be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26.” Id. at 495-496. Since this court’s decision in Jochims was handed down, other courts have adopted the analysis set out in that decision. See Dominguez v. Syntex Lab., Inc., 149 P.R.D. 166, 167 (S.D.Ind.1993); Pierce v. Nelson, 509 N.W.2d 471, 474-75 (Iowa 1993). Upon consideration of the seven factors delineated in Jochims, the court is lead to the inescapable conclusion that Dr. Golniek’s requested hourly rate of $800.00 for deposition testimony is grossly excessive—or as one court described a requested fee, as “unconscionable” and “astronomical”. Anthony v. Abbott Lab., 106 P.R.D. 461, 464-65 (D.R.I.1985). The weight to be accorded any particular factor is dependant upon the uniqu , 955-56 (1st Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). An expert, such as Dr. Golnick, “cannot be
recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc  1988 holding that a contingentfee agreement should not act as a ceiling on the award of attorney fees under 42 usc  1988 holding that 42 usc  1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc  1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim holding on 42 usc  1988 claim that harvard law school professor was not entitled to be compensated at requested rate of 27500 per hour