Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
This rule’s current text took effect January 1, 1970. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Rule 29 is a short rule that does one useful thing: it lets the parties in a lawsuit skip past certain default formalities for how discovery gets carried out, as long as they agree on it in writing and the court has not ordered otherwise. Without this rule, almost any departure from the rulebook’s standard procedures would call for a motion and a judge’s approval. Rule 29 removes that friction for routine, consensual scheduling and logistics.
The first clause covers depositions specifically. Parties can stipulate that a deposition happen before any person — not only an officer authorized under the rules — at any time, in any place, and in whatever manner they choose, and the resulting deposition still counts as valid and usable like any other. That flexibility helps when a witness can sit for questioning only on a weekend, or when the parties want to use a reporter who would not otherwise qualify as an authorized officer.
The second clause reaches beyond depositions to every other discovery tool the rules provide — interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, and the rest. Parties can agree in writing to adjust the procedures those rules set out, again without asking the court first.
Two limits are worth noting. The agreement has to be written, not just spoken between counsel, and a court can override any stipulation at any point — Rule 29 hands control to the parties without taking it away from the judge. And the rule’s own language draws a line between process and substance: it lets parties modify the procedures for taking discovery, not the scope of what one side can demand from the other. Rule 26 still sets the outer boundary of what is discoverable; Rule 29 only lets parties change how discovery, once appropriate, gets carried out.
Yes. Rule 29 only covers agreements made by written stipulation. An informal understanding between attorneys, without something in writing, does not carry the protection this rule provides, and a court can treat an unwritten arrangement as never having modified the standard procedure at all.
Yes. The rule opens with the words “unless the court orders otherwise,” which means any stipulation the parties reach stays subject to the court’s authority. A judge can set aside or modify a Rule 29 agreement at any point, particularly if it starts interfering with case deadlines or another party’s rights.
Yes. Rule 29’s first clause allows a written stipulation that a deposition be taken before any person, at any time or place, and in any manner the parties choose, and the deposition can still be used the same way an ordinarily conducted one would be.
No. Rule 29 lets parties change the mechanics of how discovery is carried out — the timing, location, or manner of a deposition, for example, or the procedures for other discovery devices. It does not let them expand or shrink what is discoverable in the first place; that scope question is governed elsewhere, mainly by Rule 26.
The rule’s second clause covers the procedures for any other method of discovery the rules provide, which in practice includes interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission. Parties can agree in writing to modify the procedural steps those rules set out.