Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.390

Depositions of Expert Witnesses

sha256 af762b5b23c21f8cc41c86bd4f7720ea… · retrieved 7/11/2026, 11:08:26 AM · The Florida Bar consolidated ed. eff. 04-01-2026 · verified 7/11/2026 by founder-directive-2026-07-11

RULE 1.390. 	DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES
(a) 	Definition. The term “expert witness” as used herein
applies exclusively to a person duly and regularly engaged in the
practice of a profession who holds a professional degree from a
university or college and has had special professional training and
experience, or one possessed of special knowledge or skill about the
subject upon which called to testify.
(b) 	Procedure. The testimony of an expert or skilled witness
may be taken at any time before the trial in accordance with the
rules for taking depositions and may be used at trial, regardless of
the place of residence of the witness or whether the witness is
within the distance prescribed by rule 1.330(a)(3). No special form
of notice need be given that the deposition will be used for trial.

(c) 	Fee. An expert or skilled witness whose deposition is
taken shall be allowed a witness fee in such reasonable amount as
the court may determine. The court shall also determine a
reasonable time within which payment must be made, if the
deponent and party cannot agree. All parties and the deponent shall
be served with notice of any hearing to determine the fee. Any
reasonable fee paid to an expert or skilled witness may be taxed as
costs.
(d) 	Applicability. Nothing in this rule shall prevent the
taking of any deposition as otherwise provided by law.
Committee Notes
1972 Amendment. This rule has caused more difficulty in
recent years than any other discovery rule. It was enacted as a
statute originally to make the presentation of expert testimony less
expensive and less onerous to the expert and to admit the expert’s
deposition at trial regardless of the expert’s residence. In spite of its
intent, courts seem determined to misconstrue the plain language
of the rule and cause complications that the committee and the
legislature did not envisage. See Owca v. Zemzicki, 137 So. 2d 876
(Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Cook v. Lichtblau, 176 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA
1965); and Bondy v. West, 219 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The
committee hopes the amendment to subdivision (b) will show that
the intent of the rule is to permit a deposition taken of an expert in
conformity with any rule for the taking of a deposition to be
admitted, if otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence,
regardless of the residence of the expert. In short, the rule
eliminates the necessity of any of the requirements of rule
1.330(a)(3) when the deposition offered is that of an expert.
1988 Amendment. Subdivision (c) has been amended to
clarify the procedure to be used in paying an expert witness for his
or her appearance at a deposition.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.