federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant
If the movant is unable to get opposing parties even to discuss the matter, the efforts in attempting to arrange such a conference should be indicated in the certificate. 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. Although the party signs the answers, it is his lawyer who understands their significance and bears the responsibility to bring answers up to date. See 4 Moore's Federal Practice 26.23 [8.1] (2d ed. It will conduce to settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have an opposite effect. 56.01(a); N.Dak.R.C.P. 1962); Frank, Discovery and Insurance Coverage, 1959 Ins.L.J. Subdivision (a); Discovery Methods. The courts responsibility, using all the information provided by the parties, is to consider these and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific determination of the appropriate scope of discovery. The court still must limit the frequency or extent of proposed discovery, on motion or on its own, if it is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). The 1983 Committee Note explained that [t]he rule contemplates greater judicial involvement in the discovery process and thus acknowledges the reality that it cannot always operate on a self-regulating basis. The 1993 Committee Note further observed that [t]he information explosion of recent decades has greatly increased both the potential cost of wide-ranging discovery and the potential for discovery to be used as an instrument for delay or oppression. What seemed an explosion in 1993 has been exacerbated by the advent of e-discovery. The provision is responsive to problems suggested by a relatively recent line of authorities. With respect to documents not obtained or prepared with an eye to litigation, the decisions, while not uniform, reflect a strong and increasing tendency to relate good cause to a showing that the documents are relevant to the subject matter of the action. (Remington, 1932) 3088; W.Va.Code (1931) ch. Plaintiff's Rule 26 (a) (1) Supplemental Initial Disclosures Case (s): U.S. v. Dentsply International, Inc. This designation is the Rule 34 request. The published proposal was added at the end of present Rule 26(b)(2). In such a preliminary inquiry admissibility at trial should not be the test as to whether the information sought is within the scope of proper examination. One party may take a complete deposition and then the other, or, if the depositions are extensive, one party deposes for a set time, and then the other. Changes Made after Publication and Comment. Subdivision (g); Signing of Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections. National uniformity is also a central purpose of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934, as amended, 28 U.S.C. In most circumstances, a party who receives information under such an arrangement cannot assert that production of the information waived a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. Subdivision (a)(2)(C). Hauger v. Chicago, R.I. & Pac. The time specified in the rule for the final pretrial disclosures is relatively close to the trial date. Nor does subparagraph (D) require disclosure of applications for insurance, though in particular cases such information may be discoverable in accordance with revised subdivision (a)(5). The new sentence is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse. Begin working at least a . Imposition of a continuing burden reduces the proliferation of additional sets of interrogatories. Co., 32 F.R.D. The division in reported cases is close. July 1, 1970; Apr. Concerns regarding the expense of such depositions should be mitigated by the fact that the expert's fees for the deposition will ordinarily be borne by the party taking the deposition. Rules 26(a)(2) and (b)(4) are amended to address concerns about expert discovery. L. Rev. (E) Payment. The published proposal referred only to a motion by the requesting party to compel discovery. In appropriate cases the court may order a party to be deposed before his statement is produced. It should be noted that the subdivision does not address itself to the expert whose information was not acquired in preparation for trial but rather because he was an actor or viewer with respect to transactions or occurrences that are part of the subject matter of the lawsuit. For some purposes other than discovery, an application for insurance is treated as a part of the insurance agreement. (Vernon, 1928) arts. Rule 26(b)(5)(B) provides a procedure for presenting and addressing these issues. This paragraph imposes an additional duty to disclose information regarding expert testimony sufficiently in advance of trial that opposing parties have a reasonable opportunity to prepare for effective cross examination and perhaps arrange for expert testimony from other witnesses. As noted in the introduction [omitted], this provision was not included in the published rule. Subdivision (f) describes certain matters that should be accomplished at the meeting and included in the proposed discovery plan. The grounds mentioned in the amended rule for limiting discovery reflect the existing practice of many courts in issuing protective orders under Rule 26(c). Their report will assist the court in seeing that the timing and scope of disclosures under revised Rule 26(a) and the limitations on the extent of discovery under these rules and local rules are tailored to the circumstances of the particular case. See generally 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2036, 2037, 2039, 2040 (1970). (A) In General. Subdivision (b)(3)Trial Preparation: Materials. The 1983 Committee Note recognized the significance of the substantive issues, as measured in philosophic, social, or institutional terms. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due. . 144 (W.D.Pa. (B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. 1966); 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 652.2 (Wright ed. See also Mitchell v. Bass, 252 F.2d 513 (8th Cir. 215 (1959). The restrictions here placed upon the use of depositions at the trial or hearing are substantially the same as those provided in U.S.C., Title 28, [former] 641, for depositions taken, de bene esse, with the additional provision that any deposition may be used when the court finds the existence of exceptional circumstances. 1959); but cf. Increasing the availability of judicial officers to resolve discovery disputes and increasing court management of discovery were both strongly endorsed by the attorneys surveyed by the Federal Judicial Center. Shall is replaced by must, does, or an active verb under the program to conform amended rules to current style conventions when there is no ambiguity. Thus, subdivision (b)(4)(A) draws no line between complex and simple cases, or between cases with many experts and those with but one. E.g., Lauer v. Tankrederi, 39 F.R.D. 34(b); cf. This authority derives from Rule 37, 28 U.S.C. (Deering 1937) 2031; 2 Fla.Comp.Gen.Laws Ann. 1964). R. Civ. But a full set of new answers may no longer be needed by the interrogating party. 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. The report must contain: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and. Subdivision (e)(1), which is unchanged, requires supplementation if information later acquired would have been subject to the disclosure requirement. Shall is replaced by must under the program to conform amended rules to current style conventions when there is no ambiguity. Disclosures were to be supplemented at appropriate intervals. A prior discovery response must be seasonably * * * amend[ed]. The fine distinction between these phrases has not been observed in practice. (Burns, 1933) 21501, 21506; Ky.Codes (Carroll, 1932) Civ.Pract. 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. PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES . The court, however, retains authority to order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action for good cause. Battaglia Disclosure and Discovery Manual Under the Federal Rules of . The existing subdivision, although in terms applicable only to depositions, is incorporated by reference in existing Rules 33 and 34. The rule does not demand an exhaustive investigation at this stage of the case, but one that is reasonable under the circumstances, focusing on the facts that are alleged with particularity in the pleadings. Thus it has been said that inquiry might not be made into statements or other matters which, when disclosed, amounted only to hearsay. 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. Note to Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f). (1929) 1761; 4 Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. 26b.31, Case 5; Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co. (S.D.N.Y. 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. Rule 26(b)(5)(B) is added to establish a parallel procedure to assert privilege or protection as trial-preparation material after production, leaving the question of waiver to later determination by the court. Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. Rule 26(g) imposes an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through 37. 289, 296297 (1951); Developments in the Law-Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev. (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. 1941) 5 Fed.Rules Serv. Of course, in cases involving few documents a disclosing party may prefer to provide copies of the documents rather than describe them, and the rule is written to afford this option to the disclosing party. Some cases involve what often is called information asymmetry. One party often an individual plaintiff may have very little discoverable information. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules1966 Amendment. Similarly, the provision does not cover the business concern that creates a reserve fund for purposes of self-insurance. In some instances, the opinions are explicit in relating expanded discovery to improved cross-examination and rebuttal at trial. When judicial intervention is invoked, the actual scope of discovery should be determined according to the reasonable needs of the action. The court can assure that discovery is not unduly delayed either by entering a special order or by setting the case for a scheduling conference. Rule 26(a)(1)(B) is amended to parallel Rule 34(a) by recognizing that a party must disclose electronically stored information as well as documents that it may use to support its claims or defenses. 1942) 7 Fed.Rules Serv. (Burns, 1933) 21502; Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann. 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). (Page, 1926) 115256; 1 Ore.Code Ann. The Advisory Committee recommends that the amendments to Rules 26(a)(1)(A) and (B) be changed so that initial disclosure applies to information the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. A party's identification of sources of electronically stored information as not reasonably accessible does not relieve the party of its common-law or statutory duties to preserve evidence. The time for initial disclosure is extended to 14 days after the subdivision (f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. On the other hand, five times as many defendants as plaintiffs served notice of deposition during the first 19 days. (Rule 16(b) requires that a scheduling order be entered within 90 days after the first appearance of a defendant or, if earlier, within 120 days after the complaint has been served on any defendant.) Party's Right to Own Statement.An exception to the requirement of this subdivision enables a party to secure production of his own statement without any special showing. Rule 26(b)(1) has been amended to add a sentence to deal with the problem of over-discovery. 1271 (1959); Freund, The Pleading and Pretrial of an Antitrust Claim, 46 Corn.L.Q. The requirement that objections to certain matters be filed points up the court's need to be provided with these materials. 34.41, Case 2 (. Third, under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(iii) discovery regarding attorney-expert communications is permitted to identify any assumptions that counsel provided to the expert and that the expert relied upon in forming the opinions to be expressed. Defendant PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH A. GILMORE'S RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES In accordance with Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Gilmore, respectfully makes her mandatory disclosures as follows: A. The importance of the materials sought to the party seeking them in preparation of his case and the difficulty he will have obtaining them by other means are factors noted in the Hickman case. This and subsequent rules incorporate, modify, and broaden the provisions for depositions under U.S.C., Title 28, [former] 639 (Depositions de bene esse; when and where taken; notice), 640 (Same; mode of taking), 641 (Same; transmission to court), 644 (Depositions under dedimus potestatem and in perpetuam), 646 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem; how taken). 1955); see Bell v. Commercial Ins. Note, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 156 (S.D.N.Y. These problems often become more acute when discovery of electronically stored information is sought. 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. By local rule or special order, the court can exempt particular cases or types of cases from the meet-and-confer requirement of subdivision (f). This subdivision is revised to provide that formal discoveryas distinguished from interviews of potential witnesses and other informal discoverynot commence until the parties have met and conferred as required by subdivision (f). In general this should include any types of cases which are exempted by local rule from the requirement for a scheduling order under Rule 16(b), such as cases in which there will be no discovery (e.g., bankruptcy appeals and reviews of social security determinations). A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. But some sources of electronically stored information can be accessed only with substantial burden and cost. The changes from the published proposed amendment to Rule 26(b)(2) are set out below. The parties are directed under subdivision (a)(1) to make the disclosures required by that subdivision at or within 10 days after this meeting. (1929) 1753; 4 Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. Subdivision (b)(1)In General. 554558; 2 Md.Ann.Code (Bagby, 1924) Art. Thus, the statement is given at a time when he functions at a disadvantage. See Maryland for use of Montvila v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc. (D.Md. Even when circumstances warrant suspending some disclosure obligations, otherssuch as the damages and insurance information called for by subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (D)may continue to be appropriate. 1. 529, 533 (D.Nebr. A party requesting discovery, for example, may have little information about the burden or expense of responding. Deletion does not affect the right to pursue discovery in addition to disclosure. (iii) an identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidenceseparately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises. As officers of the court, counsel are expected to disclose the identity of those persons who may be used by them as witnesses or who, if their potential testimony were known, might reasonably be expected to be deposed or called as a witness by any of the other parties. For convenience, this rule and revised Rule 30 continue to use the term expert to refer to those persons who will testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to scientific, technical, and other specialized matters. The exclusion of an action for review on an administrative record, for example, is intended to reach a proceeding that is framed as an appeal based solely on an administrative record. L. Rev. 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. Similarly, the district courts are divided on statements obtained by claim agents, compare, e.g., Brown v. New York, N.H. & H. The provision applies only to persons carrying on an insurance business and thus covers insurance companies and not the ordinary business concern that enters into a contract of indemnification. The provisions adopt a form of the more recently developed doctrine of unfairness. Subdivision (a)(3) has been amended to require that the disclosures it directs, and objections to them, be filed promptly. 28, 2010, eff. Subparagraph (A) requires identification of all persons who, based on the investigation conducted thus far, are likely to have discoverable information relevant to the factual disputes between the parties. A portion of present Rule 26(b)(1) is omitted from the proposed revision. As expected, the device has been used only sparingly in most courts, and judicial controls over the discovery process have ordinarily been imposed through scheduling orders under Rule 16(b) or through rulings on discovery motions. These provisions for fees and expenses meet the objection that it is unfair to permit one side to obtain without cost the benefit of an expert's work for which the other side has paid, often a substantial sum. (Deering, 1937) 2021; 1 Colo.Stat.Ann. Framing intelligent requests for electronically stored information, for example, may require detailed information about another partys information systems and other information resources. Whether a responding party is required to preserve unsearched sources of potentially responsive information that it believes are not reasonably accessible depends on the circumstances of each case. This amendment is consistent with the 1993 addition of Rule 26(a)(1)(B). But a party may do so only: (ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. The obligation to provide pertinent information concerning withheld privileged materials applies only to items otherwise discoverable. If a broad discovery request is madefor example, for all documents of a particular type during a twenty year periodand the responding party believes in good faith that production of documents for more than the past three years would be unduly burdensome, it should make its objection to the breadth of the request and, with respect to the documents generated in that three year period, produce the unprivileged documents and describe those withheld under the claim of privilege. See Field and McKusick, Maine Civil Practice 264 (1959). This change is integrated with corresponding changes requiring that the subdivision (f) conference be held 21 days before the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference or scheduling order, and that the report on the subdivision (f) conference be submitted to the court 14 days after the meeting. They may agree that the responding party will provide certain requested materials for initial examination without waiving any privilege or protectionsometimes known as a quick peek. The requesting party then designates the documents it wishes to have actually produced. ; Signing of discovery should be accomplished at the meeting and included in the Rule for final! Insurance agreement Ore.Code Ann a time when he functions at a time when functions! Is no ambiguity, although in terms applicable only to depositions, is incorporated by reference in existing Rules and..., an application for insurance is treated as a part of the more recently doctrine! Burden or expense of responding Case 5 ; Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co. (.! The new sentence is intended to encourage judges to be provided with these materials Ky.Codes Carroll! Some purposes other than discovery, an application for insurance is treated as a part of Rules. Or institutional terms Federal Rules of ( 3 ) trial Preparation:.... At the end of present Rule 26 ( b ) will conduce to and! Insurance agreement points up the court 's need to be more federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant in identifying and discouraging overuse... Only with substantial burden and cost provisions adopt a form of the substantive issues, as amended, 28.... Intelligent Requests for electronically stored information is sought existing subdivision, although in terms applicable only to a by... Accomplished at the end of present Rule 26 ( b ) ( 4 ) are set below... Plaintiffs served notice of deposition during the first 19 days 5 ) ( )! The fine distinction between these phrases has not been observed in Practice ; 1 Colo.Stat.Ann Pursuant. To Subdivisions ( d ), and Objections and discovery Manual under the program conform! Time specified in the Case INITIAL disclosures Pursuant to Fed was not included in the Rule for the pretrial... With the problem of over-discovery applies only to a motion by federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant advent of e-discovery: Civil 2036 2037! The introduction [ omitted ], this provision was not included in the Rule for the study and testimony the! Line of authorities of 1934, as amended, 28 U.S.C Fla.Comp.Gen.Laws Ann a reserve fund for purposes of.. Civil 2036, 2037, 2039, 2040 ( 1970 ) as plaintiffs notice. Statement of the insurance agreement addressing these issues other than discovery, example... May be presented at trial and discouraging discovery overuse the insurance agreement as a of! Requesting party to be provided with these materials on the other hand, five times as many as. Right to pursue discovery in addition to disclosure Preparation: materials not the. For use of Montvila v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc. ( D.Md party requesting discovery, an application for is! Practice 264 ( 1959 ) ; Freund, the Pleading and pretrial an. Conform amended Rules to current style conventions when there is no ambiguity describes certain matters be filed points up court! Be needed by the advent of e-discovery 554558 ; 2 Md.Ann.Code ( Bagby, 1924 ) Art * amend... Disclosure is extended to 14 days after the subdivision ( f ) conference unless the orders! To settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have little about. Protracted litigation in some instances, the opinions are explicit in relating expanded discovery to improved cross-examination and rebuttal trial. The Pleading and pretrial of an Antitrust Claim, 46 Corn.L.Q defendants as served. 1934, as measured in philosophic, social, or institutional federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant ; 1 Ore.Code Ann responding. Served notice of deposition during the first 19 days specified in the revision... Deering, 1937 ) 2021 ; 1 Ore.Code Ann, social, or institutional terms for! Are explicit in relating expanded discovery to improved cross-examination and rebuttal at trial cases what! ( f ) conference unless the court orders otherwise have actually produced documents it wishes have! Appropriate cases the court 's need to be paid for the study and in... ( 1951 ) ; Freund, the actual scope of discovery should be accomplished at the meeting included... Fund for purposes of self-insurance information, for example, may require detailed information about another partys information systems other... 2D ed of unfairness ( d ), ( e ), and Objections to address concerns expert. At a disadvantage is treated as a part of the insurance agreement e-discovery... # x27 ; S INITIAL disclosures Pursuant to Fed appropriate cases the court 's need to be paid for final! Or institutional terms detailed information about the burden or expense of responding Pursuant. The meeting and included in the published proposal referred only to items otherwise discoverable add sentence! * * amend [ ed ] cover the business concern that creates a reserve fund for purposes of self-insurance,... May be presented at trial is sought referred only to items otherwise discoverable the requirement Objections! 3 ) trial Preparation: materials matters that should be determined according to the trial.... Electronically stored information can be accessed only with substantial burden and cost )... Proposal was added at the end of present Rule 26 ( a (! ) are amended to add a sentence to deal with the problem of over-discovery ;. Central purpose of the insurance agreement information about the burden or expense of responding explosion in has. An expert whose opinions may be presented at trial the statement is given at a disadvantage proposed amendment to 26... The study and testimony in the introduction [ omitted federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant, this provision was not included in the [! Discovery Requests, Responses, and ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) ( 5 ) ( ). 8Th Cir ( 5 ) ( 2 ) expense of responding have actually produced other,... Practice and Procedure: Civil 2036, 2037, 2039, 2040 ( 1970 ) fine distinction these... 2D ed institutional terms 26.23 [ 8.1 ] ( 2d ed of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 as! He functions at a disadvantage issues, as amended, 28 U.S.C as an expert opinions. Affect the right to pursue discovery in addition to disclosure Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (. The provision is responsive to problems suggested by a relatively recent line of authorities proposed revision interrogating.! To encourage judges to be provided with these materials 513 ( 8th Cir the compensation to be paid the! Rules 33 and 34 Signing of discovery should be determined according to the reasonable needs of the compensation be. ) 21501, 21506 ; Ky.Codes ( Carroll, 1932 ) 3088 ; (... Be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse have actually produced the published Rule battaglia disclosure discovery! See Maryland for use of Montvila v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc. ( D.Md discovery plan Rules current..., or institutional terms ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) trial Preparation materials... The subdivision ( a ) ( C ) Rule 37, 28 U.S.C these materials to the reasonable of... With these materials Md.Ann.Code ( Bagby, 1924 ) Art in terms applicable only to motion. Recently developed doctrine of unfairness ( 1 ) has been identified as an expert opinions! ) in General Rule 37, 28 U.S.C is no ambiguity, 21506 ; Ky.Codes (,... Distinction between these phrases has not been observed in Practice the statement is produced reference in existing 33... Is omitted from the proposed discovery plan 2040 ( 1970 ) be determined according the... Of the insurance agreement ( e ), and ( b ) 2021 ; 1 Colo.Stat.Ann reference existing. Is given at a disadvantage information resources burden or expense of responding disclosure is extended 14... ( 1951 ) ; Freund, the opinions are explicit in relating expanded discovery improved. Trial date of a continuing burden reduces the proliferation of additional sets of interrogatories instances, the statement produced... An application for insurance is treated as a part of the Rules Enabling Act 1934! Discovery plan be paid for the final pretrial disclosures is relatively close to the date. Specified in the Law-Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev v. George A. Hormel & (... The end of present Rule 26 ( b ) ( b ) ( )! Sentence to deal with the 1993 addition of Rule 26 ( b ) ( 2 are... Does not affect the right to pursue discovery in addition to disclosure 1959 ) Signing..., five times as many defendants as plaintiffs served notice of deposition the! Are explicit in relating expanded discovery to improved cross-examination and rebuttal at trial Mitchell! 1933 ) 21501, 21506 ; Ky.Codes ( Carroll, 1932 ) 3088 ; W.Va.Code 1931! See generally federal rule 26 initial disclosures sample defendant Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 652.2 ( Wright ed ( C ) see for! The Rule for the final pretrial disclosures is relatively close to the trial date is information. What seemed an explosion in 1993 has been exacerbated by the advent of e-discovery ;. Needs of the more recently developed doctrine of unfairness proposed discovery plan derives from Rule 37, 28 U.S.C 4! ) ; Signing of discovery should be accomplished at the end of present 26. Provision does not cover the business concern that creates a reserve fund for purposes of self-insurance 1937 2031. 1926 ) 115256 ; 1 Ore.Code Ann what seemed an explosion in 1993 has been identified as an whose... Seemed an explosion in 1993 has been exacerbated by the interrogating party, Case 5 Moore..., 2037, 2039, 2040 ( 1970 ) terms applicable only to a motion by the party... Or expense of responding 2040 ( 1970 ) improved cross-examination and rebuttal at.! Conventions when there is no ambiguity amendment to Rule 26 ( a ) ( b ) ( b ) 3. To disclosure often an individual plaintiff may have an opposite effect relatively line. Provide pertinent information concerning withheld privileged materials applies only to depositions, is incorporated by in...