When Depositions Are the Least Burdensome Form of Discovery

Civil litigators accustomed to treating depositions as the most expensive option in pretrial discovery may want to reconsider. In some situations, a deposition can prove less burdensome than interrogatories or document production requests — particularly when a party faces the daunting prospect of collecting, reviewing, and producing large volumes of electronically stored information. Understanding when depositions offer a more efficient path to relevant evidence can be, in the right circumstances, a key element of case strategy and an effective means of avoiding costly protective order disputes.

In the federal system, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enumerates a number of grounds reasons why the trial court, on its own initiative or in response to a motion for protective order, may limit the scope or means of discovery sought by a party in a civil case. Rule 26(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part:

When interrogatories or document requests would require a responding party to search, compile, and review large volumes of data, a targeted deposition of a knowledgeable witness can deliver the same information at lower cost to both sides.

The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery;

(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;

(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;

The key passage is subsection 26(c)(1)(C), which authorizes the trial court to prescribe a means of discovery other than the one initially selected by a party.

Importantly, the court’s obligation to issue a protective order is mandatory — not discretionary — when alternative, less burdensome discovery means are available. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) declares that the trial court is required to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery” if it determines that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

Interrogatories No, Depositions Yes

Consider the very recent ruling in Robert Nock v. PalmCo Administration, LLC, No.24-cv-00662 (D. Md., Feb. 9, 2026), a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case in which the plaintiff sought through interrogatories and document production requests the disclosure of all databases maintained by the defendant containing any customer information. The discovery sought here went well beyond the issues in the case. The trial court agreed with the defendant that discovery seeking all databases containing information about any of the defendant’s customers would be overbroad and unduly burdensome; thus, improper under Rule 26(b). But instead of denying the sought-after discovery, the court ordered that the plaintiff could seek relevant information about the defendant’s customer lists through another discovery tool — a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of one of the defendant’s corporate officers.

Aside from being less burdensome than broadly drafted interrogatories, depositions appear to trigger fewer objections as well. The benefit to litigants is obvious: Litigation not burdened by pretrial discovery disputes will get to trial or settlement sooner and more efficiently than cases with drawn-out discovery battles. Drafting committee commentary to the 1970 revisions of Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cites a study finding that, although half of the federal cases studied used depositions and about one-third used interrogatories, roughly 65% of the objections were made with respect to interrogatories, with just 26% related to depositions.

Federal courts most often direct parties toward depositions when interrogatories demand data that no single document or database contains. A well-prepared Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative can synthesize information from multiple sources, explain gaps in the record, and clarify ambiguities in real time. That interactive dynamic dramatically reduces the volume of follow-up discovery that written interrogatory responses typically generate.

When answering an interrogatory would require assembling information from numerous sources, a deposition of a knowledgeable witness will frequently yield the same results more efficiently.

Written interrogatories also suffer from a structural deficiency: they prohibit follow-up questions. An evasive or incomplete interrogatory response forces the requesting party to serve additional interrogatory sets, triggering yet more delay, more objections, and more court intervention. A deposition eliminates this problem. The deposing attorney adjusts questions in real time based on witness answers, quickly identifies the information that matters, and leaves the proceeding with a complete record.

Winning Arguments for Depositions

Courts will not automatically substitute a deposition for interrogatories. The party seeking that substitution must demonstrate, concretely, that the deposition offers a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive means of obtaining the same information. Litigators seeking to avoid answering an initial set of interrogatories might consider the following approach:

1. Articulate the burden specifically. Vague assertions that answering interrogatories would be “burdensome” will rarely succeed. Courts require detailed showings, such as the precise number of employees who must be interviewed, the number of systems to be searched, and the estimated attorney hours involved in complying with the proposed discovery request.
2. Propose the deposition as the alternative. When seeking a protective order from burdensome interrogatories, propose a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as the substitute discovery method. Courts have broad discretion under Rule 26(c) to order that one discovery device replace another.
3. Scope the deposition carefully. A protective order substituting a deposition for interrogatories must mirror the interrogatories’ scope. Obviously, overbroad deposition notices can generate the same objections as overbroad interrogatories.

When interrogatories or document requests would require a responding party to search, compile, and review large volumes of data, a targeted deposition of a knowledgeable witness can deliver the same information at lower cost to both sides. In any discovery dispute, courts today will evaluate whether less burdensome discovery methods exist. Litigators will have the best chance of success if they frame their discovery requests — and their protective order arguments — around the proportionality factors codified in Rule 26(b)(1) and Rule 26(b)(2)(C).