Short answer. Yes. Section 28 lets the court, on timely motion and for good cause shown, issue any protective order available under Sections 15, 16, and 18 for the written-interrogatory track too, or specifically order that the deposition not be taken before the named officer, or that it proceed by oral examination instead.
What the law says
After the service of the interrogatories and prior to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in which the action is pending, on motion promptly made by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, may make any order specified in [S]ections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is appropriate and just or an order that the deposition shall not be taken before the officer designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken except upon oral examination.
Rule 23, Section 28 — Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. Read the full provision →
The timing window
The motion has to come after the interrogatories are served but before the deponent's testimony is actually taken — the section defines a specific window during which this protection is available. A motion filed too early, before the interrogatories have even been served, or too late, after the deponent has already testified, falls outside the window this section creates and would not qualify for the relief it offers, no matter how strong the underlying justification might otherwise be.
What orders are available
Everything appropriate and just under Sections 15, 16, and 18 — the notice, protective-order, and termination provisions written for oral depositions — carries over to this written-interrogatory track as well, on a party's or deponent's promptly made motion for good cause shown. This cross-reference means a party facing written interrogatories is not left with a thinner set of protections than a party facing an oral deposition; the same menu of remedies, from limiting scope to barring the deposition outright, remains fully available here too. A party cannot be forced to accept weaker protection merely because the discovery tool at issue is a set of written questions rather than a live examination.
Two options unique to this track
Beyond borrowing from the oral-deposition sections, the court can specifically order that the deposition not be taken before the officer named in the notice, or that it not be taken at all except by oral examination — letting the court redirect the mode of discovery itself, not just its scope. This second option is notable because it lets the court convert what was meant to be a written-interrogatory deposition into an oral one, where oral examination would better serve the goals of full and fair disclosure in that specific case. Either option gives the court a way to fix a problem with how a deposition was set up without having to cancel the discovery altogether.
Related provisions
- Rule 23, Section 28 — Orders for the protection of parties and deponents
- Rule 23, Section 16 — Orders for the protection of parties and deponents
- Rule 23, Section 18 — Motion to terminate or limit examination