xhausted. If shown, a presumption of “good cause” for granting a protective order as to the deposition arises. In Gen. Motors v. Buchanan, 313 Ga. 811 (Ga. 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court refused to expressly adopt the apex doctrine. Instead, the court imposed a multi-factor balancing test and reiterated that the burden for obtaining a protective order rests with the party seeking the entry of the order (i.e., the company). Thus, decisions as to whether the deposition of high-ranking corporate executive is appropriate in any given case will be decided on an ad-hoc basis and the corporation will bear the burden of establishing that a protective order is warranted.Seatbelt Gag Rule UpdatesUnder Georgia law, evidence of seat belt use (or lack thereof) is not admissible as evidence (known as the “seatbelt gag rule”. When it was enacted in 1988, there were questions about the effectiveness of seatbelts in preventing injuries, which obviously no longer exist. In Dominque v. Ford Motor Co., 314 Ga. 59 (Ga. 2022), the Supreme Court declined to address constitutional concerns surrounding the seat belt gag rule, finding that the rule applied in response to a certified question from the Federal trial court. However, the Court noted “serious concerns” about the constitutionality of a statute that strips a defendant of the ability present evidence that is critical to its defense. Dominque involved claims that the air bag system in the plaintiff’s vehicle was defective. Ford argued that questions about the safety of its airbag system could not be plausibly evaluated without considering occupant seatbelt use. Ford also argued that denying admission of seatbelt use evidence amounted to a violation of its right to due process and equal protection. The Court declined to resolve the constitutional issues given the early stage of the litigation. However, the dicta in the Dominique opinion gives some glimmer of hope for the elimination of the seat belt gag rule down the road.