[As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (h) Expert Witness Fees. (1) A party desiring to depose any expert who is to be asked to express an opinion, shall pay the reasonable and customary hourly or daily fee for the actual time consumed in the examination of that expert by the party noticing the deposition. If any other attending party desires to question the witness, that party shall be responsible for the expert’s fee for the actual time consumed in that party’s examination. If requested by the expert before the date of the deposition, the party taking the deposition of an expert shall tender the expert’s fee based on the anticipated length of that party’s examination of the witness. If the deposition of the expert takes longer than anticipated, any party responsible for any additional fee shall pay the balance of that expert’s fee within 30 days of receipt of a statement from the expert. Any party identifying an expert whom that party expects to call at trial is responsible for any fee charged by the expert for preparing for and reviewing the deposition. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (2) If a party desiring to take the deposition of an expert witness pursuant to this subdivision deems that the hourly or daily fee of that expert for providing deposition testimony is unreasonable, that party may move for an order setting the compensation of that expert. This motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of any issue presented by the motion. Notice of this motion shall be given to the expert. The court shall set the fee of the expert for providing deposition testimony if it determines that the fee demanded by that expert is unreasonable. The court may impose a sanction pursuant to Rule 37 against any party who does not prevail, and in favor of any party who does prevail, on a motion to set expert witness fee, providing the prevailing party has engaged in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of any issues presented by the motion. [Added; effective January 1, 1988.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment Former subdivision (a) is repealed. New subdivision (a) conforms to the federal rule, as amended in 1993. It provides that leave of court is not required to take a deposition except as set forth in paragraph (2). Paragraph (2)(A) of the federal rule, which limits the number of depositions that may be taken is not included in the Nevada rule. Paragraphs (2)(B) and (C) of the federal rule are redesignated as paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) and adopted with minor modifications to reflect practice in state court. Subdivision (b) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1993, with some exceptions. The amendments to paragraph (1) are technical, but the 15-day minimum notice of examination is retained. Former paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) are repealed. New paragraph (2) permits the party noticing the deposition to choose the method of recording and permits recording by nonstenographic means. It is noted that the last two sentences of the first paragraph of former subdivision (b)(2) are deleted because they are redundant to Rule 26(g) and because Rule 11 no longer applies to discovery requests. New paragraph (3) permits other parties to arrange for recording by a means in addition to that selected by the person noticing the deposition. Unlike its federal counterpart, paragraph (3) of the Nevada rule requires 5 days’ notice to the deponent and other parties. New paragraph (4) provides that all depositions be recorded by an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28 and includes procedures to protect the utility and integrity of nonstenographic recordings. Paragraph (6) is amended to require a subpoena to depose an organization, remove the phrase “have knowledge of” from the second sentence, and provide that the subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to designate a person who consents to testify on its behalf. Paragraph (7) is amended to permit the taking of a deposition by other remote electronic means in addition to telephonic means, but it retains telephonic deposition procedures that do not appear in the federal rule. Subdivision (c) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1993. The fourth sentence of the former subdivision is repealed consistent with the new provisions of subdivision (b). The other revisions are intended to reduce the number of interruptions during depositions and complement the new provisions of subdivision (d)(1). Subdivision (d) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1993, by adding two new paragraphs. New paragraph (1) requires that any objection during a deposition be made concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. It also prohibits instructing a deponent not to answer except in three specific circumstances. Paragraph (2) of the federal rule, as amended in 2000, limits depositions to one day of seven hours; this provision is not included in the Nevada rule. Paragraph (3) of the federal rule is redesignated and adopted as new paragraph (2) of the Nevada rule. It authorizes the court or discovery commissioner to impose sanctions when a fair examination of the deponent is impeded, delayed or otherwise frustrated. Paragraph (3) retains the provisions of the former subdivision (d) and corresponds to paragraph (4) of the federal rule. Subdivision (e) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1993. Under the amended provision, review of the deposition transcript by the deponent is required only if requested before the deposition is completed. Subdivision (f) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1980 and 1993, with the exception of paragraph (3) of the federal rule. Paragraph (1) is amended to require a written certificate from the officer accompany the record of the deposition, which is sealed and sent to the party who arranged for the transcript or recording for safekeeping. Other amendments clarify the use of originals or copies of documents as exhibits to a deposition. The first sentence in paragraph (2) is new and generally provides that the officer must retain stenographic notes or a copy of the recording of any deposition. The amendments to subdivision (g) are technical. The rule retains in both paragraphs the word “shall” rather than “may,” which is used in the federal rule. The Nevada rule also retains the good cause exception in both paragraphs, which does not appear in the federal rule. Subdivision (h) is retained with some modifications. It has no federal counterpart. Paragraph (1) is amended to eliminate confusion concerning responsibility for travel expenses for a party’s expert to attend a deposition noticed by another party. RULE 31. DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS (a) Serving Questions; Notice. (1) A party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon written questions without leave of court except as provided in paragraph (2). The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of subpoena as provided in Rule 45. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (2) A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if the person to be examined is confined in prison or if, without the written stipulation of the parties: (A) the person to be examined has already been deposed in the case; or (B) a party seeks to take a deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(a). [Added; effective January 1, 2005.] (3) A party desiring to take a deposition upon written questions shall serve them upon every other party with a notice stating (1) the name and address of the person who is to answer them, if known, and if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs, and (2) the name or descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken. A deposition upon written questions may be taken of a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(b)(6). [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (4) Within 14 days after the notice and written questions are served, a party may serve cross questions upon all other parties. Within 7 days after being served with cross questions, a party may serve redirect questions upon all other parties. Within 7 days after being served with redirect questions, a party may serve recross questions upon all other parties. The court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (b) Officer to Take Responses and Prepare Record. A copy of the notice and copies of all questions served shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the officer designated in the notice, who shall proceed promptly, in the manner provided by Rule 30(c), (e) and (f), to take the testimony of the witness in response to the questions and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the questions received by the officer. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment Subdivision (a) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1993, including shorter periods for serving cross, redirect, and recross questions. The rule provides that depositions upon written questions may be taken without leave of court except as provided in new paragraph (2). The revised rule does not include the 10 deposition limit set forth in paragraph (2)(A) of the federal rule. As a result, paragraphs (2)(B) and (C) of the federal rule are redesignated as paragraphs (2)(A) and (B). The amendment to subdivision (b) is technical. The provision conforms to the federal rule. Subdivision (c) of the federal rule, which provides for notice of filing, is not included in the Nevada rule. RULE 32. USE OF DEPOSITIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

Vegas Law