Short answer. It can be treated as contempt. Section 2 provides that if a party or other witness refuses to be sworn, or refuses to answer a question after being directed to do so by the court of the place where the deposition is being taken, that refusal may be considered contempt of that court.
What the law says
If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any question after being directed to do so by the court of the place in which the deposition is being taken, the refusal may be considered a contempt of that court.
Rule 29, Section 2 — Contempt of court. Read the full provision →
What conduct is covered
The provision reaches two situations: refusing to take the oath at all, or refusing to answer even after the court has specifically directed an answer — a further step beyond the simple refusal addressed in Section 1. Both scenarios share a common thread: the witness's defiance persists even after the matter has already been brought before the court and the court has weighed in on it. A witness who initially objects to a question but ultimately answers once the court rules is in a different position entirely from one who keeps refusing even after the court has spoken directly on the point. The provision applies equally to a party-witness and to a third-party witness, since either can be compelled to a deposition and either can defy the oath or a court directive.
Which court holds the contempt power
It is the court of the place where the deposition is being taken that treats the refusal as contempt, which may be a different court from the one where the main action is pending. Locating this authority with the court closest to where the deposition actually happens makes practical sense, since that court is best positioned to promptly address the misconduct as it actually occurs rather than waiting on some distant court that has no real proximity to what is happening. Counsel taking the deposition does not have to interrupt the proceeding to seek relief from the court hearing the main case; the local court's contempt power is available on the spot.
Why contempt, and not just a discovery sanction
Once a court has already directed an answer and the witness still refuses, the defiance is treated as an affront to that court's own authority, not merely a discovery dispute between the parties, opening the door to contempt consequences beyond simple fee-shifting. This escalation reflects the seriousness of ignoring a direct judicial order, as distinct from the more routine discovery disagreements the rules otherwise handle through ordinary motions, protective orders, and lesser discovery sanctions. Refusing the oath itself, addressed separately in Section 1, does not require a prior court directive before it can be treated this way, since that refusal happens at the threshold, before any question is even asked.