The West Virginia Supreme Court has denied a request from PHH Mortgage Corporation to block the depositions of two employees in a case involving a foreclosure dispute. The court's decision, issued on November 9, 2026, affects how corporate depositions can be handled, particularly for employees located outside the United States. This ruling clarifies the standards for determining whether such employees can be deposed without a subpoena.

The case arose from a foreclosure action initiated by David W. Irvin against Anthony and Heather Delsignore, who had defaulted on their mortgage. After Irvin purchased the property at a foreclosure sale, the Delsignores filed a counterclaim against PHH, alleging breach of contract and other claims. They sought to depose PHH employees located in India and the Philippines, which led to PHH filing a motion for a protective order to prevent the depositions.

The Delsignores contended that the information from the depositions was critical to their case, as it pertained to the handling of a payment they claimed had been sent to reinstate their mortgage. They argued that the employees they wanted to depose were managing agents of PHH and therefore could be compelled to testify without a subpoena. PHH countered that the employees were not managing agents and that the depositions should follow the procedures outlined in the Hague Convention for obtaining evidence from abroad.

The West Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's decision, which had granted the Delsignores' motion to compel the depositions and denied PHH's motion for a protective order. The court found that the circuit court did not commit clear error in determining that the two PHH employees were managing agents. Justice Flanigan, delivering the opinion of the court, stated, "The underlying dispute revolves around the handling of the payment and these individuals possess the information about what occurred because they made the decisions in that regard." This ruling allows the Delsignores to proceed with their depositions without needing to follow the Hague Convention procedures.

The court's decision also clarified the criteria for determining whether an employee qualifies as a managing agent for deposition purposes. The court outlined several factors to consider, including the discretionary authority vested in the individual by the corporation and their degree of supervisory authority in areas relevant to the litigation. This ruling emphasizes the court's commitment to broad discovery practices, which are essential for fair legal proceedings.

Looking ahead, this decision may impact how corporations handle depositions of employees located abroad. It sets a precedent that could simplify the process for obtaining testimony from foreign employees who are deemed managing agents. This ruling may encourage litigants to pursue depositions more aggressively, knowing that they may not always need to follow complex international procedures.

As for the possibility of an appeal, PHH Mortgage Corporation could seek further review in a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any intentions to appeal. The outcome of this case could influence similar disputes in the future, particularly as litigation involving international parties continues to grow.