am pa -- fo r

p ar ki ng , w e d on' t p ay f or p ar ki ng ou t in B ra nd on. S o I

d o b el ie ve t ha t y ou r h ou rl y r at e s ho ul d b e t he $ 35 0.

Q. A nd w ha t i s y ou r k no wl ed ge o f w ha t o t he r

attorneys are charging in the area?

A. It 's - - c a n y ou be m or e s pe ci fi c, I m ea n, I c an

t el l y ou w ho -- M ike M cD er mo tt is th e o ne t ha t' s at $4 00

a n h ou r a nd C li ff C ur ry i s t he o the r one t ha t' s a t $ 40 0

a n h ou r, E de nf ie ld i s a t $ 32 5, I 'm a t $ 30 0.

Q. And what of these attorneys are board certified

o r A V r at ed ?

A. C li ff C ur ry m ay b e b oa rd c er ti fi ed i n f am il y l aw .

I 'm h one st ly not s ur e o f t ha t. I do b el ie ve t ha t

M cD er mo tt o r E de nf ie ld a re c er ti fi ed i n a ny c at eg or y. I

d o n ot e t ha t y ou a re t ri al p ra ct ic e c er ti fi ed , I

believe, yes, sir.


45/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

Q. I n y ou r e xp er ie nc e o r i n y ou r o pi ni on , s ho ul d t he

hourly rate for attorneys who are board certified be

higher than for attorneys who are not board certified?

A. No q ues ti on. Y ou w en t t o t he t ro ub le t o a cq ui re

t he s ki ll s n ec es sa ry , t o h av e t he n um be r o f t ri al s t ha t

a re n ec es sa ry , a nd y ou a ls o t oo k t he t es t a nd y ou

s tu di ed f or t he t est a nd I t hi nk t ha t y ou s ho ul d be

c om pe ns at ed a t a r at e h ig he r t ha n a tt or ne ys w ho h av e n ot

done that.

Q. A nd M r. G ar dn er , a re y ou e xp ec ti ng t o b e p ai d f or

your expert testimony here today?

A. I a m, s ir .

Q. A nd w ha t i s y o ur h ou rl y r at e?

A. M y h o ur ly r at e i s $ 30 0 p e r h ou r.

Q. A nd h ow m an y h ou rs h av e y ou e xp en de d u p t o t h e

t im e o f t hi s h ea ri ng , n ot i nc lu di ng t he t im e o f t hi s

hearing?

A. I s ta rted t hi s m or ni ng a t - - we ll , y ou a nd I h av e

h ad a c ou pl e o f t el ep ho ne c on ve rs at io ns . I 'v e n ot

i nc lu de d t ho se b ut I d id s ta rt w or ki ng o n t he f il e t hi s

m or ni ng a t 1 0:30 . I k no ck ed o ff a t 1 2:3 0, I a te l un ch

a nd t he n a t a bo ut t en m in ut es t o 1 :0 0 I got in my c ar

an d headed over here an d the hour now is 2: 26 p.m . So

I 'v e n ow b ee n a t i t a bo ut t wo h ou rs t hi s m or ni ng a nd

then another hour-and-a-half this afternoon.


46/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

Q. So a total of three-and-a-half hours?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. O ka y. N ow , w he n w e w e re s ch ed ul ed f o r h e ar in g

b ac k i n J an ua ry , d id I s en d y ou d oc um en ts b y e -m ai l a nd

other things to review?

A. Yo u d i d a n d I - - h o ne st ly, I on ly g av e t h em a

c ur so ry r ev ie w b ec au se y ou h ad g iv en m e t he a le rt t ha t

t hi s w as p ro ba bl y g o in g t o b e c o nt in ue d. Y ou - - I d o

n ot b el ie ve y ou b ro ug ht y ou r f il e b ut y ou d id s en d m e

t he a ff id av it s a nd t he o th er t hi ng s a nd I k ne w t he y w er e

th ere. I just didn 't put a lot of time into i t b ut I

d id r ev ie w b

Documents

Transcript Judge Barton 1.30 Pm Mar 20 2008