Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
This rule’s current text took effect January 1, 2026. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Rule 26 is the framework the rest of Indiana’s discovery rules hang from. Subsection (A) lists the five methods parties can use to dig up facts before trial: depositions, written interrogatories, requests to produce documents, electronically stored information, or things (or to enter land for inspection), physical or mental examinations, and requests for admission. Subsection (A.1) adds a distinctly Indiana requirement layered on top of ordinary service: when a party sends or answers interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission, it also has to serve an electronic copy in a commercially available word-processing format — not merely a PDF — labeled with the case caption and identifying information if sent on disk, or accompanied by an identifying memo if emailed. A party or self-represented litigant who cannot use the required equipment can serve a verified statement saying so instead.
Subsection (B)(1) sets the outer boundary of what’s fair game: any matter, not privileged, that’s relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party, including who has knowledge of relevant facts and where documents and things can be found. Information doesn’t have to be admissible at trial to be discoverable — it only has to appear reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. That broad scope comes with a built-in brake: the court has to cut back on discovery, on its own initiative or on motion, when the request is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable more easily from another source, when the requesting party already had ample opportunity to get the information, or when the burden or cost of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit — weighing the needs of the case, the amount at stake, the parties’ resources, and how important both the issue and the discovery are to resolving it.
Subsection (B)(2) makes the existence and contents of an applicable insurance agreement discoverable, though disclosing it doesn’t make the policy itself admissible at trial. Subsection (B)(3) protects work product: documents and tangible things a party or its representative prepared in anticipation of litigation are only discoverable if the requesting party shows a substantial need for them and can’t get their substantial equivalent elsewhere without undue hardship — and even then, the court has to shield the attorney’s or representative’s mental impressions, opinions, and legal theories from disclosure. A party can always get a copy of their own prior statement about the case without making that showing, and a non-party can request their own prior statement too, with the right to ask the court to compel it if refused.
Subsection (B)(4) draws a sharp line between two kinds of experts. An expert a party plans to call as a witness has to be identified through interrogatories, along with the subject of the testimony, the substance of the expected facts and opinions, and a summary of the grounds — deeper discovery beyond that requires a motion. An expert who was retained for the litigation but won’t be called at trial gets far more protection: the other side can reach that expert’s facts and opinions only through a physical or mental examination under Rule 35(B) or by showing exceptional circumstances that make it impracticable to get the same information any other way. Either way, unless it would work a manifest injustice, the party asking for expert discovery generally has to pay the expert a reasonable fee for the time spent responding, and often has to reimburse the other side for a fair share of what it cost to develop that expert’s opinions in the first place.
Subsection (B)(5) governs privilege claims on both ends of production. A party withholding material as privileged or as trial-preparation material has to say so expressly and describe what’s being withheld well enough for the other side to evaluate the claim, without giving away the information the privilege itself protects. If privileged material slips out during production anyway, the producing party can notify the recipient of the claim; once notified, the recipient has to promptly return, sequester, or destroy the material and hold off using or disclosing it until a court sorts out whether the privilege applies.
Subsection (C) lets a party or a person facing discovery ask for a protective order for good cause, to guard against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense — anything from barring the discovery outright to limiting its scope, its cost allocation, or who’s allowed to be present. A court can also excuse a party from searching electronically stored information it identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, unless the requesting party shows good cause for reaching it anyway. Getting a protective order doesn’t automatically seal anything filed with the court, though — that takes separate compliance with the state’s rules on public access to court records.
The remaining subsections round out the mechanics. Subsection (D) lets parties use discovery methods in whatever order suits them, and one side’s discovery doesn’t have to wait on another’s. Subsection (E) generally excuses a party from updating a discovery response that was complete when it was made — except for identifying witnesses and expert testimony, which carry an ongoing duty to supplement, and except when a party learns its answer was wrong when given, or has since become untrue in a way that staying silent would amount to concealment. And subsection (F) requires a good-faith attempt to work out a discovery dispute before running to court: any motion to compel, for a protective order, or to otherwise enforce or limit discovery has to be accompanied by a statement showing that effort, including when and how it happened and who took part — and a court can deny a motion filed without it.
Anything relevant to a claim or defense in the case — yours or any other party’s — as long as it isn’t privileged. That includes documents, electronically stored information, tangible things, and the identity of people who know something about the case. Information doesn’t have to be admissible at trial to be discoverable; it only has to be the kind of thing reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. A court can still cut discovery back if it’s duplicative, easier to get somewhere else, or if its cost or burden outweighs what it’s likely worth to the case.
Yes, for interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission — Rule 26(A.1) requires a party to serve an electronic copy in a commercially available word-processing format, not a PDF alone, in addition to the copy served under the ordinary service rule. If the copy goes out on disk, the disk has to be labeled with the case caption and identifying information; if it’s emailed, an identifying memo has to go with it. A party or self-represented litigant who cannot use the equipment this requires can instead serve a verified statement explaining that.
Work product covers documents and tangible things a party or its representative — including an attorney, consultant, or insurer — prepared in anticipation of litigation. The other side can only get that material by showing a substantial need for it and an inability to get its substantial equivalent elsewhere without undue hardship. Even then, the court has to protect the attorney’s or representative’s mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, and legal theories from disclosure — that layer of protection doesn’t give way just because the underlying documents do.
Yes, for any expert the other side plans to call as a witness. You can use interrogatories to require them to identify the expert, state the subject of the testimony, and describe the substance of the expected facts, opinions, and the grounds behind them. Getting more than that — through a deposition, for instance — takes a court motion. An expert who was consulted for the case but won’t testify at trial is much harder to reach; you generally need a showing of exceptional circumstances making it impracticable to get comparable information any other way.
Rule 26(B)(5)(b) gives you a way to claw it back. Once you notify the party that received it of your privilege claim and the basis for it, they have to promptly return, sequester, or destroy the material and any copies, and hold off using or disclosing it until a court resolves whether the privilege applies. If they already disclosed it to someone else before getting your notice, they have to take reasonable steps to get it back. You, as the producing party, have to preserve the material until the claim is decided.
File a motion showing good cause for protection against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense — either in the court where the case is pending, or, for a deposition, the county where it’s being taken. The court has a wide menu of options: barring the discovery entirely, limiting its scope, restricting who can be present, requiring cost-sharing, or protecting trade secrets and other confidential information from disclosure. Getting the order doesn’t automatically seal anything you file with the court — sealing a court record takes separate compliance with Indiana’s rules on public access to court records.
Yes. Rule 26(F) requires a reasonable, good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally before filing a motion to compel, a motion for a protective order, or almost any other discovery motion. Your motion has to include a statement showing that effort — the date, time, and place of the discussion, whether it was in person or by phone, and who took part. A court can deny a discovery motion outright if that statement is missing.