Last amended July 1, 2022 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Effective Date: July 1, 1970
Amended: July 1, 2001; July 1, 2022
Civil Rule 28 Persons before whom depositions may be taken Civil Rule 28(D) Prohibited contracts
The amendment effective July 1, 2001 added division (D), Prohibited contracts. This rule was amended in response to communications from members of the bench and bar indicating that certain types of long-term financial arrangements between court reporters, court reporting firms, or other firms and litigants or other entities have given rise to concerns about the appearance of or potential for differential treatment of parties to an action. The appearance of impartiality and the existence of impartiality are no less important for those officers who take depositions than for judicial officers and other persons whose responsibilities are integral to the administration of justice.
The general prohibition of division (D) does not apply to situations where lower fees may be negotiated, provided the fees are the same for all parties and are negotiated on a case-by-case basis [division (D)(3)]. Also, the prohibition does not extend to governmental entities, which may be required by law to obtain court reporting services on a long-term basis through competitive bidding. See, e.g., sections 125.05(B) and 125.07 of the Revised Code.
The prohibition in division (D), like the pre-existing prohibitions in division (C), is enforceable by the court in which the underlying action is pending. Enforceability is implicitly recognized by Civ.R. 32(D)(2), which requires reasonable diligence of a party in raising a disqualification issue. See Berwald v. Ford Motor Co., 1982 WL 5337, No. 44064 (8th Dist. Ct. App., Cuyahoga, May 6, 1982) (objection held waived); J. McCormac, Ohio Civil Rules Practice, section 10.37 at 268 (2d ed. 1992) (noting that “[c]onceivably, this objection could be made at trial if it were not discovered until that time that the officer taking the deposition was disqualified for interest under Civil Rule 28(C) and there had been no previous waiver or stipulation”). Trial courts also have extensive inherent power to control discovery. See, e.g., State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott, 85 Ohio St.3d 11, 16 (1999); State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 51 Ohio St. 3d 94, 95 (1990) (citing Staff Note to Civ.R. 26(C) and Civ.R. 37); State ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Common Pleas Ct. of Lorain Cty., 13 Ohio St. 2d 133, 136-37 (1968) (noting “the inherent power of courts to do all things necessary to the administration of justice and to protect its own powers and processes and the rights of those who invoke its processes” which “inheres in the constitutional grant of judicial power to the courts”).
Pursuant to the effective date provisions of Civ.R. 86(Y), Civ.R. 28(D) will apply only to (1) depositions taken in actions brought after July 1, 2001, and (2) in actions pending on July 1, 2001, to depositions taken on and after July 1, 2001.
In division (C), grammatical and structural revisions were made. No substantive amendment to division (C) was intended.
Division (A) allows depositions taken within Ohio to proceed before anyone authorized to administer oaths under Ohio law, a person the court appoints, or a person the parties agree to by written stipulation. Division (B) extends the same flexibility to depositions taken outside Ohio — before a person authorized to administer oaths where the deposition happens, a court-appointed person, a stipulated person, or, in a foreign country, a United States consular officer within that district — and also lets a deposition of a witness located outside Ohio be taken remotely before someone authorized to administer oaths under Ohio law.
Division (C) disqualifies a deposition officer who is a relative, employee, or attorney of any party, a relative or employee of a party’s attorney, or financially interested in the action, unless the parties agree otherwise under Rule 29. Division (D) separately bars blanket contracts — agreements covering all of a client’s court reporting needs across two or more cases at a fixed rate — between a private court reporter or an affiliated person and any attorney, party, or interested entity, though negotiating reasonable, equally applied fees case by case remains permitted; this restriction does not reach the courts or administrative tribunals themselves.
Anyone authorized to administer oaths under Ohio law, a person appointed by the court, or a person the parties agree to by written stipulation.
Not unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Rule 28(C) disqualifies anyone who is a relative, employee, or attorney of a party, a relative or employee of a party's attorney, or financially interested in the case.
It is an agreement for a court reporter to handle all of a client's reporting needs across multiple cases at a fixed rate. Rule 28(D) prohibits these arrangements between reporters and attorneys or parties to keep reporters free of a standing financial relationship with one side, while still allowing reasonable fees negotiated case by case.