Effective Date: November 1, 2011
Court rules
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
1
Rule 26. General provisions governing disclosure and discovery.
2
(a) Disclosure. This rule applies unless changed or supplemented by a rule
3
4
5
governing disclosure and discovery in a practice area.
(a)(1) Initial disclosures. Except in cases exempt under paragraph (a)(3), a party
shall, without waiting for a discovery request, provide to other parties:
6
(a)(1)(A) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of:
7
(a)(1)(A)(i) each individual likely to have discoverable information supporting its
8
claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the
9
information; and
10
11
12
(a)(1)(A)(ii) each fact witness the party may call in its case-in-chief and, except for
an adverse party, a summary of the expected testimony;
(a)(1)(B) a copy of all documents, data compilations, electronically stored
13
information, and tangible things in the possession or control of the party that the party
14
may offer in its case-in-chief, except charts, summaries and demonstrative exhibits that
15
have not yet been prepared and must be disclosed in accordance with paragraph (a)(5);
16
(a)(1)(C) a computation of any damages claimed and a copy of all discoverable
17
documents or evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including
18
materials about the nature and extent of injuries suffered;
19
(a)(1)(D) a copy of any agreement under which any person may be liable to satisfy
20
part or all of a judgment or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
21
judgment; and
22
(a)(1)(E) a copy of all documents to which a party refers in its pleadings.
23
(a)(2) Timing of initial disclosures. The disclosures required by paragraph (a)(1)
24
25
26
27
28
29
shall be made:
(a)(2)(A) by the plaintiff within 14 days after service of the first answer to the
complaint; and
(a)(2)(B) by the defendant within 28 days after the plaintiff’s first disclosure or after
that defendant’s appearance, whichever is later.
(a)(3) Exemptions.
Rule 26.
30
31
32
33
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
(a)(3)(A) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to by the parties, the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) do not apply to actions:
(a)(3)(A)(i) for judicial review of adjudicative proceedings or rule making proceedings
of an administrative agency;
34
(a)(3)(A)(ii) governed by Rule 65B or Rule 65C;
35
(a)(3)(A)(iii) to enforce an arbitration award;
36
(a)(3)(A)(iv) for water rights general adjudication under Title 73, Chapter 4.
37
(a)(3)(B) In an exempt action, the matters subject to disclosure under paragraph
38
(a)(1) are subject to discovery under paragraph (b).
39
(a)(4) Expert testimony.
40
(a)(4)(A) Disclosure of expert testimony. A party shall, without waiting for a
41
discovery request, provide to the other parties the following information regarding any
42
person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or of the
43
Utah Rules of Evidence and who is retained or specially employed to provide expert
44
testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve
45
giving expert testimony: (i) the expert’s name and qualifications, including a list of all
46
publications authored within the preceding 10 years, and a list of any other cases in
47
which the expert has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding
48
four years, (ii) a brief summary of the opinions to which the witness is expected to
49
testify, (iii) all data and other information that will be relied upon by the witness in
50
forming those opinions, and (iv) the compensation to be paid for the witness’s study and
51
testimony.
52
(a)(4)(B) Limits on expert discovery. Further discovery may be obtained from an
53
expert witness either by deposition or by written report. A deposition shall not exceed
54
four hours and the party taking the deposition shall pay the expert’s reasonable hourly
55
fees for attendance at the deposition. A report shall be signed by the expert and shall
56
contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will offer at trial and the basis
57
and reasons for them. Such an expert may not testify in a party’s case-in-chief
58
concerning any matter not fairly disclosed in the report. The party offering the expert
59
shall pay the costs for the report.
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
60
(a)(4)(C) Timing for expert discovery.
61
(a)(4)(C)(i) The party who bears the burden of proof on the issue for which expert
62
testimony is offered shall provide the information required by paragraph (a)(4)(A) within
63
seven days after the close of fact discovery. Within seven days thereafter, the party
64
opposing the expert may serve notice electing either a deposition of the expert pursuant
65
to paragraph (a)(4)(B) and Rule 30, or a written report pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(B).
66
The deposition shall occur, or the report shall be provided, within 28 days after the
67
election is made. If no election is made, then no further discovery of the expert shall be
68
permitted.
69
(a)(4)(C)(ii) The party who does not bear the burden of proof on the issue for which
70
expert testimony is offered shall provide the information required by paragraph (a)(4)(A)
71
within seven days after the later of (i) the date on which the election under paragraph
72
(a)(4)(C)(i) is due, or (ii) receipt of the written report or the taking of the expert’s
73
deposition pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(C)(i). Within seven days thereafter, the party
74
opposing the expert may serve notice electing either a deposition of the expert pursuant
75
to paragraph (a)(4)(B) and Rule 30, or a written report pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(B).
76
The deposition shall occur, or the report shall be provided, within 28 days after the
77
election is made. If no election is made, then no further discovery of the expert shall be
78
permitted.
79
(a)(4)(D) Multiparty actions. In multiparty actions, all parties opposing the expert
80
must agree on either a report or a deposition. If all parties opposing the expert do not
81
agree, then further discovery of the expert may be obtained only by deposition pursuant
82
to paragraph (a)(4)(B) and Rule 30.
83
(a)(4)(E) Summary of non-retained expert testimony. If a party intends to present
84
evidence at trial under Rules 702, 703, or of the Utah Rules of Evidence from any
85
person other than an expert witness who is retained or specially employed to provide
86
testimony in the case or a person whose duties as an employee of the party regularly
87
involve giving expert testimony, that party must provide a written summary of the facts
88
and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify in accordance with the
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
89
deadlines set forth in paragraph (a)(4)(C). A deposition of such a witness may not
90
exceed four hours.
91
(a)(5) Pretrial disclosures.
92
(a)(5)(A) A party shall, without waiting for a discovery request, provide to other
93
94
parties:
(a)(5)(A)(i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone
95
number of each witness, unless solely for impeachment, separately identifying
96
witnesses the party will call and witnesses the party may call;
97
(a)(5)(A)(ii) the name of witnesses whose testimony is expected to be presented by
98
transcript of a deposition and a copy of the transcript with the proposed testimony
99
designated; and
100
(a)(5)(A)(iii) a copy of each exhibit, including charts, summaries and demonstrative
101
exhibits, unless solely for impeachment, separately identifying those which the party will
102
offer and those which the party may offer.
103
(a)(5)(B) Disclosure required by paragraph (a)(5) shall be made at least 28 days
104
before trial. At least 14 days before trial, a party shall serve and file counter-104
105
designations of deposition testimony, objections and grounds for the objections to the
106
use of a deposition and to the admissibility of exhibits. Other than objections under
107
Rules and of the Utah Rules of Evidence, objections not listed are waived unless
108
excused by the court for good cause.
109
(b) Discovery scope.
110
(b)(1) In general. Parties may discover any matter, not privileged, which is relevant
111
to the claim or defense of any party if the discovery satisfies the standards of
112
proportionality set forth below.
113
(b)(2) Proportionality. Discovery and discovery requests are proportional if:
114
(b)(2)(A) the discovery is reasonable, considering the needs of the case, the amount
115
in controversy, the complexity of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the
116
issues, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues;
117
118
(b)(2)(B) the likely benefits of the proposed discovery outweigh the burden or
expense;
Rule 26.
119
120
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
(b)(2)(C) the discovery is consistent with the overall case management and will
further the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the case;
121
(b)(2)(D) the discovery is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative;
122
(b)(2)(E) the information cannot be obtained from another source that is more
123
convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; and
124
(b)(2)(F) the party seeking discovery has not had sufficient opportunity to obtain the
125
information by discovery or otherwise, taking into account the parties’ relative access to
126
the information.
127
(b)(3) Burden. The party seeking discovery always has the burden of showing
128
proportionality and relevance. To ensure proportionality, the court may enter orders
129
under Rule 37.
130
(b)(4) Electronically stored information. A party claiming that electronically stored
131
information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost shall
132
describe the source of the electronically stored information, the nature and extent of the
133
burden, the nature of the information not provided, and any other information that will
134
enable other parties to evaluate the claim.
135
(b)(5) Trial preparation materials. A party may obtain otherwise discoverable
136
documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for
137
another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the party’s attorney,
138
consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party
139
seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials and that the party is unable
140
without undue hardship to obtain substantially equivalent materials by other means. In
141
ordering discovery of such materials, the court shall protect against disclosure of the
142
mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other
143
representative of a party.
144
(b)(6) Statement previously made about the action. A party may obtain without
145
the showing required in paragraph (b)(5) a statement concerning the action or its
146
subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may
147
obtain without the required showing a statement about the action or its subject matter
148
previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
149
court order under Rule 37. A statement previously made is (A) a written statement
150
signed or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical,
151
electronic, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim
152
recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.
153
(b)(7) Trial preparation; experts.
154
(b)(7)(A) Trial-preparation protection for draft reports or disclosures. Paragraph
155
(b)(5) protects drafts of any report or disclosure required under paragraph (a)(4),
156
regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.
157
(b)(7)(B) Trial-preparation protection for communications between a party’s
158
attorney and expert witnesses. Paragraph (b)(5) protects communications between
159
the party’s attorney and any witness required to provide disclosures under paragraph
160
(a)(4), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the
161
communications:
162
(b)(7)(B)(i) relate to compensation for the expert’s study or testimony;
163
(b)(7)(B)(ii) identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the
164
165
166
expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or
(b)(7)(B)(iii) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the
expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.
167
(b)(7)(C) Expert employed only for trial preparation. Ordinarily, a party may not,
168
by interrogatories or otherwise, discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who
169
has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or
170
to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial. A party may
171
do so only:
172
(b)(7)(C)(i) as provided in Rule 35(b); or
173
(b)(7)(C)(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for
174
the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
175
(b)(8) Claims of privilege or protection of trial preparation materials.
176
(b)(8)(A) Information withheld. If a party withholds discoverable information by
177
claiming that it is privileged or prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, the party
178
shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents,
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
179
communications, or things not produced in a manner that, without revealing the
180
information itself, will enable other parties to evaluate the claim.
181
(b)(8)(B) Information produced. If a party produces information that the party
182
claims is privileged or prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, the producing party
183
may notify any receiving party of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a
184
receiving party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and
185
any copies it has and may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved.
186
A receiving party may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a
187
determination of the claim. If the receiving party disclosed the information before being
188
notified, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it. The producing party must preserve
189
the information until the claim is resolved.
190
191
192
(c) Methods, sequence and timing of discovery; tiers; limits on standard
discovery; extraordinary discovery.
(c)(1) Methods of discovery. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the
193
following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written
194
interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or
195
other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations;
196
requests for admission; and subpoenas other than for a court hearing or trial.
197
(c)(2) Sequence and timing of discovery. Methods of discovery may be used in
198
any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery shall not delay any
199
other party's discovery. Except for cases exempt under paragraph (a)(3), a party may
200
not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosure obligations are
201
satisfied.
202
(c)(3) Definition of tiers for standard discovery. Actions claiming $50,000 or less
203
in damages are permitted standard discovery as described for Tier 1. Actions claiming
204
more than $50,000 and less than $300,000 in damages are permitted standard
205
discovery as described for Tier 2. Actions claiming $300,000 or more in damages are
206
permitted standard discovery as described for Tier 3. Absent an accompanying damage
207
claim for more than $300,000, actions claiming non-monetary relief are permitted
208
standard discovery as described for Tier 2.
Rule 26.
209
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
(c)(4) Definition of damages. For purposes of determining standard discovery, the
210
amount of damages includes the total of all monetary damages sought (without
211
duplication for alternative theories) by all parties in all claims for relief in the original
212
pleadings.
213
(c)(5) Limits on standard fact discovery. Standard fact discovery per side
214
(plaintiffs collectively, defendants collectively, and third-party defendants collectively) in
215
each tier is as follows. The days to complete standard fact discovery are calculated from
216
the date the first defendant’s first disclosure is due and do not include expert discovery
217
under paragraphs(a)(4)(C) and (D).
Tier
1
2
3
218
219
Amount of
Damages
$50,000 or
less
More than
$50,000
and less
than
$300,000
or nonmonetary
relief
$300,000
or more
Total Fact
Deposition
Hours
3
Rule 33
Interrogatories
including all
discrete
subparts
0
Rule 34
Requests
for
Production
5
Rule 36
Requests
for
Admission
5
Days to
Complete
Standard
Fact
Discovery
120
15
10
10
10
180
30
20
20
20
210
(c)(6) Extraordinary discovery. To obtain discovery beyond the limits established in
paragraph (c)(5), a party shall file:
220
(c)(6)(A) before the close of standard discovery and after reaching the limits of
221
standard discovery imposed by these rules, a stipulated statement that extraordinary
222
discovery is necessary and proportional under paragraph (b)(2) and that each party has
223
reviewed and approved a discovery budget; or
224
(c)(6)(B) before the close of standard discovery and after reaching the limits of
225
standard discovery imposed by these rules, a motion for extraordinary discovery setting
226
forth the reasons why the extraordinary discovery is necessary and proportional under
227
paragraph (b)(2) and certifying that the party has reviewed and approved a discovery
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
228
budget and certifying that the party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
229
with the other party in an effort to achieve a stipulation.
230
(d) Requirements for disclosure or response; disclosure or response by an
231
organization; failure to disclose; initial and supplemental disclosures and
232
responses.
233
234
(d)(1) A party shall make disclosures and responses to discovery based on the
information then known or reasonably available to the party.
235
(d)(2) If the party providing disclosure or responding to discovery is a corporation,
236
partnership, association, or governmental agency, the party shall act through one or
237
more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons, who shall make disclosures
238
and responses to discovery based on the information then known or reasonably
239
available to the party.
240
(d)(3) A party is not excused from making disclosures or responses because the
241
party has not completed investigating the case or because the party challenges the
242
sufficiency of another party's disclosures or responses or because another party has not
243
made disclosures or responses.
244
(d)(4) If a party fails to disclose or to supplement timely a disclosure or response to
245
discovery, that party may not use the undisclosed witness, document or material at any
246
hearing or trial unless the failure is harmless or the party shows good cause for the
247
failure.
248
(d)(5) If a party learns that a disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect in
249
some important way, the party must timely provide the additional or correct information if
250
it has not been made known to the other parties. The supplemental disclosure or
251
response must state why the additional or correct information was not previously
252
provided.
253
(e) Signing discovery requests, responses, and objections. Every disclosure,
254
request for discovery, response to a request for discovery and objection to a request for
255
discovery shall be in writing and signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party
256
if the party is not represented. The signature of the attorney or party is a certification
257
under Rule 11. If a request or response is not signed, the receiving party does not need
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
258
to take any action with respect to it. If a certification is made in violation of the rule, the
259
court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may take any action authorized by Rule 11
260
or Rule 37(e).
261
(f) Filing. Except as required by these rules or ordered by the court, a party shall not
262
file with the court a disclosure, a request for discovery or a response to a request for
263
discovery, but shall file only the certificate of service stating that the disclosure, request
264
for discovery or response has been served on the other parties and the date of service.
265
Advisory Committee Notes
266
Disclosure requirements and timing. Rule 26(a)(1). The 2011 amendments seek
267
to reduce discovery costs by requiring each party to produce, at an early stage in the
268
case, and without a discovery request, all of the documents and physical evidence the
269
party may offer in its case-in-chief and the names of witnesses the party may call in its
270
case-in-chief, with a description of their expected testimony. In this respect, the
271
amendments build on the initial disclosure requirements of the prior rules. In addition to
272
the disclosures required by the prior version of Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose
273
each fact witness the party may call in its case-in-chief and a summary of the witness’s
274
expected testimony, a copy of all documents the party may offer in its case-in-chief, and
275
all documents to which a party refers in its pleadings.
276
Not all information will be known at the outset of a case. If discovery is serving its
277
proper purpose, additional witnesses, documents, and other information will be
278
identified. The scope and the level of detail required in the initial Rule 26(a)(1)
279
disclosures should be viewed in light of this reality. A party is not required to interview
280
every witness it ultimately may call at trial in order to provide a summary of the witness’s
281
expected testimony. As the information becomes known, it should be disclosed. No
282
summaries are required for adverse parties, including management level employees of
283
business entities, because opposing lawyers are unable to interview them and their
284
testimony is available to their own counsel. For uncooperative or hostile witnesses any
285
summary of expected testimony would necessarily be limited to the subject areas the
286
witness is reasonably expected to testify about. For example, defense counsel may be
287
unable to interview a treating physician, so the initial summary may only disclose that
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
288
the witness will be questioned concerning the plaintiff’s diagnosis, treatment and
289
prognosis. After medical records have been obtained, the summary may be expanded
290
or refined.
291
Subject to the foregoing qualifications, the summary of the witness’s expected
292
testimony should be just that – a summary. The rule does not require prefiled testimony
293
or detailed descriptions of everything a witness might say at trial. On the other hand, it
294
requires more than the broad, conclusory statements that often were made under the
295
prior version of Rule 26(a)(1)(e.g., “The witness will testify about the events in question”
296
or “The witness will testify on causation.”). The intent of this requirement is to give the
297
other side basic information concerning the subjects about which the witness is
298
expected to testify at trial, so that the other side may determine the witness’s relative
299
importance in the case, whether the witness should be interviewed or deposed, and
300
whether additional documents or information concerning the witness should be sought.
301
This information is important because of the other discovery limits contained in the 2011
302
amendments, particularly the limits on depositions.
303
Likewise, the documents that should be provided as part of the Rule 26(a)(1)
304
disclosures are those that a party reasonably believes it may use at trial, understanding
305
that not all documents will be available at the outset of a case. In this regard, it is
306
important to remember that the duty to provide documents and witness information is a
307
continuing one, and disclosures must be promptly supplemented as new evidence and
308
witnesses become known as the case progresses.
309
The amendments also require parties to provide more information about damages
310
early in the case. Too often, the subject of damages is deferred until late in the case.
311
Early disclosure of damages information is important. Among other things, it is a critical
312
factor in determining proportionality. The committee recognizes that damages often
313
require additional discovery, and typically are the subject of expert testimony. The Rule
314
is not intended to require expert disclosures at the outset of a case. At the same time,
315
the subject of damages should not simply be deferred until expert discovery. Parties
316
should make a good faith attempt to compute damages to the extent it is possible to do
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
317
so and must in any event provide all discoverable information on the subject, including
318
materials related to the nature and extent of the damages.
319
The penalty for failing to make timely disclosures is that the evidence may not be
320
used in the party’s case-in-chief. To make the disclosure requirement meaningful, and to
321
discourage sandbagging, parties must know that if they fail to disclose important
322
information that is helpful to their case, they will not be able to use that information at
323
trial. The courts will be expected to enforce them unless the failure is harmless or the
324
party shows good cause for the failure.
325
The 2011 amendments also change the time for making these required disclosures.
326
Because the plaintiff controls when it brings the action, plaintiffs must make their
327
disclosures within 14 days after service of the first answer. A defendant is required to
328
make its disclosures within 28 days after the plaintiff’s first disclosure or after that
329
defendant’s appearance, whichever is later. The purpose of early disclosure is to have
330
all parties present the evidence they expect to use to prove their claims or defenses,
331
thereby giving the opposing party the ability to better evaluate the case and determine
332
what additional discovery is necessary and proportional.
333
The time periods for making Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, and the presumptive
334
deadlines for completing fact discovery, are keyed to the filing of an answer. If a
335
defendant files a motion to dismiss or other Rule 12(b) motion in lieu of an answer,
336
these time periods normally would be not begin to run until that motion is resolved.
337
Finally, the 2011 amendments eliminate two categories of actions that previously
338
were exempt from the mandatory disclosure requirements. Specifically, the
339
amendments eliminate the prior exemption for contract actions in which the amount
340
claimed is $20,000 or less, and actions in which any party is proceeding pro se. In the
341
committee’s view, these types of actions will benefit from the early disclosure
342
requirements and the overall reduced cost of discovery.
343
Expert disclosures and timing. Rule 26(a)(3). Expert discovery has become an
344
ever-increasing component of discovery cost. The prior rules sought to eliminate some
345
of these costs by requiring the written disclosure of the expert’s opinions and other
346
background information. However, because the expert was not required to sign these
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
347
disclosures, and because experts often were allowed to deviate from the opinions
348
disclosed, attorneys typically would take the expert’s deposition to ensure the expert
349
would not offer “surprise” testimony at trial, thereby increasing rather than decreasing
350
the overall cost. The amendments seek to remedy this and other costs associated with
351
expert discovery by, among other things, allowing the opponent to choose either a
352
deposition of the expert or a written report, but not both; in the case of written reports,
353
requiring more comprehensive disclosures, signed by the expert, and making clear that
354
experts will not be allowed to testify beyond what is fairly disclosed in a report, all with
355
the goal of making reports a reliable substitute for depositions; and incorporating a rule
356
that protects from discovery most communications between an attorney and retained
357
expert. Discovery of expert opinions and testimony is automatic under Rule 26(a)(3) and
358
parties are not required to serve interrogatories or use other discovery devices to obtain
359
this information.
360
Disclosures of expert testimony are made in sequence, with the party who bears the
361
burden of proof on the issue for which expert testimony will be offered going first. Within
362
seven days after the close of fact discovery, that party must disclose: (i) the expert’s
363
curriculum vitae identifying the expert’s qualifications, publications, and prior testimony;
364
(ii) compensation information; (iii) a brief summary of the opinions the expert will offer;
365
and (iv) a complete copy of the expert’s file for the case. The file should include all of
366
the facts and data that the expert has relied upon in forming the expert’s opinions. If the
367
expert has prepared summaries of data, spreadsheets, charts, tables, or similar
368
materials, they should be included. If the expert has used software programs to make
369
calculations or otherwise summarize or organize data, that information and underlying
370
formulas should be provided in native form so it can be analyzed and understood. To
371
the extent the expert is relying on depositions or materials produced in discovery, then a
372
list of the specific materials relied upon is sufficient. The committee recognizes that
373
experts frequently will prepare demonstrative exhibits or other aids to illustrate the
374
expert’s testimony at trial, and the costs for preparing these materials can be
375
substantial. For that reason, these types of demonstrative aids may be prepared and
376
disclosed later, as part of the Rule 26(a)(4) pretrial disclosures when trial is imminent.
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
377
Within seven days after this disclosure, the party opposing the retained expert may
378
elect either a deposition or a written report from the expert. A deposition is limited to four
379
hours, which is not included in the deposition hours under Rule 26(c)(5), and the party
380
taking it must pay the expert’s hourly fee for attending the deposition. If a party elects a
381
written report, the expert must provide a signed report containing a complete statement
382
of all opinions the expert will express and the basis and reasons for them. The intent is
383
not to require a verbatim transcript of exactly what the expert will say at trial; instead the
384
expert must fairly disclose the substance of and basis for each opinion the expert will
385
offer. The expert may not testify in a party’s case in chief concerning any matter that is
386
not fairly disclosed in the report. To achieve the goal of making reports a reliable
387
substitute for depositions, courts are expected to enforce this requirement. If a party
388
elects a deposition, rather than a report, it is up to the party to ask the necessary
389
questions to “lock in” the expert’s testimony. But the expert is expected to be fully
390
prepared on all aspects of his/her trial testimony at the time of the deposition and may
391
not leave the door open for additional testimony by qualifying answers to deposition
392
questions.
393
The report or deposition must be completed within 28 days after the election is
394
made. After this, the party who does not bear the burden of proof on the issue for which
395
expert testimony is offered must make its corresponding disclosures and the opposing
396
party may then elect either a deposition or a written report. Under the deadlines
397
contained in the rules, expert discovery should take less than three months to complete.
398
However, as with the other discovery rules, these deadlines can be altered by
399
stipulation of the parties or order of the court.
400
The amendments also address the issue of testimony from non-retained experts,
401
such as treating physicians, police officers, or employees with special expertise, who
402
are not retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as
403
an employee do not regularly involve giving expert testimony. This issue was addressed
404
by the Supreme Court in Drew v. Lee, 2011 UT 15, wherein the court held that reports
405
under the prior version of Rule 26(a)(3) are not required for treating physicians.
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
406
There are a number of difficulties inherent in disclosing expert testimony that may be
407
offered from fact witnesses. First, there is often not a clear line between fact and expert
408
testimony. Many fact witnesses have scientific, technical or other specialized
409
knowledge, and their testimony about the events in question often will cross into the
410
area of expert testimony. The rules are not intended to erect artificial barriers to the
411
admissibility of such testimony. Second, many of these fact witnesses will not be within
412
the control of the party who plans to call them at trial. These witnesses may not be
413
cooperative, and may not be willing to discuss opinions they have with counsel. Where
414
this is the case, disclosures will necessarily be more limited. On the other hand,
415
consistent with the overall purpose of the 2011 amendments, a party should receive
416
advance notice if their opponent will solicit expert opinions from a particular witness so
417
they can plan their case accordingly. In an effort to strike an appropriate balance, the
418
rules require that such witnesses be identified and the information about their
419
anticipated testimony should include that which is required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii),
420
which should include any opinion testimony that a party expects to elicit from them at
421
trial. If a party has disclosed possible opinion testimony in its Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)
422
disclosures, that party is not required to prepare a separate Rule 26(a)(3)(D) disclosure
423
for the witness. And if that disclosure is made in advance of the witness’s deposition,
424
those opinions should be explored in the deposition and not in a separate expert
425
deposition. Otherwise, the timing for disclosure of non-retained expert opinions is the
426
same as that for retained experts under Rule 26(a)(4)(C) and depends on whether the
427
party has the burden of proof or is responding to another expert. Rule 26(a)(3)(D) and
428
26(a)(1)(A)(ii) are not intended to elevate form over substance – all they require is that a
429
party fairly inform its opponent that opinion testimony may be offered from a particular
430
witness. And because a party who expects to offer this testimony normally cannot
431
compel such a witness to prepare a written report, further discovery must be done by
432
interview or by deposition.
433
Finally, the amendments include a new Rule 26(b)(7) that protects from discovery
434
draft expert reports and, with limited exception, communications between an attorney
435
and an expert. These changes are modeled after the recent changes to the Federal
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
436
Rules of Civil Procedure and are intended to address the unnecessary and costly
437
procedures that often were employed in order to protect such information from
438
discovery, and to reduce “satellite litigation” over such issues.
439
Scope of discovery—Proportionality. Rule 26(b). Proportionality is the principle
440
governing the scope of discovery. Simply stated, it means that the cost of discovery
441
should be proportional to what is at stake in the litigation.
442
In the past, the scope of discovery was governed by “relevance” or the “likelihood to
443
lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” These broad standards may have secured
444
just results by allowing a party to discover all facts relevant to the litigation. However,
445
they did little to advance two equally important objectives of the rules of civil
446
procedure—the speedy and inexpensive resolution of every action. Accordingly, the
447
former standards governing the scope of discovery have been replaced with the
448
proportionality standards in subpart (b)(1).
449
The concept of proportionality is not new. The prior rule permitted the Court to limit
450
discovery methods if it determined that “the discovery was unduly burdensome or
451
expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
452
limitations on the parties’ resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the
453
litigation.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contains a similar provision. See Fed.
454
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). This method of limiting discovery, however, was rarely invoked
455
either under the Utah rules or federal rules.
456
Under the prior rule, the party objecting to the discovery request had the burden of
457
proving that a discovery request was not proportional. The new rule changes the burden
458
of proof. Today, the party seeking discovery beyond the scope of “standard” discovery
459
has the burden of showing that the request is “relevant to the claim or defense of any
460
party” and that the request satisfies the standards of proportionality. As before, ultimate
461
admissibility is not an appropriate objection to a discovery request so long as the
462
proportionality standard and other requirements are met.
463
The 2011 amendments establish three tiers of standard discovery in Rule 26(c).
464
Ideally, rules of procedure should be crafted to promote predictability for litigants. Rules
465
should limit the need to resort to judicial oversight. Tiered standard discovery seeks to
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
466
achieve these ends. The “one-size-fits-all” system is rejected. Tiered discovery signals
467
to judges, attorneys, and parties the amount of discovery which by rule is deemed
468
proportional for cases with different amounts in controversy.
469
Any system of rules which permits the facts and circumstances of each case to
470
inform procedure cannot eliminate uncertainty. Ultimately, the trial court has broad
471
discretion in deciding whether a discovery request is proportional. The proportionality
472
standards in subpart (b)(2) and the discovery tiers in subpart (c) mitigate uncertainty by
473
guiding that discretion. The proper application of the proportionality standards will be
474
defined over time by trial and appellate courts.
475
Standard and extraordinary discovery. Rule 26(c). As a counterpart to requiring
476
more detailed disclosures under Rule 26(a), the 2011 amendments place new
477
limitations on additional discovery the parties may conduct. Because the committee
478
expects the enhanced disclosure requirements will automatically permit each party to
479
learn the witnesses and evidence the opposing side will offer in its case-in-chief,
480
additional discovery should serve the more limited function of permitting parties to find
481
witnesses, documents, and other evidentiary materials that are harmful, rather than
482
helpful, to the opponent’s case.
483
Rule 26(c) provides for three separate “tiers” of limited, “standard” discovery that are
484
presumed to be proportional to the amount and issues in controversy in the action, and
485
that the parties may conduct as a matter of right. An aggregation of all damages sought
486
by all parties in an action dictates the applicable tier of standard discovery, whether
487
such damages are sought by way of a complaint, counterclaim, or otherwise. The tiers
488
of standard discovery are set forth in a chart that is embedded in the body of the rule
489
itself. “Tier 1” describes a minimal amount of standard discovery that is presumed
490
proportional for cases involving damages of $50,000 or less. “Tier 2” sets forth larger
491
limits on standard discovery that are applicable in cases involving damages above
492
$50,000 but less than $300,000. Finally, “Tier 3” prescribes still greater standard
493
discovery for actions involving damages in excess of $300,000. Deposition hours are
494
charged to a side for the time spent asking questions of the witness. In a particular
495
deposition, one side may use two hours while the other side uses only 30 minutes. The
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
496
tiers also provide presumptive limitations on the time within which standard discovery
497
should be completed, which limitations similarly increase with the amount of damages at
498
issue. Discovery motions will not toll the period. Parties are expected to be reasonable
499
and accomplish as much as they can during standard discovery. The motions may result
500
in additional discovery and sanctions at the expense of a party who unreasonably fails
501
to respond or otherwise frustrates discovery. After the expiration of the applicable time
502
limitation, a case is presumed to be ready for trial. Actions for non-monetary relief, such
503
as injunctive relief, are subject to the standard discovery limitations of Tier 2, absent an
504
accompanying monetary claim of $300,000 or more, in which case Tier 3 applies. The
505
committee determined these standard discovery limitations based on the expectation
506
that for the majority of cases filed in the Utah State Courts, the magnitude of available
507
discovery and applicable time parameters available under the three-tiered system
508
should be sufficient for cases involving the respective amounts of damages.
509
Despite the expectation that standard discovery according to the applicable tier
510
should be adequate in the typical case, the 2011 amendments contemplate there will be
511
some cases for which standard discovery is not sufficient or appropriate. In such cases,
512
parties may conduct additional discovery that is shown to be consistent with the
513
principle of proportionality. There are two ways to obtain such additional discovery. The
514
first is by stipulation. If the parties can agree additional discovery is necessary, they may
515
stipulate to as much additional discovery as they desire, provided they stipulate the
516
additional discovery is proportional to what is at stake in the litigation and counsel for
517
each party certifies that the party has reviewed and approved a budget for additional
518
discovery. Such a stipulation should be filed before the close of the standard discovery
519
time limit, but only after reaching the limits for that type of standard discovery available
520
under the rule. If these conditions are met, the Court will not second-guess the parties
521
and their counsel and must approve the stipulation.
522
The second method to obtain additional discovery is by motion. The committee
523
recognizes there will be some cases in which additional discovery is appropriate, but the
524
parties cannot agree to the scope of such additional discovery. These may include,
525
among other categories, large and factually complex cases and cases in which there is
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
526
a significant disparity in the parties’ access to information, such that one party
527
legitimately has a greater need than the other party for additional discovery in order to
528
prepare properly for trial. To prevent a party from taking advantage of this situation, the
529
2011 amendments allow any party to move the Court for additional discovery. As with
530
stipulations for extraordinary discovery, a party filing a motion for extraordinary
531
discovery should do so before the close of the standard discovery time limit, but only
532
after the moving party has reached the limits for that type of standard discovery
533
available to it under the rule. By taking advantage of this discovery, counsel should be
534
better equipped to articulate for the court what additional discovery is needed and why.
535
The party making such a motion must demonstrate that the additional discovery is
536
proportional and certify that the party has reviewed and approved a discovery budget.
537
The burden to show the need for additional discovery, and to demonstrate relevance
538
and proportionality, always falls on the party seeking additional discovery. However,
539
cases in which such additional discovery is appropriate do exist, and it is important for
540
courts to recognize they can and should permit additional discovery in appropriate
541
cases, commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the dispute.
542
Protective order language moved to Rule 37. The 2011 amendments delete in its
543
entirety the prior language of Rule 26(c) governing motions for protective orders. The
544
substance of that language is now found in Rule 37. The committee determined it was
545
preferable to cover motions to compel, motions for protective orders, and motions for
546
discovery sanctions in a single rule, rather than two separate rules. Accordingly, Rule 37
547
now governs these motions and orders.
548
Consequences of failure to disclose. Rule 26(d). If a party fails to disclose or to
549
supplement timely its discovery responses, that party cannot use the undisclosed
550
witness, document, or material at any hearing or trial, absent proof that non-disclosure
551
was harmless or justified by good cause. More complete disclosures increase the
552
likelihood that the case will be resolved justly, speedily, and inexpensively. Not being
553
able to use evidence that a party fails properly to disclose provides a powerful incentive
554
to make complete disclosures. This is true only if trial courts hold parties to this
555
standard. Accordingly, although a trial court retains discretion to determine how properly
Rule 26.
Effective Date: November 1, 2011
556
to address this issue in a given case, the usual and expected result should be exclusion
557
of the evidence.
558
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.