Protective Orders:Georgia’s Civil Practice Act provides mechanisms for litigants and third parties to seek relief from discovery demands. These mechanisms include moving for a protective order under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(c). Under this provision, a trial court may, upon a showing of “good cause” by the moving party, “make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including limiting or otherwise prohibiting the requested discovery.The Apex Doctrine:The Apex Doctrine is a legal principle followed by multiple states and federal courts nationwide.

Georgia law permits discovery on any matter “not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b). The Court emphasized that the scope of discovery in Georgia is very broad and based on the language in the statute broader than the scope of discovery in federal courts.Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the apex doctrine and remanded the case to the trial court to consider the motion for protective order under the more traditional factors available under Georgia law.What this means for the deposition of corporate officersOn the one hand, the decision inBuchananmakes corporate officers more likely to be deposed than they would be under the apex doctrine.

clear. Courts are highly confident in videoconferencing technology, and in the ability of attorneys and witnesses to effectively use it with training, as a means to conduct remote depositions and move litigation forward during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to emergency orders in place across the country, many courts have limited discretion to impose an in-person deposition upon an unwilling party.Against this backdrop, a party’s failure to appear for a deposition can be disastrous. Whatever grounds a party might have for opposing the time, place, or manner of a properly noticed deposition, that party has just three options: negotiate with the opposing party, file a motion for a protective order, or show up prepared and ready to proceed.1.Many states have a Rule 37 equivalent that would similarly punish a no-show party. See, e.g., O.C.G.A. § 9-11-27 (2010); Fla. R. Civ. P. § 1.380 (2019).2. Many states have a Rule 26 and 45 equivalent that provide for similar protective orders. See, e.g., O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26 (2010); O.C.G.A. 9-11-45 (2010); Fla. R. Civ. P. § 1.280 (2019); Fla. R. Civ. P. § 1.410 (2019).