Also known as: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 · Rule 26 · FRCP discovery rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule that governs the scope, timing, and limitations of discovery in civil actions. The rule requires parties to make initial disclosures of relevant information and permits discovery of nonprivileged matters that are proportional to the needs of the case. It also imposes duties to supplement disclosures and protects certain trial-preparation materials.
Frank Fisher sued Freeman Engineering alleging defective parts. Fisher served requests seeking every internal email from the past decade. The court denied the requests because they fell outside the scope permitted by the rule.
Francesca Fowler produced a privileged memo during a large document review. Upon discovery of the error she immediately moved to claw it back under the rule's procedures. The court found the prompt steps sufficient to preserve protection.
Felipe Figueroa served thirty interrogatories on Foster Forge without stipulation or court order. The company objected that the total exceeded the permitted number. The court sustained the objection and limited the interrogatories to twenty-five.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fiona Foster asked Francesca Fiore in an interrogatory to apply contract law to the facts of a disputed clause. Fiore objected that the question sought a legal conclusion. The court overruled the objection because the rule permits such inquiries.
Francois Fortier and Fisher Foods appeared at a pretrial conference. The judge entered an order controlling the timing of all disclosures and depositions under the rule. The schedule prevented later disputes over when discovery would close.
Frank Fisher sought notes prepared by Freeman Engineering's counsel after interviewing potential witnesses. The company refused production. The court upheld the refusal because the notes reflected litigation preparation.
A party may deliver requests for production more than twenty-one days after service of the summons and complaint. The requests are deemed served only at the first discovery planning conference. This timing protects the responding party from premature obligations.
Supporting sources
The party must identify the subject matter of the expected expert evidence. It must also provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. Vague statements such as design and safety are insufficient.
Supporting sources
Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation receive protection under the rule. Protection does not extend to documents created in the ordinary course of business pursuant to routine institutional requirements. Courts examine timing, counsel involvement, and labeling to determine purpose.
Supporting sources
The requesting party must demonstrate good cause after the producing party shows undue burden or cost. The court may then order production subject to conditions such as cost shifting or phased restoration. Proportionality under the rule remains a required consideration.
Supporting sources
…National Council on Crime and Delinquency that a "clear and convincing" standard be adopted. Model Rules for Juvenile Courts, Rule 26, p. 57 (1969). See generally Cohen, The Standard of Proof in Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 567 (1970). [^maj-4]: (Majority n. 4) Appellee, New…