THE RELEVANCE OF THE APEX DOCTRINE IN HIGH PROFILE CASES

“The Apex Doctrine generally comes into play when a company or lower-level executives —not the CEOs— are the named defendants but the plaintiffs argue the CEOs have information relevant to the conduct of subordinates and the workplace as a whole. Executives seeking to invoke it argue they don’t have information that couldn’t be gleaned from someone lower ranking, and that sitting for the deposition would impose a hardship in light of their responsibilities.” There are several notable examples of CEOs using the Apex Doctrine to avoid depositions, citing that that they are either too busy or it would be too burdensome as they are the face of the company.

For example, when a fatal accident caused the death of a teenage boy in 2021, Elon Musk was asked to be deposed, but a Florida state court judge shielded Musk, saying that “requiring Mr. Musk to sit for a deposition would serve no purpose other than to harass and burden Tesla and disrupt Mr. Musk’s ability to meet his obligations to consumers, stockholders, Tesla’s employees, and other activities integral to his position as CEO.”  

Some lawyers  question the application of the Apex Doctrine because the CEO-witness in question might have some unique information that is relevant to the case. “Courts have therefore shown some reluctance to the idea that merely by virtue of their status as senior executives, apex witnesses are immune from deposition.” Some attorneys have expressed their disdain with the apex doctrine citing that it is promoting discrimination and subsequently “blind to justice.” 

To find out more about how CASTAYBERT PLLC can assist you in Commercial Litigation and Arbitration, click here