Also known as: FRCP 30 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 · Rule 30 · Fed R Civ P 30
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing a party to take the oral deposition of any person, including a party, without first obtaining leave of court except in enumerated circumstances. The rule permits compulsion of a nonparty deponent's attendance through subpoena.
Jessica served a notice of oral deposition on Holly, a retired nonparty engineer who had worked on the SUV prototype at issue. Holly resides more than four hundred miles from the noticed location in State A. Because none of the exceptions requiring leave applied, Jessica proceeded with the deposition by notice alone.
Faith Fitzgerald noticed the deposition of an officer of Foxfire Biotech to obtain testimony about internal trading records. The officer appeared and produced the documents after proper notice. The deposition proceeded without court intervention because the notice satisfied the rule's requirements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Forrest Falconer noticed the deposition of a corporate employee at Freeman Engineering to explore facts surrounding an accident. The deponent answered questions about events he personally observed. The examination stayed within bounds that avoided protected materials.
Farid Farahani noticed the deposition of a director at Franklin Foundry regarding board discussions of a proposed sale. The director appeared pursuant to the notice and answered questions about the transaction. The deposition advanced without prior judicial approval.
Farah Fox noticed the deposition of a corrections official at Fidelity Trust to examine facility practices. The official appeared after receiving the notice. The deposition moved forward because no leave requirement was triggered.
Fiona Foster noticed the deposition of a corporate officer at Foxfire Biotech concerning the company's activities in the forum state. The officer appeared in response to the notice. The deposition occurred without leave because the standard prerequisites were met.
Leave is required only when one of the enumerated exceptions applies, such as when the deposition would exceed ten total depositions, the deponent has already been deposed, the deposition is sought before the time specified in Rule 26(d), or the deponent is confined in prison.
Supporting sources
No. The rule expressly authorizes a party to depose any person, including a nonparty, without leave unless an exception applies. Geographic or enforcement issues with a subpoena are addressed separately through Rule 45 or protective-order motions.
Supporting sources
The notice must state the time and place of the deposition and, if known, the deponent's name and address or a general description sufficient to identify the person or class. Failure to include required information, such as the time, renders the notice defective.
Supporting sources
No. Leave of court is required when the deponent has already been deposed. The court grants leave only to the extent consistent with the proportionality limits in Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).
Supporting sources
…proposed, based on Shively , does not mirror the nexus requirement it now proposes, its actions were sufficient to satisfy Rule 30(d). This argument also was preserved in the Court of Appeals, which recognized that petitioner was challenging “the concreteness of the defendant’s expeetation[s] of a proceeding.” 374 F.…