Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alberto v. Toyota Motor Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 5, 2010No. Docket No. 296824Published

1DissentJansen, J.

I cannot join the majority’s announcement of a broad, new “apex-deposition rule” shielding high-ranking corporate officers from certain discovery in Michigan litigation. Nor can I conclude, under existing principles of Michigan law, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s1 motion for a protective order to quash the scheduled depositions of Yoshimi Inaba and Jim Lentz. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.

I

As explained by the majority, plaintiff noticed the video depositions of Inaba, defendant’s chairman and chief executive officer, and Lentz, defendant’s…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Domako v. RoweMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Bloomfield Charter Township v. Oakland County ClerkMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Powers Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Savage v. Peterson Distributing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Wilson v. Saginaw Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1963

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API