Lassiter, ex rel. v. North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Incorporated
368 N.C. 367
| N.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lassiter (as guardian for Jakari Baize) sued multiple medical defendants for alleged malpractice; plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed the action. Defendants then moved to tax costs under Rule 41(d), seeking expert deposition fees and related costs.
- The trial court taxed certain deposition-related expert fees to plaintiff under N.C.G.S. § 7A-305(d)(11), concluding subpoenas were unnecessary given the discovery scheduling orders.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under existing precedent an expert must testify under subpoena (per N.C.G.S. § 7A-314) for expert-fee testimony to be taxed as costs, and that the discovery orders here did not waive the subpoena requirement.
- Defendants petitioned to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which granted review on whether § 7A-305(d)(11)’s 2007 addition eliminated the subpoena prerequisite for taxing expert "actual time spent providing testimony" as costs.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the 2007 enactment of § 7A-305(d)(11) authorizes taxing reasonable and necessary expert fees for actual testimony time as costs in civil actions without requiring the expert to have testified under subpoena.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert witness fees for actual deposition testimony may be taxed as costs only if the expert testified under subpoena | Lassiter: § 7A-305(d)(11) must be read with § 7A-314; prior cases require subpoena; discovery orders here did not waive subpoena requirement | Defendants: The 2007 addition of § 7A-305(d)(11) omitted "as provided by law," decoupling it from § 7A-314 and removing subpoena prerequisite for civil actions | Held: § 7A-305(d)(11) allows taxation of expert fees for actual testimony time in civil actions without a subpoena; Jarrell and similar precedent to the contrary overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrell v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 206 N.C. App. 559 (Court of Appeals 2010) (addressed interplay of discovery order waiver and subpoena requirement for taxing expert fees)
- Vaden v. Dombrowski, 187 N.C. App. 433 (Court of Appeals 2007) (discussed taxation of expert fees and statutory interpretation issues)
- Bennett v. Equity Residential, 192 N.C. App. 512 (Court of Appeals 2008) (recognized expert fees could be taxed as costs when witness subpoenaed)
- State v. Johnson, 282 N.C. 1 (North Carolina 1972) (held witness fees tied to subpoena requirement under § 7A-314)
- City of Charlotte v. McNeely, 281 N.C. 684 (North Carolina 1972) (explained that awards of costs are statutory and statutory interpretation controls)