Allowing a premature deposition of a high-ranking corporate official might yield harmful statements that would bind the corporate client. The attorney, therefore, might want to defer the deposition until enough is known about the case to prepare the official properly. On the other hand, letting the deposition go forward early in the case may offer advantages. The earlier the deposition, the less likely it is that the opponent will know enough about the case to ask tough questions or confront the deponent with negative documents or testimony. If the attorney decides that thwarting the deposition is the wisest course, the 1983 amendments to the Federal discovery rules provide grounds for resisting abusive, duplicative, expensive, and unduly burdensome discovery. Rule 26 requires that discovery be limited by the court if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. The burden, expense, and proportionality of the deposition are especially important when the discovery being sought is the deposition of a high-ranking official. When the goal is to prevent a deposition, a motion to quash or for a protective order should be pursued as the principal line of attack, particularly when the proposed deponent has no knowledge of the facts of the case.