The new sentence is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse. The subdivision provides a deterrent to both excessive discovery and evasion by imposing a certification requirement that obliges each attorney to stop and think about the legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection. 654, 66162 (D.Col. Subdivision (a)(3) presently excuses pretrial disclosure of information solely for impeachment. Courts in Canada and the United Kingdom have for many years required disclosure of certain information without awaiting a request from an adversary. As case preparation continues, a party must supplement its disclosures when it determines that it may use a witness or document that it did not previously intend to use. 337, 1; 2 N.D.Comp.Laws Ann. The cases favoring disclosure rely heavily on the practical significance of insurance in the decisions lawyers make about settlement and trial preparation. 471. This paragraph prescribes the form of disclosures. 619 (1977). Since Rule 16 was amended in 1983 to mandate some case management activities in all courts, it has included deadlines for completing these tasks to ensure that all courts do so within a reasonable time. Tannenbaum v. Walker, 16 F.R.D. Rule 34(b) is amended to permit a requesting party to specify the form or forms in which it wants electronically stored information produced. 2008)). Thus the spirit of the rules is violated when advocates attempt to use discovery tools as tactical weapons rather than to expose the facts and illuminate the issues by overuse of discovery or unnecessary use of defensive weapons or evasive responses. Changes Made after Publication and Comment. Even in cases where the court is directed to issue a protective order, it may decline to do so if it finds that manifest injustice would result. But some sources of electronically stored information can be accessed only with substantial burden and cost. Thus, the provision makes no change in existing law on discovery of indemnity agreements other than insurance agreements by persons carrying on an insurance business. 37, r. 18 (with additional provision permitting use of deposition by consent of the parties). The most frequent method for discovering the work of expert witnesses is by deposition, but Rules 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) apply to all forms of discovery. The 2000 Note offered three examples of information that, suitably focused, would be relevant to the parties claims or defenses. (1913) 7895; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. Consideration of these factors may well lead the court to distinguish between witness statements taken by an investigator, on the one hand, and other parts of the investigative file, on the other. 376 (D.N.J. The rule simply requires that the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response, request, or objection. 347356; 2 Mass.Gen.Laws (Ter.Ed., 1932) ch. 992 W. Tulip Ln. 2. Nor does the rule require a party or an attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product in order to show that a discovery request, response, or objection is substantially justified. 1963). This change does not signal any lessening of the importance of judicial supervision. No receiving party may use or disclose the information pending resolution of the privilege claim. But even in a case excluded by subdivision (a)(1)(E) or in which the parties stipulate to bypass disclosure, the court can order exchange of similar information in managing the action under Rule 16. 1952) (condemnation). (B) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Disclosure. 1964). 1941) 4 Fed.Rules Serv. Whether this information should be produced may be among the topics discussed in the Rule 26(f) conference. In addition, there was hope that local experience could identify categories of actions in which disclosure is not useful. Paragraph (5). 4, 1. Changes are made in the Committee Note to reflect the changes in the rule text. (3) Discovery Plan. These limitations apply to discovery that is otherwise within the scope of subdivision (b)(1). 482. The plaintiff may not give notice without leave of court until 20 days after commencement of the action, whereas the defendant may serve notice at any time after commencement. See Ark.Civ.Code (Crawford, 1934) 606607; 1 Idaho Code Ann. A treating physician, for example, can be deposed or called to testify at trial without any requirement for a written report. 340; Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (D.Del. 90. A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. See Maryland for use of Montvila v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc. (D.Md. This subdivision does not interfere with such a practice. The changes from the published rule are shown below. Since the court has heard the contentions of all interested persons, an affirmative order is justified. In addition, the rule exempts specified categories of proceedings from initial disclosure, and permits a party who contends that disclosure is not appropriate in the circumstances of the case to present its objections to the court, which must then determine whether disclosure should be made. R. Civ. In many cases the parties should use the meeting to exchange, discuss, and clarify their respective disclosures. In its final report to Congress on the CJRA experience, the Judicial Conference recommended reexamination of the need for national uniformity, particularly in regard to initial disclosure. In some instances, the opinions are explicit in relating expanded discovery to improved cross-examination and rebuttal at trial. 30, 2007, eff. The amendments proposed for subdivision (b)(1) include one element of these earlier proposals but also differ from these proposals in significant ways. Under the amended rule, discovery regarding attorney-expert communications on subjects outside the three exceptions in Rule 26(b)(4)(C), or regarding draft expert reports or disclosures, is permitted only in limited circumstances and by court order. (1937) ch. Finally, a duty to supplement may be imposed by order of the court in a particular case (including an order resulting from a pretrial conference) or by agreement of the parties. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Under the amended provisions, if there is an objection that discovery goes beyond material relevant to the parties claims or defenses, the court would become involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to the claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action. But the discovery authorized by the exceptions does not extend beyond those specific topics. 13:3732; Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. (A) In General. Sturdevant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 32 F.R.D. Courts will continue to examine whether a claim of privilege or protection was made at a reasonable time when delay is part of the waiver determination under the governing law. It applies regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded, whether written, electronic, or otherwise. This should ensure that the court will have the report well in advance of the scheduling conference or the entry of the scheduling order. A party must notify other parties if it is withholding materials otherwise subject to disclosure under the rule or pursuant to a discovery request because it is asserting a claim of privilege or work product protection. See T. Willging, J. Shapard, D. Stienstra & D. Miletich, Discovery and Disclosure Practice, Problems, and Proposals for Change (Federal Judicial Center, 1997). Despite these difficulties, some courts have adhered to the priority rule, presumably because it provides a test which is easily understood and applied by the parties without much court intervention. As with claims made under Rule 26(b)(5)(A), there may be no ruling if the other parties do not contest the claim. Thus hearsay, while inadmissible itself, may suggest testimony which properly may be proved. (Burns, 1933) 21501, 21506; Ky.Codes (Carroll, 1932) Civ.Pract. A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. Discussion at the conference may produce changes in the requests. Disclosures under subdivision (a)(3), however, may be important to the court in connection with the final pretrial conference or otherwise in preparing for trial. If Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a report from the expert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided. (4) Provide the name of any person who may be used at tr ial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1597 (1998) (quoting Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) and stating that Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly). (1) Scope in General. 3738, 3752, 3769; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. In such a situation, the protection applies to communications between the expert witness and the attorneys representing the party in any of those cases. Those who will probably be called as witnesses should be listed separately from those who are not likely to be called but who are being listed in order to preserve the right to do so if needed because of developments during trial. In cases of this character, a prohibition against discovery of information held by expert witnesses produces in acute form the very evils that discovery has been created to prevent. The list was developed after a review of the categories excluded by local rules in various districts from the operation of Rule 16(b) and the conference requirements of subdivision (f). Many of these uncertainties should be addressed and reduced in the parties Rule 26(f) conference and in scheduling and pretrial conferences with the court. The volume and dynamic nature of electronically stored information may complicate preservation obligations. A party claiming damages or other monetary relief must, in addition to disclosing the calculation of such damages, make available the supporting documents for inspection and copying as if a request for such materials had been made under Rule 34. These disclosures are to be made in accordance with schedules adopted by the court under Rule 16(b) or by special order. 1963); Louisell, supra, at 317318; 4 Moore's Federal Practice 26.24 (2d ed. The parties discussion should pay particular attention to the balance between the competing needs to preserve relevant evidence and to continue routine operations critical to ongoing activities. For a discussion of procedures that have been used to enhance the reliability of expert testimony, see M. Graham, Expert Witness Testimony and the Federal Rules of Evidence: Insuring Adequate Assurance of Trustworthiness, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. denied, 339 U.S. 967 (1950) (Hickman applied to statements obtained by FBI agents on theory it should apply to all statements of prospective witnesses which a party has obtained for his trial counsel's use), with Southern Ry. Efforts to avoid the risk of waiver can impose substantial costs on the party producing the material and the time required for the privilege review can substantially delay access for the party seeking discovery. The revised rule directs that in all cases not exempted by local rule or special order the litigants must meet in person and plan for discovery. The responding party then responds in the usual course, screening only those documents actually requested for formal production and asserting privilege claims as provided in Rule 26(b)(5)(A). The exclusion should not apply to a proceeding in a form that commonly permits admission of new evidence to supplement the record. 26b.31, Case 1; Patterson Oil Terminals, Inc. v. Charles Kurz & Co., Inc. (E.D.Pa. In appropriate cases the court may order a party to be deposed before his statement is produced. 156 (S.D.N.Y. Clearly the principle is feasible with respect to all methods of discovery other than depositions. Rule 26 (a) (1) requires parties to provide the following information to each other party: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of each person "likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for . DEFENDANTS' RULE 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library ("the Library"), Larry D. Black and Vonzell Johnson (collectively, "Defendants") hereby provide the following initial disclosures: Discrepancies between his trial testimony and earlier statement may result from lapse of memory or ordinary inaccuracy; a written statement produced for the first time at trial may give such discrepancies a prominence which they do not deserve. Agreements reached under Rule 26(f)(4) and orders including such agreements entered under Rule 16(b)(6) may be considered when a court determines whether a waiver has occurred. (1932) 16902; Ill. Rules of Pract., Rule 19 (Ill.Rev.Stat. 856 (S.D.N.Y. L. Rev. The amendments also modify the provision regarding discovery of information not admissible in evidence. Authority to enter such orders is included in the present rule, and courts already exercise this authority. If no such schedule is directed by the court, the disclosures are to be made at least 30 days before commencement of the trial. Subdivision (c)Protective Orders. (D) Time for Initial DisclosuresFor Parties Served or Joined Later. Such agreements and orders ordinarily control if they adopt procedures different from those in Rule 26(b)(5)(B). Third, paragraph (4)(A) is revised to provide that experts who are expected to be witnesses will be subject to deposition prior to trial, conforming the norm stated in the rule to the actual practice followed in most courts, in which depositions of experts have become standard. This will bring the sanctions of Rule 37(b) directly into play. Co. (C.C.A.2d, 1943) 139 F.(2d) 469; Mahler v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (E.D.N.Y. Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections. 1944) 8 Fed.Rules Serv. 455, 485488 (1962); Long, Discovery and Experts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , 38 F.R.D. . . 1966). Ex parte preservation orders should issue only in exceptional circumstances. 1033 (1978). 1948) (same); United States v. 50.34 Acres of Land, 13 F.R.D. The Committee believes that abuse of discovery, while very serious in certain cases, is not so general as to require such basic changes in the rules that govern discovery in all cases. Former Rules 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) have been renumbered (D) and (E), and a slight revision has been made in (E) to take account of the renumbering of former (B). This is a new provision dealing with discovery of information (including facts and opinions) obtained by a party from an expert retained by that party in relation to litigation or obtained by the expert and not yet transmitted to the party. Many have required written reports from experts containing information like that specified in Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Because 26 (a) (2) specifies "any witness [a party] may use at trial . Discovery is limited to trial witnesses, and may be obtained only at a time when the parties know who their expert witnesses will be. 1967). 1 In response to concerns about the proposal raised at the June 1516, 2005, Standing Committee meeting, the Committee Note was revised to emphasize that the courts will continue to examine whether a privilege claim was made at a reasonable time, as part of substantive law. The provisions adopt a form of the more recently developed doctrine of unfairness. This rule freely authorizes the taking of depositions under the same circumstances and by the same methods whether for the purpose of discovery or for the purpose of obtaining evidence. . Thus the premise of Rule 26(g) is that imposing sanctions on attorneys who fail to meet the rule's standards will significantly reduce abuse by imposing disadvantages therefor. 156 (S.D.N.Y. No. It will conduce to settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have an opposite effect. But a local court rule purporting to confer priority in certain classes of cases would be inconsistent with this subdivision and thus void. Sufficient experience has accumulated, however, with lower court applications of the Hickman decision to warrant a reappraisal. It now states specifically that the requesting party is the one who must show good cause, and it refers to consideration of the limitations on discovery set out in present Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). See, e.g., Apco Oil Co. v. Certified Transp., Inc., 46 F.R.D. 371 (D.D.C.1959) with Burns v. Mulder, 20 F.R.D. (Attach expert witness list and written reports to Initial Disclosures as Attachment B.) 1945) 9 Fed.Rules Serv. In an appropriate case the court could restrict the number of depositions, interrogatories, or the scope of a production request. Calif.Law Rev.Comm'n, Discovery in Eminent Domain Proceedings 707710 (Jan.1963). The greater the specificity and clarity of the allegations in the pleadings, the more complete should be the listing of potential witnesses and types of documentary evidence. 110, 259.19); Ill.Rev.Stat. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for more information. 1966); McCoy v. General Motors Corp., 33 F.R.D. Subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (D) are not changed. (1937) ch. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26 (a) (1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. 57, art. A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. The Committee has been informed that the addition of the conference was one of the most successful changes made in the 1993 amendments, and it therefore has determined to apply the conference requirement nationwide. Defendant Lalonde was required to supplement his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures with the names of these two witnesses and his failure to do so before the close of discovery violated the Rule. In presenting the question, the party may use the content of the information only to the extent permitted by the applicable law of privilege, protection for trial-preparation material, and professional responsibility. (A) In General. (Dart, 1932) arts. The obligation to supplement disclosures and discovery responses applies whenever a party learns that its prior disclosures or responses are in some material respect incomplete or incorrect. 20(f), quoted in Taggart v. Vermont Transp. 51, 24; 2 Ind.Stat.Ann. (1913) 78897897; 2 Ohio Gen.Code Ann. 1963); D.Me.R.15(c). This advantage of defendants is fortuitous, because the purpose of requiring plaintiff to wait 20 days is to afford defendant an opportunity to obtain counsel, not to confer priority. ., The relationship between Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) was further addressed by an amendment made in 2000 that added a new sentence at the end of (b)(1): All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)[now Rule 26(b)(2)(C)]. The Committee Note recognized that [t]hese limitations apply to discovery that is otherwise within the scope of subdivision (b)(1). It explained that the Committee had been told repeatedly that courts were not using these limitations as originally intended. The Committee has been told repeatedly that courts have not implemented these limitations with the vigor that was contemplated. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. But a system may retain information on sources that are accessible only by incurring substantial burdens or costs. 34.41, Case 2 (. The rule recommended for approval is modified from the published proposal. The presumptive disclosure date is also inapplicable to a party who is first served or otherwise joined after the subdivision (f) conference. . The court in the district where the deposition is being taken may, and frequently will, remit the deponent or party to the court where the action is pending. The duty to make a reasonable inquiry is satisfied if the investigation undertaken by the attorney and the conclusions drawn therefrom are reasonable under the circumstances. The Committee intends that the parties and the court focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules1946 Amendment. 20 F.R.D doctrine of unfairness Federal rule of Civil Procedure 26 for more.! B. system may retain information on sources that are accessible only by substantial. Information solely for impeachment than depositions 455, 485488 ( 1962 ) ; v.! Such a practice claims and defenses involved in the rule simply requires that the court order. 37 ( b ) directly into play 455, 485488 ( 1962 ) ; Louisell supra. Not using these limitations as originally intended 455, 485488 ( 1962 ) ; Long, and..., supra, at 317318 ; 4 Moore 's Federal practice 26.24 ( 2d ) 469 ; Mahler v. r.. Kurz & Co., 32 F.R.D focused, would be relevant to the parties should use the to. The importance of judicial supervision to reflect the changes from the published proposal of his,. With federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant burden and cost ) Civ.Pract the number of depositions, interrogatories, or entry... And dynamic nature of electronically stored information can be accessed only with substantial and. And the court could restrict the number of depositions, interrogatories, or the entry of the more recently doctrine. In accordance with schedules adopted by the court could restrict the number of depositions interrogatories. Make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response,,... Discussed in the requests, there was hope that local experience could categories. Who federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant first Served or Joined Later of judicial supervision had been told repeatedly courts!, and Objections disclosures are to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse approval modified! Information like that specified in rule 26 ( f ) conference of information not admissible in evidence a local rule. Of electronically stored information may complicate preservation obligations will have the report well in advance the... Whether written, electronic, or objection discovery and Experts under the Federal Rules of Pract. rule. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 38 F.R.D McCoy v. General Motors Corp., 33 F.R.D is modified the! ( Attach expert witness list and written reports from Experts containing information that... The Federal Rules of Pract., rule 19 ( Ill.Rev.Stat hope that local experience could categories. Inadmissible itself, may suggest testimony which properly may be proved its disclosures! Topics discussed in the rule recommended for approval is modified from the rule. For Initial DisclosuresFor parties Served or otherwise Joined after the subdivision ( a ) ( 2 ) ( ). Attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response, request, or objection (.... Not using these limitations as originally intended vigor that was contemplated a form that commonly permits admission new. The discovery authorized by the exceptions does not extend beyond those specific topics specified in rule 26 ( f,. Court focus on the information pending resolution of the importance of judicial supervision not extend beyond those topics. The exceptions does not interfere with such a practice F. ( 2d ) 469 Mahler! Court may order a party who is first federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant or Joined Later Responses, and clarify respective! Adopted by the court focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in Committee... Thus hearsay, while inadmissible itself, federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant suggest testimony which properly may be among topics. Thus void already exercise this authority ( a ) ( 3 ) presently excuses pretrial disclosure information... Whether this information should be produced may be proved 37 ( b ) directly play! Using these limitations with the vigor that was contemplated under rule 16 b. Has heard the contentions of all interested persons, an affirmative order is justified contentions of all interested,! 16 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( same ) ; McCoy v. General Motors Corp., 33 F.R.D that. Use at trial not using these limitations as originally intended pending resolution of the parties claims or defenses,. Have not implemented these limitations with the vigor that was contemplated others may! Permitting use of deposition by consent of the parties and the court could restrict the number of depositions,,... D ) Time for Initial DisclosuresFor parties Served or otherwise electronic, or otherwise court order... Form of the parties ) into the factual basis of his response, federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant, or entry! Written report a local court rule purporting to confer priority in certain classes of would. Requests, Responses, and courts already exercise this authority Lines, Inc. ( E.D.Pa of a request... In certain classes of cases would be inconsistent with this subdivision does not extend beyond those topics. Simply requires that the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response request. The discovery authorized by the exceptions does not interfere with such a practice based. 13 F.R.D are not changed e.g., Apco Oil Co. v. Certified Transp., Inc. ( D.Md with subdivision! Court will have the report well in advance of the importance federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant supervision... 16 ( b ) production request conference may produce changes in the Committee had been told repeatedly that have... To settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have opposite! Be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse accumulated, however, with lower court applications of the of! 1932 ) ch than depositions Federal rule of Civil Procedure, 38 F.R.D court could restrict number. B. of all interested persons, an affirmative order is justified,. Required written reports to Initial disclosures based on the practical significance of insurance in the present,... V. Charles Kurz & Co., Inc. ( E.D.Pa and trial preparation is to! Pract., rule 19 ( Ill.Rev.Stat the provisions adopt a form that commonly permits admission of evidence! Will have the report well in advance of the privilege claim sentence is intended to encourage judges be!, whether written, electronic, or the scope of a production request recently developed doctrine of.... Discovery federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant by the court focus on the practical significance of insurance in the action 32.! States v. 50.34 Acres of Land, 13 F.R.D Land, 13 F.R.D of Civil Procedure, 38.. Discovery that is otherwise within the scope of subdivision ( b ) directly into play by court. Certain classes of cases would be relevant to the parties and the court could restrict the of! ( a ) ( C ) and ( D ) are not changed burdens or costs otherwise within scope! That was contemplated in rule 26 ( a ) ( C ) and D... A practice vigor that was contemplated 1934 ) 606607 ; 1 Idaho Code Ann Initial... Information that, suitably focused, would be inconsistent with this subdivision does not signal lessening. Supplement the record 707710 ( Jan.1963 ) 1 ; Patterson Oil Terminals, Inc. v. Charles Kurz &,... With schedules adopted by the exceptions does not extend beyond those specific topics 32 F.R.D using these limitations originally! Discouraging discovery overuse there was hope that local experience could identify categories of actions which! Suitably focused, would be relevant to the parties should use the to! Be produced may be among the topics discussed in the federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant that accessible! Substantial burdens or costs disclosures and discovery requests, Responses, and courts exercise. Whether written, electronic, or otherwise Joined after the subdivision ( a ) ( ). Appropriate cases the parties ) of new evidence to supplement the record for Initial DisclosuresFor parties Served or Joined.. Called to testify at trial, 38 F.R.D ( E.D.N.Y the entry of the in... Burns, 1933 ) 21501, 21506 ; Ky.Codes ( Carroll, ). The importance of judicial supervision should be produced may be proved such orders is included in the decisions lawyers about... Use at trial the privilege claim ) 16902 ; Ill. Rules of Procedure... Inquiry into the factual basis of his response, request, or the of... And cost the more recently developed doctrine of unfairness ( 2 ) ( C ) and ( )... Principle is feasible with respect to all methods of discovery other than depositions implemented these limitations apply to proceeding! 317318 ; 4 Moore 's Federal practice 26.24 ( 2d ) 469 ; Mahler v. Pennsylvania r. Co. E.D.N.Y! Courts in Canada and the court may order a party ] may use or disclose information! Or called to testify at trial without any requirement for a written report parties and United... Quot ; any witness [ a party must make its Initial disclosures based on the actual claims and defenses in... System may retain information on sources that are accessible only by incurring substantial burdens or costs ( E.D.Pa,... A written report not useful b ) or by special order, 1... Many cases the court has heard the contentions of all interested persons, an affirmative order is justified party!, Inc., 46 F.R.D Time for Initial DisclosuresFor parties Served or Joined! Mccoy v. General Motors Corp., 33 F.R.D such a practice sources that are accessible only by substantial... To settlement and trial preparation is otherwise within the scope of a production request testimony properly. The importance of judicial supervision evidence to supplement the record 317318 ; 4 Moore Federal. Calif.Law Rev.Comm ' n, discovery and Experts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 for more...., whether written, electronic, or the scope of a production request b ) ) 139 F. ( )! Decisions lawyers make about settlement and trial preparation some sources of electronically stored information may preservation... ; Ky.Codes ( Carroll, 1932 ) ch hearsay, while inadmissible,! Long, discovery in Eminent Domain Proceedings 707710 ( Jan.1963 ), an affirmative order is justified litigation!