In Ex parte Hankook Tire, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed sweeping discovery sanctions imposed after a contentious Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, holding that because the corporate witness appeared and answered questions in interpreted English-Korean deposition—however imperfectly—the plaintiffs were required to file a motion to compel before seeking sanctions, thereby reaffirming the importance of following procedural safeguards to ensure fairness in litigation.
We’ve blogged about deposition interpreter services and check interpreter services in high-stakes depositions. In high-stakes civil litigation, few moments are as consequential—or as fraught—as a corporate deposition under Rule 30(b)(6). Attorneys prepare intensely. Witnesses are vetted, trained, and sometimes shielded by aggressive counsel. And if things go sideways, the fallout can reshape the trajectory of the case.
Such was the backdrop in Ex parte Hankook Tire America Corporation, 400 So. 3d 585 (Ala. 2023), a case involving a fatal truck accident, a decade-old tire, and a contentious deposition that triggered sweeping sanctions—only to be walked back by the Alabama Supreme Court. The decision is not just a primer on Alabama’s discovery rules; it’s a compelling example of the limits of judicial authority, the importance of procedural safeguards, and the enduring principle that courts may not short-circuit due process, no matter how frustrating the litigation becomes.
In reversing the trial court’s sanctions and fee award, the Alabama Supreme Court restored confidence in rule-based process. But more than that, it gave litigators—on both sides of the aisle—valuable guidance on how to handle difficult 30(b)(6) depositions and the appropriate use of discovery sanctions.
Tragedy on the Road: The Underlying Dispute
The case began with tragedy. In 2019, Robert Crum, Jr., was driving a concrete truck in Dallas County, Alabama, when the truck overturned, killing him. According to the plaintiffs—Crum’s daughter and minor son—the front passenger-side tire failed without warning. That tire, a Hankook AH10 model, was 10 years old at the time of the accident.
Believing the tire was defectively manufactured or designed, the plaintiffs sued Hankook Tire America Corporation and its Korean parent company, Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd. They asserted causes of action for negligence, wantonness, breach of warranty, and product liability. They also alleged that the tire had adequate tread life but detreaded due to a hidden manufacturing defect. The defense denied that the tire was defective and asserted several affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence, misuse, and assumption of risk.
What followed was a legal battle not only over the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims but also over the integrity of the discovery process.
The 30(b)(6) Deposition: A Flashpoint for Sanctions
Discovery disputes are common in product liability litigation, but this one escalated quickly. The plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice identifying 35 categories for inquiry. These ranged from the tire’s design and testing history to Hankook’s internal research on tire aging, its quality assurance practices, prior failure incidents, and the company’s document retention policies.
To respond, Hankook designated Won Yong Choi, an engineer who had worked for the company since 2004 and had experience in both Korea and the United States. At the time of his deposition, Choi was leading Hankook’s development team for trucks and buses. Due to his location in Korea, the video deposition took place remotely over two days. Since Choi was more comfortable testifying in his native Korean, the parties agreed to use English-Korean deposition interpreters to facilitate communication.
But what should have been a routine corporate deposition turned adversarial. Plaintiffs’ counsel accused Choi of providing evasive or incomplete answers to even basic questions. More pointedly, they argued that defense counsel disrupted the deposition with constant objections, improper instructions not to answer, and tactics that derailed the plaintiffs’ ability to elicit useful testimony.
Despite these grievances, the plaintiffs took no immediate remedial action. They did not file a motion to compel. They made no effort to confer with defense counsel to resolve the dispute, as required under Rule 37(a)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, three months later, they filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 37, asking the trial court to:
• Prohibit Hankook from presenting trial testimony from any corporate representative that went beyond Choi’s deposition answers;
• Preclude Hankook from contesting that the tire was defective;
• Strike 10 of Hankook’s affirmative defenses; and
• Award attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the deposition.
Trial Court Grants Sweeping Sanctions
The trial court sided with the plaintiffs and issued an order adopting nearly all their proposed sanctions. The court concluded that “one of four things occurred almost every time [Choi] was asked a substantive question”: (1) he was not prepared; (2) he answered evasively; (3) he was instructed not to answer; or (4) defense counsel interrupted with improper objections.
Finding that Hankook had failed to meet its obligations under Rule 30(b)(6), the court barred the company from disputing the defectiveness of the tire and from presenting testimony that contradicted Choi’s. It also struck affirmative defenses such as contributory negligence and misuse—defenses that could have proven pivotal at trial. Lastly, it awarded the plaintiffs $66,550 in attorneys’ fees.
Hankook quickly sought appellate relief via two petitions for writ of mandamus—one challenging the sanctions order and one contesting the fee award.
Alabama Supreme Court Reverses: A Procedural Blueprint for Sanctions
In a sharply reasoned opinion by Justice Mitchell, the Alabama Supreme Court granted both petitions, vacating the trial court’s sanctions and attorney fee award. The decision is notable for its clear, structured analysis of Alabama’s discovery rules—particularly Rules 30(b)(6) and 37.
1. Mandamus Was Appropriate
The Court first held that Hankook was entitled to seek mandamus review because the sanctions struck key affirmative defenses. Under Alabama precedent, a trial court’s disallowance of a party’s affirmative defense is immediately reviewable via mandamus. Waiting for a final judgment would render appellate relief meaningless—especially if the outcome had already been skewed by the exclusion of critical defenses.
2. Rule 37(d) Applies Only When a Witness Fails to Show Up
The trial court had apparently relied on Rule 37(d), which allows sanctions if a deponent fails to “appear” for a deposition. But the Court clarified that this rule applies only when a party physically fails to show up. Choi was present, answered questions for more than 15 hours, and was subject to cross-examination. His physical presence—even if allegedly unhelpful—defeated any claim that he failed to appear. According to the Alabama Supreme Court, “[t]he text of Rule 37(d) does not address what happens once a person has submitted himself to the officer and declines to answer questions.” Put simply, showing up—even if evasive—is not the same as not showing up at all.
3. Rule 37(a) and (b) Require a Motion to Compel
Because the plaintiffs never filed a motion to compel Choi to provide better answers, the Court had no authority to impose sanctions under Rule 37(a) or (b). The Alabama Supreme Court stressed that a party must first seek an order compelling discovery before sanctions are available. Only after a violation of such an order can sanctions be imposed.
This safeguard ensures that sanctions are not imposed based on mere dissatisfaction with how a deposition unfolds. Parties must use the mechanisms available to compel compliance before asking a court to impose penalties.
4. Federal Cases Cited by Plaintiffs Were Unpersuasive
The plaintiffs cited federal cases suggesting that a 30(b)(6) witness who lacks useful knowledge is effectively a no-show. The Court rejected those cases as unpersuasive and inconsistent with Alabama’s textual approach to rule interpretation.
Quoting a law review article, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that treating unpreparedness as nonappearance “is neither warranted under the Rule nor sustainable in logic and common sense.”
5. The Fee Award Could Not Survive
Because the sanctions were invalid, the attorney fee award also had to be vacated. Although a fee dispute standing alone might not have justified mandamus, the Alabama Supreme Court exercised its discretion to vacate both orders in the interest of judicial economy.
Key Lessons from this Court Decision
This decision contains several practical lessons for lawyers conducting or defending 30(b)(6) depositions especially in Alabama.
A. Meet and Confer Before Filing a Motion for Sanctions
Rule 37(a)(2) requires that a party seeking sanctions certify that it attempted to resolve the dispute in good faith with opposing counsel. Here, the plaintiffs skipped that step entirely. The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that sanctions are not available unless the party has made a good-faith effort to resolve the issue informally.
B. File a Motion to Compel First
A motion to compel is not a formality—it is a prerequisite to sanctions under Rule 37(a) and (b). If a witness refuses to answer, gives evasive answers, or is improperly instructed not to testify, the proper course is to seek an order compelling a response. Only if the witness defies that order can sanctions follow.
C. Carefully Select and Prepare Your 30(b)(6) Representative
Defense counsel should take note – even though Hankook ultimately prevailed, the company faced enormous litigation risk due to its witness’s performance. A well-prepared 30(b)(6) witness must be able to testify about all designated topics “to the extent known or reasonably available” to the organization. Designating someone with limited knowledge or inadequate preparation can invite trouble.
D. Trial Courts Must Follow the Rules
The case also serves as a cautionary tale for trial judges. Even where a witness performs poorly or appears evasive, courts must follow the procedural rules for discovery. They may not bypass the motion-to-compel process simply because they are frustrated with a party’s conduct.
A Guiding Case for Future Discovery Battles
The Hankook decision is a resounding affirmation of procedural regularity. It reminds litigants and judges alike that discovery sanctions are not tools of expediency but instruments of last resort. They require careful adherence to established steps: notice, conferment, a motion to compel, and finally, an opportunity to comply.
While the plaintiffs were understandably frustrated by the deposition, the Supreme Court made clear that even valid grievances must follow valid procedures. The decision upholds not just the letter of Alabama’s Rules of Civil Procedure, but the deeper principle that fairness in litigation requires consistency, transparency, and restraint.
In an era of increasingly aggressive discovery tactics, Ex parte Hankook is a case that will likely be cited again and again—as both a shield and a guide.
Get in touch with the legal translators and court interpreters at All Language Alliance, Inc. to reserve competent deposition interpreters and check interpreters fluent in Korean; Mandarin; German; Italian; Swedish; Danish; Cantonese; Spanish; Japanese, and other foreign languages for corporate depositions under Rule 30(b)(6).
#alllanguagealliance #discovery #discoverysanctions #Koreaninterpreter #Koreandepositioninterpreter #depositioninterpreter #depositioninterpreterservices #Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition