Rule 29.Stipulations Regarding Discovery Procedures
Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
Full Text of Rule 29
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 29: -1. Rule 29 is a modified version of FRCP 29. Under the latter, prior court approval must be secured to extend the time to (a) answer interrogatories; (b) produce documents, etc.; or (c) respond to requests for admissions of fact. This prior approval has been rejected by such states as Massachusetts and Arizona when adopting procedural rules patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 29 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and "Arizona and the Federal Rules" 41 F.R.D. 79 (1966).
2. Agreements between counsel to modify the discovery rules have been commonplace in Arkansas practice. No particular problems have arisen and the notion that prior court approval is necessary was rejected by the Committee. Should agreements of counsel get out of hand, the court has the power under Rule 29 to overrule or reject any stipulation or agreement of counsel. Therefore, any problems which may arise in this area may be corrected by the court on a case by case basis.
3. Prior Arkansas law was found in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-351 (Repl. 1962), which was identical to FRCP 29 as it existed prior to its 1970 amendments.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 29 lets lawyers run discovery on their own terms, within reason. Unless the court has ordered otherwise, the parties can agree in writing to take depositions before someone other than an officer qualified under Rule 28, at any time or place, on whatever notice and in whatever manner suits them, and a deposition taken that way is usable just like any other. The same stipulation power extends to the procedures governing other discovery tools, letting counsel adjust deadlines and mechanics without going to the court for permission first.
What sets Rule 29 apart is what it does not require: prior court approval. Some jurisdictions insist that a judge sign off before parties can extend discovery deadlines by agreement; Arkansas rejected that approach, on the view that lawyers routinely worked these things out among themselves without incident. The rule's check on abuse is not a pre-approval requirement, it is the court's standing authority to reject or override a stipulation if the parties' agreements start creating problems for the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do lawyers need the court's approval to enter a Rule 29 stipulation?
No. Parties can agree in writing to modify deposition and other discovery procedures without prior court approval, unless the court has already ordered otherwise in the case.
What can a Rule 29 stipulation change?
It can change who takes a deposition, and when, where, and how it is taken, and it can modify the procedures set out elsewhere in the discovery rules for other discovery methods, such as timing or manner of response.
Can a court override an agreement the parties made under Rule 29?
Yes. The court retains authority to overrule or reject a stipulation between counsel if it concludes the agreement is creating problems, even though no prior approval was needed to make it.
Should a Rule 29 agreement be put in writing?
The rule contemplates a written stipulation, and putting the agreement in writing avoids later disputes over what the parties agreed to.
Does Rule 29 let parties extend a court-ordered scheduling deadline?
Rule 29 addresses procedures for taking depositions and conducting discovery, not court-imposed scheduling deadlines; a deadline set by court order generally still requires the court's own consent to move.