Court Opinion

ID: 9781480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:40:12.557148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:06.858812
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Bay Mitchell, Presiding Judge:
Concurring in Part; Dissenting in Part.
¶ 11 dissent because I believe the majority fails to recognize the difference between discovery depositions and trial depositions. This ignores the practical and very real distinctions between the two. I would affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.
¶2 Originally, Brandenburg retained Dr. Billings as an expert witness. -Later, Dyer took Dr. Billings’ discovery deposition. Pri- or to the pretrial conference, Brandenburg decided not to call Dr. Billings as a witness, and did not list him as a witness on the final Pretrial Order. Dyer, however, designated portions of Dr. Billings’ deposition testimony to present to the jury in her case-in-chief. Brandenburg’s counsel then issued a trial subpoena to Dr. Billings so he could cross-examine Dr. Billings live immediately following Dyer’s presentation of parts of his deposition testimony. At trial, Dyer did use portions of Dr! Billings’ video discovery deposition in her case-in-chief. Brandenburg then cross-examined the subpoenaed Dr. Billings live.
¶ 3 The deposition Dyer introduced at trial was a discovery deposition taken by Dyer’s counsel. Obviously, the motives of a party to conduct a full examination of its own retained expert are much different in a discovery deposition than in a trial deposition. During this discovery deposition, Brandenburg’s counsel did not have any need to ask discovery questions of his own expert, because he did not need to discover Dr. Billings’ opinions. Although certain discovery depositions may be used at trial, these depositions are not generally conducted formally or with the expectation that the witness will not be available for trial. During discovery depositions, attorneys routinely make the tactical decision to not cross-examine and thereby reveal their trial strategies. A trial deposition, on the other hand, is normally conducted by the party who retained the expert, and is conducted with all the formalities of trial because the parties assume the deposition will be used at trial in place of the expert’s live testimony. The opposing party conducts the cross-examination just as if they were in trial, and all objections are generally made at *689the time the deposition is taken. Another distinction is that a discovery deposition is paid for by the party seeking or doing the discovery pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp.2002 § 3226(B)(3)(c), while a trial deposition is paid for by the party who retained the expert and is seeking to preserve his testimony for use at trial in his case-in-chief.
¶4 Here, Brandenburg clearly did not have the motive to conduct a full cross-examination during Dyer’s discovery deposition of Dr. Billings. It is clear from Dr. Billings’ deposition that it was never intended to be a trial deposition, even though it was videotaped. There is no rule requiring parties to ask cross-examination questions of their experts in routine discovery depositions or lose their opportunity to “cross-examine” these witnesses at trial. Cross-examination of an expert witness is an important right.
¶ 5 As to who should be required to pay for Dr. Billings’ trial testimony, under these unique circumstances the trial court did not err in requiring Dyer to pay. Dyer contends Dr. Billings was originally retained by Brandenburg, and Brandenburg had issued the trial subpoena, thereby “voluntarily incurring” Dr. Billings’ expert witness fees as an expense of litigation. However, Dyer chose to call Dr. Billings as a witness in her casein-chief, even after being made aware by the trial judge that Dr. Billings would then be considered her witness. If Dyer had not called Dr. Billings by deposition, he would not have been a witness at all at trial and there would be no witness fee to argue about. It was Dyer’s voluntary act of using Dr. Billings’ deposition testimony in her case-in-chief that caused these fees to be incurred. In all important respects, Dr. Billings was Dyer’s expert at trial.
¶ 6 In general, the party who calls an expert to testify at trial is responsible for paying all of that expert’s witness fees, including those incurred during cross-examination. See generally, Finnell v. Jebco Seismic, 2003 OK 35, ¶ 11, 67 P.3d 339, 343 (emphasizing that absent a statute, contractual provision or the court’s power to assess expenses incurred in litigation-related misconduct, “every litigant is responsible for his (or her) own litigation costs ... ”); McCoy v. McCoy, 1967 OK 86, ¶¶ 37, 47, 429 P.2d 999, 1011-12 (including expert witness fee and preparation for trial testimony as a litigation expense incurred by the party presenting that witness, but noting that expense could be shifted in a divorce action based on the status of the parties). Thus, the fact that Brandenburg issued the subpoena for Dr. Billings is irrelevant, because he was subpoenaed solely for the purpose of cross-examination. Further, the fact that Dr. Billings was initially Brandenburg’s retained expert is also irrelevant because Brandenburg decided not to use Dr. Billings as an expert and removed him from his witness list no later than the last pretrial conference. Instead, it was Dyer who utilized Dr. Billings’ testimony in her case-in-chief, and it was not contrary to law for the trial court to require her to pay all the expert witness fees associated with calling Dr. Billings as a witness, including his fees for testifying live for cross-examination.
¶ 7 Similar reasoning applies to Dr. Bart-low’s witness fees. Dr. Bartlow was Dyer’s expert witness who was retained to develop a “Life Care Plan” and testify regarding future economic loss caused by Dyer’s permanent blindness. Brandenburg took Dr. Bartlow’s discovery deposition, which Dyer presented at trial in its entirety during her case-in-chief pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 3232(A)(3)(e). Dr. Bartlow was subpoenaed by Brandenburg to testify live for cross-examination. Dr. Bart-low charged $1,486.77 for his live trial testimony and associated expenses, which the trial court ordered Dyer to pay.
¶ 8 The trial court’s treatment of Dr. Bart-low’s fees was consistent with its treatment of those of Dr. Billings. When either party uses a discovery deposition in its case-in-chief, the other side, in order to conduct a meaningful and effective cross-examination may call the witness to testify live, and any witness fees incurred will be the responsibility of the party who used the witness in its case-in-ehief. The trial court did not err by requiring Dyer to pay for the cross-examination of her own expert witness that she presented during her case-in-chief by deposition. No authority is cited, nor do we find any, that would obligate a party to pay for the *690right to cross-examine the opposing party’s witness.1
¶ 9 For these reasons, I dissent to the majority’s opinion reversing the trial court’s order that Dyer should pay the witness fees of Dr. Billings and Dr. Bartlow for testifying live at trial. In all other respects, I concur.

. It should be emphasized that if these depositions had been trial depositions instead of mere discoveiy depositions, a different result would be required.