Michelle Williams and Nicole Williams Gross v. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., and the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

Judgment rendered November 17, 2021.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 54,112-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

MICHELLE WILLIAMS AND Plaintiffs-Appellees
NICOLE WILLIAMS GROSS

versus

CENTERPOINT ENERGY Defendants-Appellant-
RESOURCES CORP., AND THE Appellee
CITY OF SHREVEPORT,
LOUISIANA

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 600967

Honorable Michael A. Pitman, Judge

*****

PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Counsel for Appellant,
By: H. Alston Johnson, III CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp.

PLAUCHÉ MASELLI PARKERSON LLP
By: G. Bruce Parkerson
James K. Ordeneaux
Scott H. Mason

BARHAM & WARNER, L.L.C.
By: Vicki C. Warner

AYRES, SHELTON, WILLIAMS, BENSON Counsel for Plaintiffs/
& PAINE, LLC Appellees, Michelle
By: Curtis R. Shelton Williams and Nicole
Lee H. Ayres Williams Gross
Jody T. Benson

COLVIN, SMITH, McKAY & BAYS Counsel for Defendant/
By: Jennifer P. McKay Appellee, The City of
Shreveport, Louisiana

*****

Before STONE, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

The defendant, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., appeals a trial

court judgment awarding expert witness fees in the amount of $238,047.10,

associated with services and testimony provided by three plaintiffs’ experts.

The plaintiffs, Michelle Williams and Nicole Williams Gross, have

answered the appeal, seeking a reversal of the trial court’s denial of their

claim for expert witness fees associated with work completed by others at

the behest of the experts. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On July 31, 2016, the decedent, Dr. Richard Williams, lit a cigar in

the back yard of his home in Shreveport, Louisiana. An explosion and fire

occurred, and Dr. Williams sustained severe burns. He later died as a result

of his injuries.

The plaintiffs, Michelle Williams and Nicole Williams Gross, the

widow and daughter of Dr. Williams, filed a lawsuit against defendants,

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (“CenterPoint”) and the City of

Shreveport, Louisiana (“the City”). The plaintiffs alleged the explosion and

fire were caused by a major leak in a natural gas line immediately adjacent

to the home of Dr. and Mrs. Williams, CenterPoint was the operator and

transporter of the natural gas, and CenterPoint was responsible for the

condition and maintenance of the gas line. Further, the plaintiffs alleged the

City, which maintained and operated the utility rights of way in Shreveport,

was liable for failing to replace and maintain the gas pipeline.

A bifurcated trial was held, and a jury considered the claims with

regard to CenterPoint’s alleged liability.1 The issues of liability and

damages were hotly contested, and multiple expert witnesses testified at

trial. After the conclusion of the presentation of testimony and evidence, the

jury apportioned 80% fault to CenterPoint, 15% fault to the City, 5% fault to

the decedent, and 0% to Michelle Williams, and awarded $8,369,536.83 in

damages. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the

plaintiffs in accordance with the jury’s verdict, plus “such costs as are fixed

by the Court with judicial interest according to law until paid in full.”

CenterPoint satisfied the judgment against it, paying $6,695,629.49 in

principal and $699,968.44 in judicial interest.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion to tax costs and expert

witness fees in the amount of $318,605.25, in addition to “all other costs

incurred.” Relevant to this appeal are the expert witness fees attributable to

three experts retained by the plaintiffs: Rick Jones, an expert in fire cause

and origin, Robert Bartlett, a mechanical engineer and metallurgist, and

Edward Ziegler,2 an expert in gas pipeline safety and human factors. As to

those experts, the plaintiff requested fees as follows: $67,386.96 for Jones,

$100,667.44 for Bartlett, and $144,850.85 for Ziegler.

CenterPoint opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs were

“attempting to recover pre-trial costs that [were] not ‘incurred directly in

1
In the bifurcated trial, a jury considered the claims against CenterPoint, while
the trial judge considered the claims against the City. After considering the evidence, the
trial court found the City was not at fault. The plaintiffs did not appeal that judgment.
2
In some portions of the record, Ziegler’s last name is misspelled “Zeigler.”
However, when he spelled his name for the record during his deposition, he spelled it,
“Ziegler.” Additionally, his named is spelled “Ziegler” on the correspondence from his
limited liability company contained in the record. Therefore, with the exception of direct
quotations, for the purposes of this opinion, we will utilize the spelling “Ziegler.”
2

connection with the expert’s assistance at trial.’” According to CenterPoint,

the plaintiffs’ expert costs should have been limited to the costs associated

with testifying at trial and preparing to testify at trial, and should not have

included time spent assisting plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing for trial or time

spent collecting and evaluating evidence prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

CenterPoint maintained the costs should not have exceeded $42,920.81

(80% of that amount would total $34,336.65).

A hearing on the motion to tax costs was held on September 9, 2019.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:

[T]he costs to be taxed relating to expert witness fees in the
instant matter apply only to the work performed in preparation
for trial on behalf of testifying expert witnesses.
***
This lawsuit began in May of 2017 and continued into October
2019. The trial lasted over two weeks, spanning from March
13, 2019 through March 29, 2019. The initial request on behalf
of the Plaintiffs exceeded $30,000,000.00 and was reduced to
an award amounting to 80% of $8,369,536.83. Expert
witnesses were presented on behalf of both parties, and the
amount spent on expert witnesses by Defendants was
comparable to the amount requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Plaintiffs conducted several depositions, wherein each of the
expert witnesses with fees in dispute testified as to their hourly
rates and time spent in preparation for trial. According to
Plaintiffs’ depositions of the expert witnesses, the hourly rates
were charged as follows: Mr. Jones, $155.00 per hour; Mr.
Bartlett, $325.00 per hour; and Mr. Zeigler, $295.00 per hour.
Each expert witness testified that their rates were reasonable
and customary for someone in their field with similar
education, training and experience. In addition, each expert
witness affirmed that their hours spent in preparation for trial
were what was needed for each to be prepared for trial. The
hours spent by the expert witnesses in preparation for trial were
paid for in full by the Plaintiffs prior to bringing the Motion.
***
This multimillion dollar case involved a myriad of complex
scientific and human factors. As such, the Plaintiffs’ experts
were required to be thorough, collect and analyze sufficient
facts and data, and apply reliable principles and methods.
3

Certainly, any shortcomings on any one of those requirements
would have subjected the Plaintiffs to the possibility that an
expert’s testimony would not be allowed. The work conducted
in preparation for trial by each expert witness was necessary for
the Plaintiffs in proving their case. The Court recognizes both
parties’ efforts to provide a thorough and analytical review of
the pertinent facts to this case, and considered the factors as to
each expert accordingly.
***

The trial court awarded expert witness fees as follows: $41,060.56 for

work completed by Jones, $48,919.69 for the work completed by Bartlett,

and $144,866.85 for the work completed by Ziegler. The court also awarded

additional costs of other experts, exhibits, video depositions and transcripts,

clerk of court and sheriff costs, transcription of audio calls, certified copies

of medical records, and trial exhibit costs.

Additionally, relying on this Court’s decision in Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v.

Jackel Int’l Ltd., 52,615 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 269 So. 3d 1136, writ

granted, 2019-0749 (La. 10/8/19), 319 So. 3d 854, and rev’d on other

grounds, 2020 WL 499164, 2019-0749 (La. 1/29/20), ___ So. 3d ___, the

trial court denied the plaintiffs’ claim for expert witness fees associated with

the costs of work completed by others at the behest of the expert. The court

stated:

I took a long time working on this opinion, and also I was
waiting for the Supreme Court to come back with their opinion
in Luv N’ Care. *** And it did address expert witness fees at
the Second Circuit, but the Supreme Court did not address it in
their opinion, but I did want to wait to see if they were going to
address it. *** But I also took a long time going through all of
this – each expert and some of the other expenses, because it
was a lot of money that was involved in this, and I really did
give this a lot of thought. And one of the main things that
formed the basis of my opinion is the Luv N’ Care opinion that
I can only award those fees for actual preparation for trial, not
for consultation with the attorneys and things of that nature.

4

And so that was a reason why I reduced the amount that the
plaintiffs were requesting.
***

CenterPoint appeals; the plaintiffs have answered the appeal.

DISCUSSION

CenterPoint contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding

expert witness fees exceeding $235,000.00, for the fees associated with

Jones, Bartlett, and Ziegler. According to CenterPoint, expert witnesses are

only entitled to reasonable compensation for costs associated with preparing

to testify at trial and the actual participation in the trial. CenterPoint

maintains the trial court erroneously awarded costs for all of the time the

experts expended on this case over the course of two and a half years.

Additionally, CenterPoint asserts much of the work and investigation

performed by the expert witnesses commenced prior to the lawsuit being

filed, and the experts should not be compensated for that work, as it was not

conducted to prepare the experts to testify at trial. Furthermore, CenterPoint

urges this Court to adhere to the “American Rule,” by which each party

would bear its own litigation costs.

Unless the judgment provides otherwise, costs shall be paid by the

party cast, and may be taxed by a rule to show cause. La. C. C. P. art. 1920.

Additionally, La. R.S. 13:3666 provides, in pertinent part:

A. Witnesses called to testify in court only to an opinion
founded on special study or experience in any branch of
science, or to make scientific or professional examinations, and
to state the results thereof, shall receive additional
compensation, to be fixed by the court, with reference to the
value of time employed and the degree of learning or skill
required.

5

B. The court shall determine the amount of the fees of said
expert witnesses which are to be taxed as costs to be paid by the
party cast in judgment either:

(1) From the testimony of the expert relative to his time
rendered and the cost of his services adduced upon the trial of
the cause, outside the presence of the jury, the court shall
determine the amount thereof and include same.

(2) By rule to show cause brought by the party in whose favor a
judgment is rendered against the party cast in judgment for the
purpose of determining the amount of the expert fees to be paid
by the party cast in judgment, which rule upon being made
absolute by the trial court shall form a part of the final
judgment in the cause.
***

An expert witness is entitled to reasonable compensation for his court

appearance and for his preparatory work. The trial judge is not required to

set an expert witness fee at the amount charged by the expert witness. The

trial judge has great discretion in awarding and fixing costs and expert

witness fees. Boone v. Top Dollar Pawn Shop of Bossier, LLC, 50,493 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16), 188 So. 3d 1093; Hammock ex rel. Thompson v.

Louisiana State Univ. Med. Ctr. in Shreveport, 34,086 (La. App. 2 Cir.

11/1/00), 772 So. 2d 306.

Relevant factors in fixing expert witness fees include the time spent

testifying, time spent in preparation for trial, time spent away from regular

duties while waiting to testify, extent and nature of the work performed, and

the knowledge, attainments of the expert. The court may also consider the

helpfulness of the expert’s report and testimony to the court and the

complexity of the problem addressed by the expert. Boone, supra.

A trial court’s assessment of costs can be reversed by an appellate court only

upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Ryan v. Case New Holland, Inc.,

6

51,062 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/22/16), 211 So. 3d 611; Allstate Enterprises, Inc.

v. Brown, 39,467 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05), 907 So. 2d 904. An abuse of

discretion occurs when such discretion is exercised in a way that deprives a

litigant of his day in court. Anderson v. Cunningham, 34,859 (La. App. 2

Cir. 5/9/01), 786 So. 2d 940; Louisiana State Bd. of Dentistry v. Baker,

D.D.S., 33, 828 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/00), 768 So. 2d 683. Generally, an

abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an

arbitrary manner. Quality Env. Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co., Inc.,

2016-0230 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/17), 219 So. 3d 349, writ denied, 2017-

0915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So. 3d 833.

In Albright v. S. Trace Country Club of Shreveport, Inc., 37,725 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 10/17/03), 859 So. 2d 238, 243, writ granted, 2003-3413 (La.

3/26/04), 871 So. 2d 331, and aff'd, 2003-3413 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So. 2d 121,

this Court defined the terms “arbitrary and capricious” as follows:

Capricious is defined as “governed by or showing caprice;
unsteady; changeable; fickle; fanciful; as, a man of a capricious
temper.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,
Second Edition, 1972. Further, caprice is defined as “whim,
arbitrary, seemingly unfounded motivation. Disposition to
change one’s mind impulsively.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, 1979. Further, in Jemison v. City of Kenner, 277 So.2d
728, 729 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973), writ denied, 281 So.2d 753
(La.1973), the court noted that “... The words arbitrary and
capricious are practically synonymous and mean without
reasonable cause and do not necessarily imply an opprobrious
connotation. Arbitrary action is based upon one’s will and
usually implies an abuse of one's authority or power ....”
(Citation omitted.) (Emphasis added).

In the instant case, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to

assess fees and costs. The parties presented the court with the invoices

submitted by Jones, Bartlett, and Ziegler, and the deposition testimony of the

three experts.
7

Richard (“Rick”) Jones, Jr.

CenterPoint argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding

$41,060.56 for expert witness fees attributable to Rick Jones. CenterPoint

maintains Jones spent approximately 20 hours traveling to and attending the

trial, including the two and a half hours he testified, and, as such, the

plaintiffs should have only been awarded $12,165.00, the amount which

reflects the time Jones testified he spent actually traveling to and preparing

to testify at the trial. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs sought reimbursement for

295 hours Jones allegedly spent “preparing for trial.” CenterPoint also

asserts Jones’ testimony was neither complex nor helpful because it

(CenterPoint) had submitted documents which showed the explosion was

caused by “the unintentional release of natural gas from its cast-iron main.”

Although the trial court described Jones’ testimony as “helpful to both this

Court and the jury,” the court did not mention the report submitted by Jones

when it ruled in favor of the City.

Our review of the record reveals the plaintiffs requested $67,386.96

for expert witness fees associated with the work performed by Jones. As

stated above, Jones, a certified fire investigator, was retained as the

plaintiffs’ origin and cause expert. Two days after the fire and explosion,

Jones sent two of his employees to Shreveport to begin processing and

investigating the scene. During his deposition related to costs, Jones

testified he charged $155.00 per hour for his time spent working on this

case, as shown by the invoices issued by his firm. Jones testified with

regard to the time, effort, travel, and preparation required to testify in a case

he described as “very complex.” He testified as follows:

8

***
This [case] had a lot of players, a lot of evidence, a lot of
testing, a lot of history, a lot of research. I mean, this goes back
over 100 years that the pipe was in the ground. So they had
history to go along with this that you needed to research and
learn when the pipe was put in. So this was a very complex
case.
***

With regard to Jones, the trial court specifically found his services as

an expert required multiple site and off-site inspections, the interviewing of

witnesses, inspection of artifacts, the review of documents and depositions,

and applying the proper analysis to the facts he gathered. The trial court also

found the testimony of Jones “provided crucial expertise pertaining of the

ignition as well as its source,” and enabled the jury to “understand the

evidence and to determine facts [at] issue at trial.” The trial court ultimately

awarded $41,060.56 in expert witness fees for services rendered by Jones.

Jones testified with regard to the number of hours he and his employees

expended on this case, and he submitted the invoices as evidence thereof.

Other than arguing the amount awarded to Jones was excessive, CenterPoint

has presented no evidence to support the amount of time expended, or the

charges therefor, as being excessive. Nor did CenterPoint present any

evidence to show the trial court acted arbitrarily or capriciously or abused its

authority in ordering the amount. Based on the record before us, we find the

amount awarded is supported by the record, and the trial court did not abuse

its discretion in awarding to the plaintiffs $41,060.56 in expert witness fees

for the expertise and testimony of Jones.

Robert (“Bob”) Bartlett

Additionally, CenterPoint argues the trial court erred in awarding

$48,919.69 for fees associated with Bob Bartlett’s expert testimony.

9

Bartlett, a mechanical and metallurgical engineer, testified on behalf of the

plaintiffs as an expert in metallurgy. CenterPoint maintains Bartlett spent

only 18.5 hours traveling to and attending the trial, and his testimony lasted

one hour and 44 minutes. Yet, the plaintiffs requested, and were awarded

fees for, 130 hours for Bartlett’s “preparatory work for trial.” CenterPoint

does not dispute Bartlett’s knowledge and skill. However, it notes Bartlett’s

written report was not introduced at trial and, therefore, it could not have

been “helpful” in assisting the judge or the jury. Further, CenterPoint

maintains Bartlett’s trial testimony did not contain any information not

already in CenterPoint’s public filings, and any work expended by Bartlett

may have assisted plaintiff’s counsel in framing and presenting the case, but

did not help the trier of fact. CenterPoint urges the fees for Bartlett’s

testimony should be reduced from $48,919.69, to $11,667.50.

As stated above, the plaintiffs requested $100,667.44 for expert

witness fees associated with the work performed by Bartlett, who testified

with regard to the cast iron gas pipe which leaked and ignited, resulting in

the death of Dr. Williams. During his deposition testimony relative to the

motion to tax costs, Bartlett testified he conducted testing and research

which were incorporated into the opinions he formed in this case. He also

stated he attended inspections and reviewed documents which were

necessary to formulate his opinions. Bartlett testified he charged an hourly

rate of $325.00, and his engineering firm submitted invoices to reflect the

hours expended by Bartlett and his employees related to this case. Bartlett

also testified the rate he charged was “a reasonable and customary rate” for

someone in his field with similar education, training, and experience. He

further testified other mechanical engineers and engineering technologists
10

employed by his company performed some of the work in this matter, and

some of the invoices billed for work completed by them. Bartlett stated the

work performed by his employees was at his behest and was necessary in the

preparation for his trial testimony. He also testified the issues he was asked

to address were “complex.” He stated:

Well, this is typical of the type of work that we do. But it is
complex. But after you develop patterns of addressing them,
it’s not that challenging. But it is a complex interpretation of
facts, metallography and metallurgical evaluation and various
types of technical evaluations that we did. There is certainly
some complexity to this. This is not just common sense
material.

During his testimony on cross-examination, Bartlett testified he

initially became involved in this case after he was contacted by Rick Jones.

He also testified he was retained to work on this case before the lawsuit was

filed, and any work he performed prior to the filing of the lawsuit, including

developing alternate protocols, was “definitely in preparation for gaining the

information we needed in order to testify at trial.” Bartlett submitted

invoices to reflect the hours he and his employees spent working on this

case.

With regard to Bartlett’s testimony, the trial court stated:

Mr. Bartlett provided opinions related to CenterPoint’s cast iron
main that leaked and ignited, leading to the death of Dr.
Williams. These opinions also tied to the opinions of Mr.
Zeigler, as they related to the inherent dangers found in
CenterPoint’s gas distribution system. Mr. Bartlett’s testimony
on CenterPoint’s cast iron main provided crucial evidence as to
the inherent dangers of cast iron pipes and their threat to the
safety of the general public and to Dr. Williams. Further, Mr.
Bartlett provided testimony as to the complexity of the case.
Specifically, Mr. Bartlett spoke as to the complex interpretation
of facts, metallography and the metallurgical evaluations as
well as technical evaluations conducted.

11

We have reviewed this record, including the invoices submitted

by Bartlett’s firm, and his deposition testimony related thereto.

Bartlett testified with regard to his hourly fee, and he provided

invoices detailing the hours spent working on this case. There is no

evidence of record the trial court abused its discretion or acted

arbitrarily or capriciously in awarding to the plaintiffs expert witness

fees, in the amount of $48,914.69, associated with Bartlett’s trial

preparation and testimony.

Edward Ray Ziegler

Additionally, CenterPoint contends the trial court erred in awarding

$144,866.85 in expert witness fees for the preparation and testimony of

Ziegler. CenterPoint argues Ziegler’s testimony lasted four hours and eleven

minutes, and he allegedly spent approximately 40 hours traveling to and

from Shreveport to attend the trial. Further, according to CenterPoint,

Ziegler admitted he copied and pasted certain portions of this case from a

report he had previously prepared for another case; therefore, it is “doubtful”

he spent the more than 80 hours he claimed for “preparing for trial.”

Further, CenterPoint asserts Ziegler’s trial testimony did not reference most

of the information contained in his report. CenterPoint argues this Court

should not “confuse the standard of ‘time spent in preparation for trial’ with

‘time spent working on a case.’” CenterPoint also urges Ziegler billed the

plaintiffs for the time he spent “working on the case,” but he did not make

any effort to segregate the time he spent genuinely preparing for the trial.

Ziegler, an expert in pipeline safety and human factors, testified via

deposition with regard to the expert witness fees. He testified he was

retained by plaintiffs’ counsel in July 2018, and he began working, gathering
12

facts and information necessary to prepare a report and to testify in this case.

Ziegler testified as follows:

As I started to review material, looked at the documents,
gathered facts and information, it was all the beginning of the
process that continued over the next series of invoices that we’ll
probably be talking about, which the ultimate goal was to
prepare to testify in a trial. So, everything I did in this process
and the time that was billed was geared toward gathering that
information for ultimate trial testimony.
***

Ziegler also testified with regard to the invoices he submitted to reflect the

number of hours he expended working on this case. He stated his fee for

working on this case was $295.00 per hour. According to Ziegler, the fee

was reasonable and customary in his industry, and his “rates are probably on

the low end of the industry for people who do similar work and have similar

experience.”

During cross-examination, Ziegler testified everything he did

pertaining to this case “was preparation for and gathering information to

testify at the trial.” He stated whenever he is retained in a case, “the only

purpose of performing the work, preparing, reviewing for, as I work on the

case, is to testify at the trial.” Ziegler admitted the word “trial” did not

appear in his 47-page report. Nevertheless, he stated:

But I’m analyzing these issues, and the purpose of preparing the
report and learning about the case and gathering information
and looking at what the other experts did in their approach, et
cetera, is to go to the trial and explain these issues to the jury.
That’s the sole purpose of this entire consulting project on my
part.

Ziegler also testified he utilizes a “standard format,” and some aspects

of his reports are similar. For example, he stated he typically does not

rewrite the section pertaining to his background in every report he generates.

13

With regard to Ziegler, the trial court stated:

Mr. Zeigler provided testimony on safety, pipeline safety, and
human factors. Mr. Zeigler reviewed thousands of pages of
documents produced in discovery by CenterPoint, as well as
dozens of depositions. His work also included a review of the
federal Pipeline Safety Regulations and CenterPoint policies
and procedures. Mr. Ziegler was accepted as an expert in
pipeline safety and human factors by this Court, and his
knowledge and skill set was helpful to the trier of fact to
understand the evidence and to determine facts in issue at trial.
Specifically, Mr. Zeigler’s testimony was offered in support of
a finding of fault on CenterPoint and a finding of no fault on the
part of Plaintiff, Michelle Williams.

Our review of this record reveals no abuse of discretion with regard to

the amount of expert witness fees, $144,866.85, awarded to plaintiffs for the

services of Ziegler. The invoices reflect Ziegler expended numerous hours

examining documents and records in the case and in formulating his

opinions in preparation for his testimony at trial. Further, as the trial court

noted, his trial testimony was helpful to the jury in allocating fault in this

matter. Our review of the record has revealed no abuse of the trial court’s

discretion.

Consequently, we find the rates charged by the expert witnesses,

Jones, Bartlett, and Ziegler, and the total number of hours expended by the

experts for preparing and testifying were reasonable, given the facts and

complexity of this case. We find the amounts awarded were sufficient to

fairly compensate the expert witnesses for their court appearances and their

preparatory work. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion or authority in awarding to plaintiffs expert witness fees in the

amount of $238,047.10, for the testimony and preparatory work performed

by Jones, Bartlett, and Ziegler.

14

Answer to Appeal

In their answer to this appeal, the plaintiffs contend the trial court

committed a legal error by concluding it could not award expert fees for

work ancillary to the expert’s work. According to the plaintiffs, they were

entitled to an award of fees for work completed by employees of the expert

witnesses, at the behest of the experts.

In Luv N’ Care, supra, this Court held the trial court abused its

discretion in awarding expert witness fees for “work done by persons other

than [the expert].” Id. at 1143. However, the plaintiffs argue, this particular

issue was not raised by either of the parties in the case, and this Court did

not cite any statutory or jurisprudential authority to support its statement.

According to the plaintiffs, Luv N’ Care, supra, “was decided wrongly and

should be abrogated by this Court.”

In the instant case, the record reflects Jones and Bartlett submitted

invoices which included hours of work and travel by other engineers and

technicians employed by their companies. Both experts testified some of the

underlying background work, including processing of the scene, gathering of

information, and analyses of data, was actually completed by some of their

employees. Nevertheless, they testified the work was vital to this case

because it assisted them in forming their conclusions and opinions and

preparing for the trial in this case.

The plaintiffs assert R.S. 13:3666, which permits the trial court to

award “additional compensation, to be fixed by the court, with reference to

the value of time employed and the degree or learning or skill required,” and

the language of the statute does not limit the award to include only the work

of the expert witness. The plaintiffs also point out courts have not limited
15

attorney fee awards to services provided by the attorney alone, but have

allowed the recovery for paralegal services when awarding attorney fees.

See Hanley v. Doctors Hosp. of Shreveport, 35,527 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/6/02),

821 So. 2d 508.

Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself.

Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 10-2605 (La. 3/13/12), 89 So. 3d 307.

The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its

entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter, and placing a

construction on the provision in question that is consistent with the express

terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting

it. City of Pineville v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3352, 00-1983 (La. 6/29/01), 791 So. 2d 609.

Courts are bound to construe all parts of a statute and to construe no

sentence, clause, or word as meaningless if a construction giving force to

and preserving all words legitimately can be found. McGlothlin v. Christus

St. Patrick Hosp., 10-2775 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So. 3d 1218, 1228-29.

As stated above, La. R.S. 13:3666(A) permits the trial court to tax

additional compensation for “witnesses called to testify in court only to an

opinion founded on special study or experience in any branch of

science[.]” (Emphasis added). Further, R.S. 13:3666(B) mandates the trial

court to “determine the amount of the fees of said expert witnesses which

are to be taxed as costs[.]” (Emphasis added). R.S. 13:3666(B)(1) provides

the trial court shall determine the costs of “said expert” to be determined

from “the testimony of the expert relative to his time rendered and the cost

of his services adduced upon the trial of the cause[.]” (Emphasis added).

16

We find nothing in the language of R.S. 13:3666 permits courts to tax

additional compensation for any person other than “witnesses called to

testify in court” as to their field of study or scientific experience. Although

the work performed by the employees of the experts in the case was

characterized as essential or vital to the ultimate conclusions and opinions of

the experts, the plain language of the statute does not permit courts to award

fees for work completed by anyone other than the expert witness who

testifies in court pertaining to his or her area of expertise. Consequently, we

adhere to this Court’s ruling in Luv N’ Care, supra, and conclude the trial

court did not err in concluding invoices reflecting the charges for work done

by persons other than the expert witnesses are not recoverable under La. R.S.

13:3666.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment awarding expert

witness fees in the amount $238,047.10 is hereby affirmed. Costs of the

appeal are assessed to the defendant, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.

AFFIRMED.

17