FL. R. Civ. P. 1.390
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); Cook v. Lichtblau, 176 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA ); and Bondy v. West, 219 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA ). 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 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.