Ohio attorneys were admitted pro hac vice to represent Big Lots in this suit challenging Big Lots’ classification of store managers as exempt managerial employees.  The Ohio attorneys then appeared for and represented several former Big Lots store managers at their depositions in the case.  When the plaintiffs brought this fact to the trial court’s attention, it revoked the Ohio attorneys’ pro hac vice admission.  On this writ proceedsing, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court was right insofar as it held that its admitting the Ohio attorneys as Big Lots’ lawyers did not grant them leave to represent anyone else in the case, and since the former store manager witnesses were not high level corporate officials or being questioned about their actions binding the corporation, they were not the corporation, but separate parties for purposes of the depositions.  So the attorneys needed separate admissions pro hac vice to represent those witnesses.  However, as this fact was brought to the trial court’s and the Ohio attorneys’ attention only after the depositions were taken, the trial court was wrong to take the extreme step of revoking their pro hac vice admission to represent Big Lots.  If the attorneys violated Calfiornia’s ethical rules, the trial court could discipline them appropriately.  But an innocent misinterpretation of the scope of the pro hac vice admission was not sufficient cause to revoke that admission altogether.