GA Code § 9-11-30 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 11 - Civil Practice Act|Article 5 - Depositions and Discovery|§ 9-11-30. Depositions Upon Oral Examination

  When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination. Leave of court, granted with or without notice, must be obtained only if the plaintiff seeks to take a deposition prior to the expiration of 30 days after service of the summons and complaint upon any defendant or service made under subsection (f) of Code Section 9-11-4, except that leave is not required if a defendant has served a notice of taking deposition or otherwise sought discovery or if special notice is given as provided in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this Code section. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena as provided in Code Section 9-11-45. The deposition of a person confined in a penal institution may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.   Notice of examination.   GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition, the means by which the testimony shall be recorded, and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person to be examined or the particular class or group to which he or she belongs. If a subpoena for the production of documentary and tangible evidence is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced, as set forth in the subpoena, shall be attached to, or included in, the notice.   SPECIAL NOTICE. Leave of court is not required for the taking of a deposition by plaintiff if the notice:   States that the person to be examined is about to go out of the county where the action is pending and more than 150 miles from the place of trial, or is about to go out of the United States, or is bound on a voyage to sea, and will be unavailable for examination unless the deposition is taken before expiration of the 30 day period; and   Sets forth facts to support the statement.  The plaintiff's attorney shall sign the notice, and said attorney's signature constitutes a certification by him or her that, to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, the statement and supporting facts are true. If a party shows that, when he or she was served with notice under this paragraph, he or she was unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel to represent him or her at the taking of the deposition, the deposition may not be used against such party.      TIME REQUIREMENTS. The court may, for cause shown, enlarge or shorten the time for taking the deposition.   RECORDING OF DEPOSITION. Unless the court orders otherwise, the testimony at a deposition must be recorded by stenographic means, and may also be recorded by sound or sound and visual means in addition to stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition shall bear the costs of the recording. A deposition shall be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Code Section 9-11-28. Upon motion of a party or upon its own motion, the court may issue an order designating the manner of recording, preserving, and filing of a deposition taken by nonstenographic means, which order may include other provisions to assure that the recorded testimony will be accurate and trustworthy. Any party may arrange for a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition taken by nonstenographic means. With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method to record the deponent's testimony in addition to the methods specified by the person taking the deposition. The additional record or transcript shall be made at that party's expense unless the court otherwise orders. The appearance or demeanor of deponents or attorneys shall not be distorted through camera or sound-recording techniques. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, a deposition may be taken by telephone or other remote electronic means only upon the stipulation of the parties or by order of the court. For purposes of the requirements of this chapter, a deposition taken by telephone or other remote electronic means is taken in the state and at the place where the deponent is to answer questions.   PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS. The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request made in compliance with Code Section 9-11-34 for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition. The procedure of Code Section 9-11-34 shall apply to the request.   DEPOSITION OF ORGANIZATION. A party may, in his or her notice, name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or a governmental agency and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which he or she will testify. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This paragraph does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in this chapter.     Examination and cross-examination; record of examination; oath; objections.   Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the rules of evidence. The authorized officer or court reporter before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under the direction and in the presence of the authorized officer or court reporter, record the testimony of the witness.   All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections. In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties may serve written questions in a sealed envelope on the party taking the deposition, and said party shall transmit them to the officer, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers verbatim.   Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed by the parties, the officer shall retain the record of each deposition until the later of (A) five years after the date on which the deposition was taken, or (B) two years after the date of final disposition of the action for which the deposition was taken and any appeals of such action. The officer may preserve the record through storage of the original paper, notes, or recordings or an electronic copy of the notes, recordings, or the transcript on computer disks, cassettes, backup tape systems, optical or laser disk systems, or other retrieval systems.     Motion to terminate or limit examination. At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the court in the county where the deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition as provided in subsection (c) of Code Section 9-11-26. If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order. Paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 9-11-37 applies to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.   Review by witness; changes; signing. If requested by the deponent or a party before completion of the deposition, the deponent shall have 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which to review the transcript or recording and, if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by the deponent for making them. The officer shall indicate in the certificate prescribed by paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of this Code section whether any review was requested and, if so, shall append any changes made by the deponent during the period allowed. If the deposition is not reviewed and signed by the witness within 30 days of its submission to him or her, the officer shall sign it and state on the record that the deposition was not reviewed and signed by the deponent within 30 days. The deposition may then be used as fully as though signed unless, on a motion to suppress under paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of Code Section 9-11-32, the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.   Certification and filing by officer; inspection and copying of exhibits; copy of deposition.     The officer shall certify that the witness was duly sworn by the officer and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. This certificate shall be in writing and accompany the record of the deposition. The officer shall then securely seal the deposition in an envelope marked with the title of the action, the court reporter certification number, and "Deposition of (here insert name of witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court in which the action is pending or deliver it to the party taking the deposition, as the case may be, in accordance with Code Section 9-11-29.1.   Documents and things produced for inspection during the examination of the witness shall, upon the request of a party, be marked for identification and annexed to and returned with the deposition and may be inspected and copied by any party, except that the person producing the materials may substitute copies to be marked for identification, if he or she affords to all parties fair opportunity to verify the copies by comparison with the originals; and, if the person producing the materials requests their return, the officer shall mark them, give each party an opportunity to inspect and copy them, and return them to the person producing them, and the materials may then be used in the same manner as if annexed to and returned with the deposition. Any party may move for an order that the original be annexed to and returned with the deposition to the court, pending final disposition of the case.     Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or to the deponent.     Failure to attend or to serve subpoena; expenses.   If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another party attends in person or by attorney pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.   If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the witness, because of such failure, does not attend and if another party attends in person or by attorney because he expects the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.     Form of presentation. Except as otherwise directed by the court, a party offering deposition testimony may offer it in stenographic or nonstenographic form, but if in nonstenographic form, the party shall also provide the court with a transcript of the portions so offered. On request of any party in a case tried before a jury, deposition testimony offered other than for impeachment purposes shall be presented in nonstenographic form, if available, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.    (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 30; Ga. L. 1967, p. 226, § 14; Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 3; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1315, § 4; Ga. L. 1996, p. 266, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1225, § 3.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2000, p. 1225, § 8, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section is applicable to civil actions filed on or after July 1, 2000.   U.S. Code.   - For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30, see 28 U.S.C.   Law reviews.   - For article discussing the use of videotape for civil trial depositions, in light of Mayor of Savannah v. Palmerio, 135 Ga. App. 147, 217 S.E.2d 430 (1975), see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 87 (1976). For survey article on torts, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 271 (1982). For article, "Use and Misuse of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(6)," see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 12 (No. 4, 2004). For note discussing possible uses of videotape and its admissibility as evidence, see 5 Ga. St. B.J. 393 (1969). For note, "Preferential Treatment of the United States Under Federal Civil Discovery Procedures," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 550 (1979).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's note.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, Ch. 21, T. 38 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Georgia Laws 1972, p. 510, made substantial revisions to certain sections of this chapter dealing with discovery. Prior to the 1972 amendment, this section was substantially the same as former Code 1933, § 38-2105. Hence, decisions based on this section prior to its 1972 amendment should be consulted with care.   Powers of trial court.    - Trial court has the power under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30 to control the details of time, place, scope, and financing of a deposition for the protection of the deponents and parties. Bicknell v. CBT Factors Corp., 171 Ga. App. 897, 321 S.E.2d 383 (1984).   Deposition of witness in opposing party's absence void.    - When a physician in a worker's compensation case refused to give a deposition in front of the appellee, the appellant's election to proceed in the appellee's absence voided an otherwise valid procedure, and therefore the deposition was not erroneously excluded from consideration in making the award to the appellee. Georgia Power Co. v. Brown, 169 Ga. App. 45, 311 S.E.2d 236 (1983).   Videotaping of deposition permitted.    - Under subsection (b)(4) of this section, the taking of a deposition by videotaping, when otherwise permitted by the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9), is proper. Mayor of Savannah v. Palmerio, 135 Ga. App. 147, 217 S.E.2d 430 (1975).    Testimony of a witness by videotape is a better substitute for actual live testimony than the reading of a stenographic transcript provided by a court reporter. Mayor of Savannah v. Palmerio, 135 Ga. App. 147, 217 S.E.2d 430 (1975).   Testimony by department's representative improperly excluded.    - Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) was permitted to present evidence through the department's representative of its breach of contract damages under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-2 on its counterclaim because an asphalt company's argument, that the damages calculations were too speculative because the DOT was unable to show the exact amount of hydrated lime in each lot of asphalt, was asserting an insufficiency in the evidence that was not appropriately resolved on the company's motion in limine. State, DOT v. Douglas Asphalt Co., 297 Ga. App. 470, 677 S.E.2d 699 (2009), appeal dismissed, 297 Ga. App. 511, 677 S.E.2d 728 (2009).   Waiver of objection to videotape of deposition.    - Objection based on lack of court order allowing videotaping of deposition was waived since no objection to the videotaping was raised prior to trial. Even if the objection was timely made at trial, any error in the admission of the videotaped deposition was harmless because the videotaping was conducted in substantial compliance with required technical conditions and procedures. DuBois v. Ray, 177 Ga. App. 349, 339 S.E.2d 605 (1985).   Protective order barring video conference deposition proper.    - Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in granting an assistant professor's motion for a protective order to bar a video conference deposition because the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (BOR) did not seek a court order, and the professor did not stipulate to the taking of the deposition; the BOR did not demonstrate any harm as a result of the trial court's action. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Ambati, 299 Ga. App. 804, 685 S.E.2d 719 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0086, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 34 (Ga. 2010).    As between parties, no subpoena is required or necessary for the taking of a deposition. Millholland v. Oglesby, 114 Ga. App. 745, 152 S.E.2d 761 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194 (1967) (decided under former Code 1933, Ch. 21, T. 38).   Notice of deposition not effective.    - In post-judgment discovery proceedings, an email agreement between counsel on a date for the judgment debtor's wife's deposition did not constitute a notice of deposition under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b), because the notice was not served on the judgment debtor; because the notice of deposition was not effective, the creditor could not be sanctioned for failing to show up on the agreed date. RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 341 Ga. App. 127, 798 S.E.2d 677 (2017), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 303 Ga. 693, 814 S.E.2d 696 (2018), vacated, in part, 348 Ga. App. 281, 821 S.E.2d 573 (2018).   Prompt notification of defect in notice required.    - While proper notice is required for taking of a deposition, the opposing party must promptly notify the party giving the notice if the notice is technically deficient in any manner. Republic Nat'l Bank v. Hodgson, 124 Ga. App. 11, 183 S.E.2d 4 (1971).   Rationale for prompt objection to deficient notice.    - Rationale of requirement that written objection to a deficient notice of deposition be made promptly, failing which the error or irregularity in the notice is deemed to have been waived, is the same as that for the requirement that objection to the evidence be made at the time of taking depositions. Republic Nat'l Bank v. Hodgson, 124 Ga. App. 11, 183 S.E.2d 4 (1971).   Tardy demand that deposition be signed.    - When a deposition is taken for the express purpose of being used as evidence at trial the next day, and the opposing party is well aware that by the time the transcript is prepared the witness will be unavailable to sign the transcript, but makes no demand for the witness's signature until it is clear that compliance will be impossible, and when there is no contention or indication that any of the testimony in the deposition is improperly transcribed, the trial court acts within the court's discretion in allowing the deposition to be used as evidence. Spector v. Lankford, 151 Ga. App. 397, 259 S.E.2d 654 (1979).   Deposition erroneously admitted because deponent not permitted to read and sign.    - Because a former homeowner testified by affidavit that the former homeowner was never notified by the officer that a deposition transcript was available for examination and signature, and the defendants in the wrongful eviction action offered no testimony or evidence to rebut the former owner's affidavit, the trial court erred by admitting the former owner's deposition for purposes of summary judgment. However, admission of the deposition was harmless error because the operative evidence came in through the homeowner's and others' affidavits. Steed v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Corp., 301 Ga. App. 801, 689 S.E.2d 843 (2009).   Harmless error to exclude deposition testimony.    - Although the deposition of the former employer's agent in response to the former employee's request for a deposition under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(6) was admissible under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-32(a), because the agent had no direct personal knowledge of the employee's contract or the contract's termination, the agent's deposition testimony had no probative value as to the matters for which the testimony was proffered, specifically for rebuttal and impeachment purposes; thus, it was harmless error to exclude the testimony. Griffin v. Greene County Hosp. Auth., 260 Ga. App. 122, 578 S.E.2d 913 (2003).   Discretion of trial court.    - Trial judge has broad control over the use and limitations of discovery procedures, and unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion the appellate courts will not interfere. Jackson v. Gordon, 122 Ga. App. 657, 178 S.E.2d 310 (1970).   Direct examination of deposed witness.    - What constitutes the direct examination of a witness whose testimony was initially taken for discovery cannot be determined until the trial, when one of the parties elects to use the testimony on one's own behalf; at that time, rules governing direct and cross-examination would apply. Travis Meat & Seafood Co. v. Ashworth, 127 Ga. App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 166 (1972).   Transcription and copies.    - Nondeposing party is entitled to have a deposition of the witness transcribed and to have a copy of the transcript, provided that the nondeposing party pays for the transcript, even though the deposing party decided, after taking the deposition, not to have the deposition transcribed, but merely to acquire the take-down notes from the reporter. Sams v. Champion, 184 Ga. App. 444, 361 S.E.2d 852 (1987).   Post-judgment discovery.    - Trial court had jurisdiction to compel a non-resident judgment debtor to attend a postjudgment deposition in Georgia; under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69, the judgment creditor was entitled to notice the deposition under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30, and the geographical limitations of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 did not apply. Heard v. Ruef, 347 Ga. App. 1, 815 S.E.2d 607 (2018).   Changes to deposition.    - Witness may make any changes in form or substance which the witness desires, even if the changes contradict the original answers or even if the reasons for making the changes are unconvincing. J.H. Harvey Co. v. Reddick, 240 Ga. App. 466, 522 S.E.2d 749 (1999).   Errata sheet.    - Because the certificate of an officer before whom a deposition was taken did not reflect when the deposition was submitted to the appellant and did not contain a statement that the appellant waived or otherwise failed to sign the deposition, the record did not positively reflect that the errata and the signature sheets were not part of the appellant's deposition and, therefore, the errata sheet was considered. Young v. YMCA of Metro. Atlanta, Inc., 204 Ga. App. 224, 419 S.E.2d 97 (1992).    Attorney fees and expenses for nonattendance at a deposition are available only in the instance of the failure of the party taking the deposition to appear. Ingram v. Star Touch Communications, Inc., 215 Ga. App. 329, 450 S.E.2d 334 (1994).   Suit properly dismissed due to party's failure to attend scheduled depositions that were properly noticed.    - Motorist's suit was properly dismissed under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(d) as the motorist failed to attend any of three scheduled depositions that were properly noticed under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(1), defense counsel was not required to address the motorist's proposed discovery plan, and counsel's failure to do so did not excuse the motorist's failure to attend the depositions. Pascal v. Prescod, 296 Ga. App. 359, 674 S.E.2d 623 (2009).    Insurer was not entitled to attorney fees for preparing the motion for attorney fees because it presented no authority to support its position that the time preparing the motion for attorney fees constituted reasonable expenses incurred by the insurer and its attorney in attending the scheduled deposition; thus, even if the court decided to award the insurer attorney fees, the insurer would not be entitled to an award for those hours. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tracy, 344 Ga. App. 53, 806 S.E.2d 653 (2017).    Subcontractor's attorney presented evidence that the attorney and the attorney's young son were ill on the date of the scheduled deposition and that the attorney inadvertently failed to timely notify counsel for the insurance company in advance; thus, in light of the use of the word "may" in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30, and the explanation provided by the attorney, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in denying the insurer's motion for attorney fees. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tracy, 344 Ga. App. 53, 806 S.E.2d 653 (2017).   Deposition improperly excluded because it was an unsigned copy.    - In a parents' action against a care home arising out of the death of their adult son, the trial court erred in refusing to consider a copy of the deposition of the parents' expert because the deposition was not an original and had not been signed by the deponent; the copy contained the court reporter's signed certification that the transcript was a true and complete record of the evidence given by the expert. Blake v. KES, Inc., 329 Ga. App. 742, 766 S.E.2d 138 (2014).   Use of representative's deposition subject to the rules of evidence.    - In a medical malpractice case, the patient's survivor could not use the deposition of a surgery center's representative taken under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(6) to establish the doctor's standard of care without regard to O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702, governing the admissibility of expert testimony; O.C.G.A. § 9-11-32(a) allowed the use of such depositions for any purpose but required application of the rules of evidence. Yugueros v. Robles, 300 Ga. 58, 793 S.E.2d 42 (2016).    Cited in Herring v. R.L. Mathis Cert. Dairy Co., 121 Ga. App. 373, 173 S.E.2d 716 (1970); Hodges v. Youmans, 122 Ga. App. 487, 177 S.E.2d 577 (1970); Robinson v. J.C. Penney Co., 124 Ga. App. 221, 183 S.E.2d 782 (1971); Thomas v. Home Credit Co., 133 Ga. App. 602, 211 S.E.2d 626 (1974); Dalton v. Vanderkooi, 134 Ga. App. 381, 214 S.E.2d 670 (1975); Taylor v. Stapp, 134 Ga. App. 468, 215 S.E.2d 23 (1975); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Crews, 139 Ga. App. 521, 229 S.E.2d 14 (1976); Rachel v. Simmons Co., 141 Ga. App. 236, 233 S.E.2d 56 (1977); Sacks v. Bell Tel. Labs., Inc., 149 Ga. App. 799, 256 S.E.2d 87 (1979); Atlanta Assocs. v. Westminster Properties, Inc., 155 Ga. App. 204, 270 S.E.2d 280 (1980); Williams v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 158 Ga. App. 26, 279 S.E.2d 465 (1981); Sherrill v. Martin, 161 Ga. App. 558, 288 S.E.2d 648 (1982); Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Rosser, 250 Ga. 52, 295 S.E.2d 827 (1982); Torok v. Mize, 164 Ga. App. 357, 296 S.E.2d 738 (1982); Georgia Farm Bldgs., Inc. v. Willard, 170 Ga. App. 327, 317 S.E.2d 229 (1984); Osborne v. Bank of Delight, 173 Ga. App. 322, 326 S.E.2d 523 (1985); Anderberg v. Georgia Elec. Membership Corp., 175 Ga. App. 14, 332 S.E.2d 326 (1985); Abalene Pest Control Serv., Inc. v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 196 Ga. App. 463, 395 S.E.2d 867 (1990); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 290 Ga. App. 541, 659 S.E.2d 905 (2008); McGuire Holdings, LLLP v. TSQ Partners, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 595, 660 S.E.2d 397 (2008); Jones v. Baran Co., LLC, 290 Ga. App. 578, 660 S.E.2d 420 (2008); Davis v. Harpagon Co., LLC, 283 Ga. 539, 661 S.E.2d 545 (2008); Yeary v. State, 289 Ga. 394, 711 S.E.2d 694 (2011); Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta, 323 Ga. App. 70, 746 S.E.2d 698 (2013); RLBB Acquisition, LLC v. Baer, 329 Ga. App. 483, 765 S.E.2d 662 (2014); Atl. Geoscience, Inc. v. Phoenix Dev. & Land Inv., LLC, 341 Ga. App. 81, 799 S.E.2d 242 (2017); Lalonde v. Taylor English Duma, LLP, 349 Ga. App. 853, 825 S.E.2d 237 (2019); City of Atlanta v. Dale, 353 Ga. App. 817, 840 S.E.2d 56 (2020); McCalla Raymer, LLC v. Foxfire Acres, Inc., 356 Ga. App. 117, 846 S.E.2d 404 (2020).   OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Editor's notes.   - Georgia Laws 1972, p. 510, made substantial revisions to certain sections of this chapter dealing with discovery. Prior to the 1972 amendment, this section was substantially the same as former Code 1933, § 38-2105. Hence, material based on this section prior to its 1972 amendment should be consulted with care.   Changes made under subsection (e) not limited.    - Subsection (e) of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30 places no limitations on the type of changes that may be made by a witness before signing a deposition. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-17.    No permanent record is required for depositions and interrogatories;  while depositions and interrogatories are required to be filed with the clerk, being evidence, depositions and interrogatories are not considered part of the permanent record of the trial court. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-232.    No filing or recording fee can be charged for depositions or interrogatories.  1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-232.   Contracts for reporting depositions.   - Court reporter may enter into contracts for reporting depositions so long as the contract does not render the reporter an "employee" or "financially interested in the action"; however, charging different rates to various participants in a single deposition may constitute the charging of "unreasonable" fees and court reporters may not provide kickbacks to a party. 1993 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 93-18.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Depositions and Discovery, § 85 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 26B C.J.S., Depositions, §§ 39, 48, 55, 59 et seq. 35A C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, §§ 562 et seq., 617, 626, 627, 629, 633 et seq., 643 et seq., 654, 666. 35B C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, §§ 1366, 1369, 1370.   ALR.    - Withdrawal of paper after delivery to proper officer as affecting question whether it is filed, 37 A.L.R. 670.    Making copies of record or writings part of deposition, 59 A.L.R. 530.    Taking deposition as judicial proceeding as regards law of privilege in libel and slander, 90 A.L.R. 66.    Service of notice of time and place of examination of party witness as sufficient to require his attendance without subpoena for purposes of deposition, 112 A.L.R. 449.    Jurisdiction to require a nonresident party to an action to submit to adverse examination, 154 A.L.R. 849.   Appealability of order pertaining to pretrial examination, discovery, interrogatories, production of books and papers, or the like, 37 A.L.R.2d 586.   Construction and effect of Rules 30(b), (d), 31(d), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and similar state statutes and rules, relating to preventing, limiting, or terminating the taking of depositions, 70 A.L.R.2d 685.   Statements of parties or witnesses as subject to pretrial or other disclosure, production, or inspection, 73 A.L.R.2d 12.   Who is a "managing agent" of a corporate party (to civil litigation) whose discovery-deposition may be taken under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or state counterparts, 98 A.L.R.2d 622.   Discovery, in products liability case, of defendant's knowledge as to injury to or complaints by others than plaintiff, related to product, 20 A.L.R.3d 1430.   Use of videotape to take deposition for presentation of civil trial in state court, 66 A.L.R.3d 637.   Construction and application of state statute or rule subjecting party making untrue allegations or denials to payment of costs or attorney's fees, 68 A.L.R.3d 209.   Permissibility and standards for use of audio recording to take deposition in state civil case, 13 A.L.R.4th 775.   Dismissal of state court action for failure or refusal of plaintiff to appear or answer questions at deposition or oral examination, 32 A.L.R.4th 212.   Taxation of costs associated with videotaped depositions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1920 and Rule 54(d) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 156 A.L.R. Fed. 311.   Construction and application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3) authorizing motion to terminate or limit deposition conducted in bad faith or that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses deponent or party, 91 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 381.