(a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission. Unless the court orders otherwise under subdivision (c) of this rule, the frequency of use of these methods is not limited.
Rule 26.General Provisions Governing Discovery
Last amended June 4, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 26 is the umbrella discovery rule that defines what's discoverable, sets proportionality limits, protects privileged and expert material, and governs protective orders and signing obligations for every discovery tool the rules that follow it authorize.
Full Text of Rule 26
(b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, identity and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who have knowledge of any discoverable matter or who will or may be called as a witness at the trial of any cause––and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
(2) Insurance agreements. A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial. For purposes of this paragraph, an application for insurance shall not be treated as part of an insurance agreement.
(3) Trial preparation; materials. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)(4) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement previously made is (A) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.
(4) Trial preparation: experts. Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:
(A) (i) A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, (ii) Subject to subdivision (b)(4)(C) of this rule, a party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert expected to testify at trial.
(B) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at the trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impractical for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(B) of this rule; and (ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule the court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
(5) Inadvertent Disclosure.
(A) A party who discloses or produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege or attorney work product shall be presumed not to have waived under these rules and the Arkansas Rules of Evidence if the party takes the following steps: (i) within fourteen calendar days of discovering the inadvertent disclosure, the producing party must notify the receiving party by specifically identifying the material or information and asserting the privilege or doctrine protecting it; and (ii) if responses to written discovery are involved, then the producing party must amend them as part of this notice.
(B) Within fourteen calendar days of receiving notice of an inadvertent disclosure, a receiving party must return, sequester, or destroy the specified materials and all copies. After receiving this notice, the receiving party may not use or disclose the materials in any way.
(C) A receiving party may challenge a disclosing party’s claim of privilege or protection and inadvertent disclosure. The reason for such a challenge may include, but is not limited to, the timeliness of the notice of inadvertent disclosure or whether all the surrounding circumstances show waiver.
(D) In deciding whether the privilege or protection has been waived, the circuit court shall consider all the material circumstances, including: (i) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (ii) the scope of the discovery; (iii) the extent of disclosure; and (iv) the interests of justice. Notwithstanding Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, and without having to terminate representation in the matter, an attorney for the disclosing party may testify about the circumstances of disclosure and the procedures in place to protect against inadvertent disclosure.
(c) Protective Orders.
(1) When Required. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, stating that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, or on its own initiative, the court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that: (A) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (B) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (C) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
(2) For Good Cause Shown. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, stating that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (A) that the discovery not be had; (B) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (C) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (D) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (E) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (F) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court; (G) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; (H) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.
If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
(d) Sequence and Timing of Discovery. Unless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party’s discovery.
(e) Supplementation of Responses. (1) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. This duty includes, but is not limited to, supplying supplemental information about the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, the identity and location of each person expected to be called as a witness at trial, and the subject matter and substance of any expert witness’s testimony.
(2) An additional duty to supplement responses may be imposed by order of the court, agreement of the parties, or at any time prior to trial through new requests for supplementation of prior responses.
(f) Claims of Privilege or Work-Product Protection.
(1) Asserting a Claim of Privilege or Work-Product Protection. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must: (A) expressly make the claim; and (B) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.
(2) Contents of Trial Court Orders for Production of Discovery When Defense to Production is a Privilege or the Opinion-work-product Protection. When the defense to production of discovery is any privilege recognized by Arkansas law or the opinion-work- product protection, orders pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 37 compelling production of discovery or denying a motion to quash production of materials pursuant to Rule 45 shall be supported by factual findings and shall address the following factors:
(A) the need to prevent irreparable injury;
(B) the likelihood that the claim of privilege or protection would be sustained on appeal;
(C) the likelihood that an immediate appeal would delay a scheduled trial date;
(D) the diligence of the parties in seeking or resisting the discovery in the circuit court;
(E) the circuit court’s written statement of reasons supporting or opposing immediate review; and
(F) any conflict with precedent or other controlling authority as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.
The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, permit an interlocutory appeal from such orders pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(f).
(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.
(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in his or her individual name. A self-represented person shall sign his or her disclosure, discovery request, response, objection, or motion. The signatory must state the signatory’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and
(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:
(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;
(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.
(2) Failure to Sign. Other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request, response, or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(3) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification violates this rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, may impose an appropriate sanction on the signatory, the party on whose behalf the signatory was acting, or both, and may issue an appropriate order under Rule 26(c) or Rule 37. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation. Any motion specifying a violation of this Rule 26(g) shall include a statement that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party who served the subject disclosure, discovery request, response, or objection to obtain the withdrawal of the same without court action.
Amendment History
Amended November 18, 1996, effective March 1, 1997; amended January 28, 1999; amended May 25, 2006; amended January 10, 2008; amended May 24, 2012, effective July 1, 2012; amended and effective June 4, 2026.
Reporter's Notes
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2006 Amendment: Subdivision (e) has been amended. The amendment strengthens a party’s duty to supplement discovery responses with additional or corrected information received after the party’s original response. Introductory language stating a general no-duty-to-supplement rule with exceptions has been eliminated. Former subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2) have been combined: there is one duty to amend, and amended responses containing supplemental information are one kind of amendment. Former subdivision (e)(3) has been renumbered as new (e)(2) and clarified. The circuit court or the parties may expand the Rule 26(e) duty to supplement. New subdivision (e) in Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37 contains a companion change: if a party fails to supplement discovery responses seasonably, and prejudice results, then the prejudiced party may move for any appropriate sanction from the circuit court.
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2007 Amendment: Paragraph (4)(A) of subdivision (b) has been amended to conform the Rule to current practice. Parties routinely depose testifying experts, as they do other witnesses, without first getting a court order allowing the deposition. This amendment eliminates an unnecessary provision that no one was following.
Paragraph (5) has been added to subdivision (b). These provisions protect parties who inadvertently disclose material protected by any evidentiary privilege or doctrine of protection, such as the attorney work product doctrine. This provision draws on the work of the Arkansas Bar Association’s Task Force on the Attorney-Client Privilege, American Bar Association Resolution 120D (adopted by House of Delegates in August 2006), and a 2006 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Arkansas Bar Association specifically endorsed a similar change in the Arkansas Rule, although its proposal was limited to the attorney-client privilege and the work- product doctrine.
Lawyers do their best to avoid mistakes, but they sometimes happen. Discovery has always posed the risk of the inadvertent production of privileged or protected material. The advent of electronic discovery has only increased the risk of inadvertent disclosures. This amendment addresses this risk by creating a procedure to evaluate and address inadvertent disclosures, including disputed ones.
Arkansas law on this issue is scarce. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Little, 276 Ark. 511, 639 S.W.2d 726 (1982), a letter between two lawyers for Firestone "made its way" to one of Firestone’s customers, who produced the letter in another lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that Firestone waived the privilege by allowing the letter to get into the customer’s hands. 276 Ark. at 519, 639 S.W.2d at 730. The Court, however, did not discuss how the customer obtained the letter or whether Firestone’s disclosure was inadvertent. The Eighth Circuit has endorsed the multifactor approach contained in this Rule as amended. Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1483-84 (8th Cir. 1996) (predicting in a diversity case that Missouri courts would adopt this approach, which is the majority view).
The new provision creates a presumption against waiver if the disclosing party acts promptly after discovering the inadvertent disclosure. Notice by the disclosing party must be specific about both the material inadvertently disclosed and the privilege or doctrine protecting it. After receiving this kind of notice, a party may neither use nor disclose the specified material. Instead, the receiving party must either return, sequester, or destroy the material (including all copies). A party’s failure to fulfill these obligations will expose that party to sanctions under Rule 37. The new provision also creates a procedure for the receiving party to challenge a notice of inadvertent disclosure and a procedure for the circuit court to resolve the dispute. This procedure, which requires the court to consider all the material circumstances, "strikes the appropriate balance" and is "best suited to achieving a fair result." Gray, 86 F.2d at 1484.
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2012 Amendment: Subdivision (f) is added to correspond with new Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 2(f). That rule of appellate procedure gives the Arkansas Supreme Court discretion to grant permission to take an interlocutory appeal of an order under Ark. R. Civ. P. 37 compelling production of materials or information or an order under Ark. R. Civ. P. 45 denying a motion to quash production of materials for which a privilege or opinion-work-product is claimed. To help ensure development of an adequate record for the Supreme Court’s consideration of whether to allow an appeal, new Rule 26(f) requires the trial court to make factual findings and address the guideline factors (a) through (f).
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2026 Amendments. As originally adopted in 1979, Rule 26 was a “slightly modified version of FRCP 26.” Ark. R. Civ. P. 26, Reporter’s N., § 1. In the intervening decades since the initial adoption of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the federal discovery rules have been amended to narrow the scope of discovery, tighten the grounds and procedures for objections, and encourage courts to take a more active role in managing discovery. Rule 26 is now revised to adopt many of these amendments to the corresponding federal rule. 1. Rule 26(b)(1) is revised to adopt the scope of discovery as currently defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). These revisions narrow the scope of what is discoverable, including by adding a proportionality requirement to the scope of discovery. This amendment also eliminates the phrase “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” While it remains true that “evidence need not be admissible to be discoverable” and that “relevance” for purposes of discovery is broader than for purposes of admission at trial. The prior phrase “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” could be construed to extend the scope of discovery beyond relevance, and this amendment accordingly makes clear that the scope of discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee N. (2015 Amend.). The phrase beginning with “including the existence . . .” has been removed from the current version of the federal rule as unnecessary; however, it is retained here to prevent any argument that the narrowing of the scope of discovery in this amendment has removed these obviously relevant items from the permissible scope of discovery.
2. New Rule 26(c)(1) is modeled on the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). While whether to issue a protective order is ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the court, this amendment establishes limited circumstances under which a protective order is mandatory. The court retains discretion to determine if those circumstances exist and the appropriate relief that should issue if so. The chief difference between this new Rule 26(c)(1) and its federal counterpart is that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) omits a requirement that the moving party confer in good faith before involving the Court on a motion brought under that subdivision. This new Rule 26(c)(1) imposes a good-faith conferral requirement as a prerequisite to relief under this provision, as is required for nearly all discovery motions under the Arkansas Rules. The language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) is also modified to be consistent with existing language in the Arkansas Rules, but these changes are not intended to create any substantive differences in the meaning between new Rule 26(c)(1) and its federal counterpart. The existing Rule 26(c) was moved to new Rule 26(c)(2) without substantive revision.
3. New Rule 26(f)(1) is modeled on the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). It specifies more detailed provisions for the assertion of a claim of privilege or work-product protection. Under new Rule 26(f)(1)(B), the level of detail required to “enable other parties to assess the claim” of privilege will depend on the items at issue and the privilege asserted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee N. (1993 Amend.). A full “privilege log” would generally not be required, for example, as to litigation-related communications involving only counsel and their clients. The existing Rule 26(f) was moved to new Rule 26(f)(2) without substantive revision.
4. New Rule 26(g) is modeled on the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and, except where substantively modified, should be interpreted in accordance with the current version of that rule. This provision creates similar requirements to those of Rule 11, but specifically tailored to discovery issues. There is one material difference between this new Rule 26(g) and its federal counterpart: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) omits a requirement that the moving party confer in good faith before involving the Court on a motion brought under that subdivision. This omission seems inconsistent with the safe-harbor provisions of Rule 11 and the good-faith conferral requirements of almost all other discovery motions. As such, new Arkansas Rule 26(g) includes a good-faith conferral requirement as a prerequisite to a motion under that rule. The language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) is also modified to be consistent with existing language in the Arkansas Rules.
Plain-English Summary
Rules 27 through 37 give parties their discovery tools — depositions, interrogatories, document requests, physical and mental exams, requests for admission. Rule 26 is the rule that governs how those tools may be used. It opens by confirming parties can use any or all of those methods in any sequence, without court permission, unless a court order says otherwise. The real substance is in subdivision (b), which draws the boundary of what's fair game: information that's relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, weighing the stakes, the amount in controversy, each side's access to information and resources, and whether the burden of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. A 2026 amendment brought this proportionality language into line with the modern federal rule, narrowing the scope of discovery from the older, looser standard tied to whatever might lead to admissible evidence.
Subdivision (b) also carves out special treatment for categories of information that need extra care. Insurance agreements are discoverable but not admissible at trial. Trial-preparation materials — documents an attorney or party prepared with litigation in mind — get qualified protection, discoverable only on a showing of substantial need and undue hardship in finding the equivalent elsewhere, and an attorney's mental impressions and legal theories stay off-limits even then. Expert witness discovery has its own two-tier structure: testifying experts can be identified and deposed, while non-testifying consulting experts are shielded except in exceptional circumstances. And provisions added for inadvertent disclosures give a party that accidentally hands over privileged material a structured way to claw it back, with firm deadlines for notice and a list of factors the court weighs if the other side challenges the claim of privilege.
The rest of Rule 26 keeps discovery from turning into a weapon. Protective orders under subdivision (c) require a court to limit discovery that's cumulative, disproportionate, or outside the rule's scope, and, on a broader good-cause showing, let the court shield a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue expense in eight different ways, from sealing a deposition to barring an inquiry outright. Subdivision (e) requires parties to correct or supplement discovery responses that turn out to be incomplete or wrong. Subdivision (f) sets out how to assert privilege without waiving it and what a court must address before ordering privileged material produced. And subdivision (g) is Rule 26's version of Rule 11 for discovery: every discovery request, response, and objection must be signed, and that signature certifies the document is warranted, proportionate, and not filed to harass or delay — backed by sanctions when it isn't.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes information discoverable under Rule 26?
Information has to be non-privileged, relevant to a party's claim or defense, and proportional to the needs of the case. It doesn't have to be admissible in evidence to be discoverable — the discovery standard is broader than the trial standard, but it isn't unlimited.
What does proportional to the needs of the case mean?
It means weighing the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, each party's relative access to the relevant information, the parties' resources, how important the discovery is to resolving the issues, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. A request can be relevant and still be disproportionate.
How does Rule 26 protect an attorney's trial-preparation materials from discovery?
Documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation are discoverable only if the requesting party shows substantial need for the materials and can't get their substantial equivalent without undue hardship elsewhere. Even then, the court has to protect the attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories from disclosure.
What's the difference between discovering a testifying expert and a non-testifying expert?
A party can use interrogatories to learn the subject matter and substance of a testifying expert's opinions and can depose that expert. A non-testifying expert retained only for trial preparation can be discovered only through the procedure for physical and mental examinations or on a showing of exceptional circumstances making it impractical to get comparable information any other way.
What should a party do after accidentally producing privileged documents?
Notify the receiving party within fourteen calendar days, specifically identifying the material and the privilege claimed, and amend any related written discovery responses as part of that notice. The receiving party then must return, sequester, or destroy the material within fourteen days unless it challenges the claim of privilege.
When will a court issue a protective order under Rule 26(c)?
The court must limit discovery that's cumulative, obtainable more easily elsewhere, beyond the opportunity already given, or outside Rule 26(b)'s scope. On a good-cause showing, the court can go further and shield a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, but the movant first has to show a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute without court involvement.
What does signing a discovery response certify under Rule 26(g)?
The signature certifies that the response is warranted by existing law, isn't interposed to harass or cause delay, and isn't unreasonable or unduly burdensome given the needs of the case. An unsigned response has no effect until signed, and a court can sanction a signatory who certifies a response without substantial justification.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: scope of discovery arkansasgeneral discovery rules arkansasproportionality discovery arkansasprotective order arkansasprivilege log arkansaswork product doctrine arkansasexpert witness discovery arkansasinadvertent disclosure privilege