I do not have strong qualms about the merits of this opinion. The trial court included as cots various fees for depositions that, for one reason or another, did not, in fact, go forward. That seems generally fine to me -- or at least not categorically impermissible -- for the reasons Justice Raphael identifies.
But as I read the opinion, one thing kept -- and keeps -- confusing me.
Justice Raphael repeatedly says that one of the non-party deponents, a treating physician named Dr. Tan, was served by the defendant after he died. For example: "Tempur-Pedic also requested costs for service of process on . . . Dr. Randall Tan ($306.82);" "[Defendant] represented that Tan was identified as a treating physician and served before they were aware he had died;" and "As to Tan, the court awarded the costs because there was no indication Tempur-Pedic was aware of his death when they served him."
But, as a nonparty witness, Dr. Tran needed to be personally served with the subpoena. So there's no way the defendant actually did that if he was dead.
So I went back and checked the briefs. Which made clear that what everyone is talking about are the costs of attempting to serve Dr. Tran.
Which makes more sense.
To make things clearer, I might add "attempting" to the various places in the opinion where it says that the trial court granted costs for "serving" Dr. Tran.
If only for slowpokes like me.
