When 10 Depositions Are Not Enough

If your case calls for more than 10 depositions, when should you ask the court for permission? As soon as the need becomes apparent, or after you have taken the first 10?

In the federal system, Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure presumptively limits each side to 10 depositions, counting depositions under both Rules 30 and 31. Exceeding that limit requires a stipulation or leave of court. The court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).

Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) govern the scope and limits of discovery. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires the court to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, is available from a more convenient or less burdensome source, could have been obtained through ample prior opportunity, or falls outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Together, these provisions frame the following questions:

• Would the additional depositions be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative?
• Can the information sought be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive?
• Has the party seeking the additional depositions had ample opportunity to obtain the information through other discovery in the action?
• Do the additional depositions seek information outside the permissible scope of discovery?
• Are the additional depositions proportional to the needs of the case?

The rules do not specify whether parties must exhaust their first 10 depositions before seeking permission for more. Courts have developed differing approaches to that timing question.

The recent ruling in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 7, 2026), illustrates the issue. In Mobley, an employment discrimination action involving an ADEA collective and proposed Rule 23 classes, the plaintiffs supported their class-certification motion with declarations from 38 opt-in plaintiffs. Workday noticed depositions of all 38 declarants in addition to its other fact and expert depositions. After addressing defects in the notices, including Workday’s failure to confer about scheduling or obtain a stipulation or leave to exceed the limit, the court considered the plaintiffs’ contention that Workday should be required to take its first 10 depositions before seeking permission for more.

The court acknowledged a general rule favoring requests timed after the first 10 depositions have been conducted: “[C]ourts generally do not grant leave until the party has used the ten that it has.” This exhaustion requirement exists so that a party can demonstrate what the first 10 depositions did not yield, the court said. “It is not in the text of Rule 30.”

Workday had taken six or seven fact-witness depositions and was scheduled to take three expert depositions by October 9, placing it at or near 10 before the declarant depositions began. The court also found a particularized need: Workday sought to question identified witnesses about declarations supporting a motion it had to oppose by a fixed deadline. Requiring a smaller initial set of declarant depositions followed by another request for leave would not fit that schedule. The court therefore allowed 15 declarant depositions in addition to the fact depositions already taken and the three expert depositions. Each declarant deposition was limited to two hours and to the contents of the declaration.

An early request may succeed when the need for additional depositions is clear from the outset.

Exhaustion and Particularized Need

A pair of rulings from other courts shows how the general rule of exhaustion leads some courts to deny early requests for relief from the 10-deposition limit.

In 3086 Purchase LLC v. The Town/Village of Harrison, No. 25-cv-09917 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2026), the court denied a request for 12 depositions before any had been taken. With document production still ongoing, the plaintiff had not shown that 10 depositions would be inadequate or that the additional depositions would be noncumulative and proportional to the needs of the case. The court denied the request without prejudice to renewal if later discovery warranted it.

In Rounds v. The Board of Trustees of the California State University, No. 20-cv-00170 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2022), the plaintiff requested permission to depose 19 witnesses before she had taken any depositions. The court discussed differing approaches to exhaustion and the need for a particularized showing. Although it acknowledged that some courts reject an exhaustion requirement or recognize exceptions, it denied the request because the plaintiff had not demonstrated a particularized need, a deficiency compounded by her failure to take any depositions.

These cases show that an early request may succeed when the need for additional depositions is clear from the outset. Complexity alone does not establish that need. A party should explain why the proposed depositions would be nonduplicative and proportional to the needs of the case, supported by specific facts rather than a list of potentially relevant witnesses.

Deposition Practices

Historical survey data provide context for deposition practice. In a 2009 Federal Judicial Center survey, approximately 45 percent of responding plaintiff and defense attorneys reported no non-expert depositions in the sampled closed case. Among respondents reporting at least one non-expert deposition by either side, plaintiff attorneys reported averages of 3.8 depositions by plaintiffs and 2.8 by defendants; defense attorneys reported averages of 3.1 and 2.6, respectively. These figures describe reported practices, rather than the effect of deposition limits on outcomes.

A 2018 Bloomberg Law survey commissioned by Esquire Deposition Solutions found that 79 percent of respondents were conducting the same number of depositions or more than two years earlier. Separately, 31 percent of attorney respondents reported taking more depositions because of the need to discover and use electronically stored information.

Timing the Request

When a case may require more than 10 depositions, raise the issue early in discovery planning and check how the court approaches requests to exceed the limit. Some courts generally require parties to exhaust their initial allotment; others will consider an earlier request supported by a concrete showing of need. Explain what each additional witness can contribute, why other discovery will not suffice, and how the proposed depositions remain proportional to the case. Account for discovery and briefing deadlines, and consider whether limits on duration, scope, or the number of witnesses can address the court’s concerns.