Skip to main content

No Protective Order Required: The Magnificent Seven Shift Gears on Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions

Donald, a white man with blond hair, wears a white shirt, yellow tie with beige squares, and a black suit.
Donald R. Pocock

No, this is not a new Phil Collins release, but it is a new approach to 30(b)(6) deposition notice objections. It is rare for the Supreme Court of North Carolina to address discovery rules in depth. So, when a decision provides specific guidance on a topic as common as Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, it is worth reading.

In Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 23PA25 (N.C. Aug. 14, 2026), the Court held that (1) a party seeking discovery cannot unilaterally impose tighter deadlines for objections to Rule 30(b)(5) document requests than the deadlines the Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe, and (2) a party responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice need not obtain a protective order to preserve objections to the noticed deposition topics. Under Sessoms, serving objections directly on the deposing party in advance of the deposition is sufficient.

Sessoms arose from a tragic set of facts. In July 2021, eighteen-year-old Matthew Sessoms was driving a 2013 Toyota Scion in Columbus County when a state-owned dump truck ran a stop sign and struck the front of his vehicle. The occupant compartment collapsed, pinning him to the steering wheel. A fire then erupted near the engine compartment, spread through the firewall, and ultimately killed him despite the prolonged rescue efforts of bystanders and emergency personnel.

His mother, Sheila Sessoms, filed suit as administratrix of his estate against Toyota and Subaru, the joint developers of the Scion. She asserted claims for negligence, breach of warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 75. Her product liability theory focused on the allegedly defective design of the vehicle’s occupant compartment, firewall and related structural components.

Discovery was contentious. Ms. Sessoms served broad interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission beginning in January 2022. In the spring of 2023, she noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of both Toyota and Subaru. Those deposition notices included Rule 30(b)(5) requests for document production and specified that objections and documents were due fourteen days before the deposition.

Toyota responded and objected ten days before the deposition; Subaru objected seven days before. Both defendants also objected to certain Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics on various grounds, including overbreadth and relevance. Notably, neither defendant sought a protective order before the depositions. The depositions went forward, plaintiff’s counsel held them open, and Ms. Sessoms moved to compel.

The trial court granted the motion to compel, finding that defendants had not served “timely objections” under the fourteen-day deadline Ms. Sessoms had set and that defendants’ failure to obtain a protective order before the depositions effectively waived their objections to the Rule 30(b)(6) topics. The court later imposed severe sanctions. It deemed elements of plaintiff’s product liability claim established and struck a defense based on what it characterized as willful noncompliance.

Rule 30(b)(5) Deadlines Cannot Be Unilaterally Shortened

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the trial court erred by enforcing the fourteen-day deadline Ms. Sessoms imposed in her deposition notice for objections to Rule 30(b)(5) document requests. The text of Rule 30(b)(5) is clear: “any objections to such a request must be served at least seven days prior to the taking of the deposition.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). The documents themselves are due “at the taking of the deposition.”

Because Toyota and Subaru both served their objections at least seven days before the deposition, they complied with the rule. As the Court put it: “one party may not unilaterally impose tighter deadlines on their adverse party than those prescribed by the Rules and expose the other party to sanctions on that basis.” Parties can mutually agree to different deadlines, including in a discovery plan under Rule 26(f), but absent agreement, the rule controls.

No Protective Order Required to Preserve Rule 30(b)(6) Objections

The Court held that a deponent responding to a 30(b)(6) notice need not obtain a protective order under Rule 26(c) before the deposition. Objections are preserved by lodging them directly with the deposing party in advance of the deposition.

This second holding should get the most attention. Most practitioners would expect that failure to seek a protective order is a waiver of objections. That thinking is grounded in the language of Rule 37(d) which says, “The failure to act described in this section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 26(c).” N.C. R. Civ. P. 37(d).

Sessoms held, in what appears to be a matter of first impression, that in the context of 30(b)(6) deposition disputes, Rule 37(d) applies only to cases of “total noncompliance,” meaning where a party refuses to appear at all. That was not the situation here. Toyota and Subaru appeared, sat for the depositions, and objected only to scope. Sessoms shifts the burden to the party propounding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice where a responding party objects.

Rule 37(a)(2) provides that the party serving the deposition notice may move to compel the responding party where a “corporation or other entity fails to make a designation.” According to Sessoms, an objection to a Rule 30(b)(6) topic is effectively a refusal to designate a witness for that topic, not a refusal to appear. Accordingly, when a responding party objects to the scope of deposition topics, the burden shifts to the party serving the notice to move to compel. It is notable that Rule 37(a)(2) says that if the court denies a motion to compel, the court may enter a protective order as if the nonmoving party had obtained one. If a protective order were always required in the first instance, this clause would be surplusage.

If you are going to object to topics, do it early. Sessoms agreed with federal court interpretations that objections to Rule 30(b)(6) topics must be made “promptly to the deposing party after service of the notice” so that the deposing party has the opportunity to narrow the topics, reconsider its position, or move to compel. Raising objections for the first time during or on the eve of a deposition “would suggest a corporate entity has fallen short of its obligations to adequately prepare its designees.” This part of the decision appears to give trial courts some leeway in determining whether a responding party is playing games with objections to scope.

Practical Implications for North Carolina Litigators

For parties seeking discovery:

  • Do not rely on self-imposed deadlines. If you include a deadline in your deposition notice that is tighter than what the Rules provide, the responding party’s failure to meet your deadline while meeting the statutory deadline will not support a motion to compel or sanctions.
  • Rule 26(f) – it’s not just for federal court. If you genuinely need documents or objections sooner than the Rules require, negotiate a discovery plan or obtain a court order. Both the majority and the concurrence emphasized that the parties in Sessoms never entered a discovery plan. Justice Dietz’s concurrence pointedly suggested that the “comedy of errors” in the case began with the parties’ failure to meet and confer on the scope of discovery. A discovery plan might prevent disputes from spiraling or give you a procedural advantage if cooperation breaks down.
  • Be prepared to file a motion to compel under Rule 37(a)(2) when a responding party objects to Rule 30(b)(6). The burden is on you to bring the dispute to the court; the responding party does not have to seek a protective order first.

For parties responding to discovery:

  • Serve your Rule 30(b)(6) objections promptly and directly. While you may not need to seek (or worry about the cost of) a protective order, you must serve objections far enough in advance of the deposition to be fair. You cannot wait until the eve of the deposition or raise objections during the deposition itself.
  • Document the timing of your objections. Although the Court declined to set a hard deadline for when Rule 30(b)(6) objections must be served (noting the Rules are silent on this), serving objections promptly after receiving the notice best positions you to argue preservation and good faith.

Don Pocock is a former chair of the Litigation Section and a shareholder at Baker Donelson in Winston-Salem.