§ 9-11-26.1.Deposition from officers; protective orders
Chapter 11. Civil Practice Act · Article 5. Depositions and Discovery · Last amended 2023 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceO.C.G.A. § 9-11-26.1 lets a court prohibit or limit the deposition of a current or former high-ranking officer of a large, complex organization when that officer lacks unique personal knowledge relevant to the case, places the burden of proving that lack of knowledge on whoever seeks the protective order, and denies the protective order where the requesting party has exhausted other reasonable discovery and shows the officer does have unique relevant knowledge.
(1)“Officer” means a current or former high-ranking officer of an organization with unique and extensive scheduling demands or responsibilities.
(2)“Organization” includes any governmental entity and any other organization, public or private, that is large and complex.
(b)Good cause for a protective order to prohibit the deposition of an officer may be shown by proof that such person is an officer and lacks unique personal knowledge of any matter that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.
(c)The party or person seeking a protective order has the burden of establishing the factors provided under subsection (b) of this Code section.
(d)Good cause for a protective order shall not be deemed shown where the party seeking discovery demonstrates that:
(1)Such party has exhausted other reasonable means of discovery and such discovery is inadequate; and
(2)The person seeking the protective order has unique personal knowledge of one or more matters relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.
(e)To the extent that the party or person seeking a protective order shows that an officer lacks unique personal knowledge of some, but fewer than all, matters relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, the court may limit the scope of the deposition accordingly, rather than prohibiting altogether the deposition of the officer.
Plain-English Summary
This section codifies protection for busy executives and officials who get named as deposition targets not because they know anything unique about the case, but because of their title. An “officer” is a current or former high-ranking officer of an organization with unique and extensive scheduling demands or responsibilities, and “organization” reaches beyond corporations to any governmental entity and any other large, complex public or private organization.
Good cause for a protective order blocking that officer’s deposition exists when the movant proves the person is an officer under the definition and lacks unique personal knowledge of anything relevant to the case — and that burden sits with whoever seeks the protective order. The party seeking discovery can still defeat it by showing it has exhausted other reasonable means of discovery and that they proved inadequate, and that the officer does hold unique personal knowledge of one or more relevant matters. Where the officer lacks unique knowledge of some, but not all, relevant matters, the court has a middle option: narrow the scope of the deposition instead of prohibiting it outright.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who counts as an “officer” protected by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26.1?
A current or former high-ranking officer of an organization who has unique and extensive scheduling demands or responsibilities.
What does a party have to prove to block a high-ranking officer’s deposition?
That the person is such an officer and lacks unique personal knowledge of any matter relevant to the case — a burden that falls on whoever seeks the protective order.
Can the party seeking discovery defeat a motion to block the deposition?
Yes, by showing it has exhausted other reasonable means of discovery that proved inadequate and that the officer has unique personal knowledge of one or more matters relevant to the case.
What happens if the officer has relevant knowledge on only some issues?
The court may limit the scope of the deposition to those issues rather than prohibiting the deposition altogether.
Does this section apply only to corporate executives?
No. An “organization” includes any governmental entity, along with other large and complex public or private organizations.
Amendment History
Code 1981, § 9-11-26.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2023, p. 248, § 1-2/SB 74, effective May 1, 2023.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:apex deposition doctrine Georgiahigh-ranking officer deposition Georgiaprotective order corporate executive deposition GeorgiaCEO deposition Georgia lawsuitapex witness discovery Georgia