Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) sets a presumptive limit of ten depositions per side, not per party. Beyond ten, a party needs a stipulation from the opposing side or leave of court, and the court grants leave to the extent the additional discovery is proportional to the needs of the case. Complex commercial cases frequently exceed ten, and they do so by agreement or court order rather than by exception.
Three features of the rule are misread often enough to derail a discovery plan. The ten belong to a side, so aligned defendants share one allotment. Depositions on written questions count against the same ten. And each corporate designee counts one way for the numerical limit and another way for the seven-hour clock.
This guide explains how the count works, how it is enlarged, and what a program of twenty or forty witnesses demands operationally.
What Rule 30(a)(2) Limits
Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) requires leave of court where the parties have not stipulated and the deposition would bring the total above ten under Rule 30 or Rule 31. The count runs by the plaintiffs, by the defendants, or by the third-party defendants.
The rule also directs the outcome once leave is sought: the court must grant it to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). The question is proportionality, not permission in the abstract.
Two related triggers sit in the same subdivision. Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires leave where the deponent has already been deposed in the case. Rule 30(a)(2)(B) requires leave where the deponent is confined in prison.
The Limit Runs Per Side, Not Per Party
The most common error in a multiple-defendant case is arithmetic. Counsel for one of six defendants assumes an allotment of ten and plans accordingly, then learns that all six share the same ten.
The 1993 Committee Notes to Rule 30 make the expectation explicit: parties on any side are expected to confer and agree on which depositions are most needed. Where that conference fails, the court can resolve the dispute or permit additional depositions.
The consequence arrives early. A side that spends eight depositions on peripheral witnesses is asking the court for relief by the time it reaches the ones that decide the case. Coordination across aligned parties is the same problem that governs coordinating testimony across parties in multidistrict proceedings.
Depositions on Written Questions Count Against the Ten
Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) counts depositions under Rule 30 and Rule 31 together, so a deposition on written questions counts even when no examining attorney is in the room.
That matters in commercial cases that use written questions for records custodians. A side that serves a dozen custodian depositions on written questions has spent its entire allotment before a single officer or executive testifies.
How Rule 30(b)(6) Designees Are Counted
Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to name an organization as the deponent and describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity. The organization designates one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other consenting persons to testify about information it knows or reasonably can access. The 2020 amendment added a conferral duty: the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for examination, before or promptly after service, and a subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of that duty.
The numerical limit and the durational limit then diverge. For the numerical limit, the 1993 Committee Notes treat a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as a single deposition, even where more than one person is designated. For the durational limit, the 2000 Committee Notes treat each designated person as a separate deposition. An organization that designates four witnesses across four topic sets therefore consumes one of the noticing side’s ten depositions, yet exposes itself to four separate examinations of up to seven hours each under Rule 30(d)(1). A plan built on the first number and blind to the second runs out of calendar rather than out of depositions.
When Leave Is Required to Depose the Same Witness Twice
Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires leave to depose a person already deposed in the case. The 1993 Committee Notes narrow that requirement: it does not apply when a deposition is recessed for the convenience of counsel or the deponent, or to gather additional materials before resuming.
Settle the distinction between a recess and a second deposition on the record at the time. A deposition that adjourns without a stated intention to resume is harder to continue later without a motion.
How to Exceed the Ten-Deposition Limit
Complex cases enlarge the presumptive limit through three practical routes, and two of them avoid contested motion practice.
The first is stipulation. Rule 30(a)(2)(A) requires leave only where the parties have not stipulated, so an agreed increase needs no motion, subject to any scheduling-order constraints.
The second is the scheduling order, negotiated early. Rule 26(f)(3)(E) requires the discovery plan to state the parties’ views on changes to the limits imposed by rule or local rule, and Rule 16(b)(3)(B)(ii) permits the scheduling order to modify the extent of discovery. An allotment negotiated into the Rule 26(f) report and entered in the scheduling order is settled months before the first notice goes out.
The third is a court order under Rule 26(b)(2)(A), which allows the court to alter the limits on the number and length of depositions. This is the route when the need for additional depositions appears after the schedule is set, and it is decided on the proportionality standard below.
What the Court Weighs Before Allowing More
Rule 26(b)(1) supplies the standard: discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. The listed factors are the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit.
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) supplies the countervailing pressure. On motion or on its own, the court must limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, that can be obtained from a more convenient or less expensive source, or that the party has already had ample opportunity to obtain.
A request for thirty depositions in a nine-figure commercial dispute is not extraordinary. A request for thirty that repeats testimony already given by a corporate designee invites the second provision rather than the first.
State Rules Often Cap the Program by Hours Rather Than by Count
The numerical limit is largely a federal construct. Two state systems show how differently the same pressure is managed.
Texas caps the program by time. Under Rule 190.3, each side in a Level 2 case is limited to fifty hours of oral depositions covering the opposing parties, their designated experts, and persons under their control. Where one side designates more than two experts, the opposing side gains six additional hours for each additional expert. Rule 190.2 limits each party in a Level 1 case to twenty hours in total. For the complex cases this article addresses, Rule 190.4 allows the court to enter a Level 3 discovery control plan tailored to the case, which may change the otherwise applicable limits.
Illinois caps the individual deposition instead. Under Supreme Court Rule 206(d), no discovery deposition of any party or witness may exceed three hours, regardless of the number of parties, absent a stipulation of all parties or an order on a showing of good cause. In a case with six examining firms, that limit governs how a single afternoon is divided rather than the size of the program.
What a Large Deposition Program Requires Operationally
A twenty-deposition program is a scheduling relationship, not a series of bookings, and its failure modes are logistical rather than legal.
Consistency comes first. Caption formats, appearance pages, exhibit numbering, and file naming that change between witnesses create reconciliation work later, a problem examined in the guide to litigation support across high-volume matters. A single scheduling contact holding the full calendar keeps two firms from noticing the same witness for the same week.
Volume also changes what counsel can read. Forty depositions produce many thousands of transcript pages. Transcript summaries condense that record so testimony can be reviewed rather than merely stored, and certified court reporting with realtime access supports the same review during the examination.
Exhibits carry the same pressure. Consistent numbering, Bates stamping, and organized production through copying and scanning keep a document set usable when it crosses from discovery into trial support. Witnesses dispersed across jurisdictions make remote deposition support a scheduling necessity rather than a convenience.
Conduct matters more as the program lengthens. Rule 30(d)(2) allows the court to sanction a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent. The standards governing conduct during the deposition apply to the twentieth witness exactly as they applied to the first.
Schedule Your Deposition Program With NAEGELI Deposition & Trial
The ten-deposition limit is presumptive, side-based, and routinely enlarged by stipulation or scheduling order in complex litigation. The record it produces does not scale on its own.
NAEGELI Deposition & Trial provides court reporting, realtime reporting, legal videography, certified interpreters, remote deposition support, transcript summaries, copying and scanning, and trial support nationwide. A program of any size runs through one scheduling contact and one consistent set of deliverables.
Call (800) 528-3335, email schedule@naegeliusa.com, use the SCHEDULE NOW link, or start a live chat to speak with the NAEGELI team.
Frequently Asked Questions About Deposition Limits in Complex Cases
How Many Depositions Are Allowed in Federal Court?
The presumptive limit is ten per side. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i), a party needs leave of court beyond ten absent a stipulation, counting depositions taken under Rule 30 or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, by the defendants, or by the third-party defendants. The court grants leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), so the analysis turns on proportionality.
Does the Ten-Deposition Limit Apply to Each Party?
No. It applies to each side. Aligned defendants share a single allotment of ten, and the 1993 Committee Notes expect parties on the same side to agree on which depositions matter most. Depositions on written questions under Rule 31 count against the same ten.
Does a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Count as One Deposition?
Yes, for the numerical limit: the 1993 Committee Notes treat it as a single deposition even where more than one person is designated. The durational limit works differently, because the 2000 Committee Notes treat each designated person as a separate deposition. An organization designating four witnesses consumes one of ten and faces four separate seven-hour examinations.
When Should a Party Ask for More Than Ten Depositions?
Before the presumptive allotment is used, not after. Rule 26(f)(3)(E) requires the discovery plan to address changes to the limits, and Rule 16(b)(3)(B)(ii) lets the scheduling order set a higher number. A side that waits until the tenth deposition to seek more litigates the request under time pressure rather than settling it in the schedule.
Does Deposing the Same Witness Twice Require Court Permission?
Yes, absent a stipulation. Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires leave to depose a person already deposed in the case. The 1993 Committee Notes exempt a deposition that is only recessed, so counsel should state on the record whether the deposition is recessed or concluded to avoid a later motion.