Rule 26.Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Last amended July 1, 2021 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 26
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comment—2007 Amendment
Rule 26.02(b)(2) is a new provision that establishes a two-tier standard for discovery of electronically stored information. The rule makes information that is not “reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” not normally discoverable. This rule is identical to its federal counterpart, adopted in 2006. The rule requires that it be identified in response to an appropriate request, but if it is identified as “not reasonably accessible,” it need not be produced in the absence of further order. It is not strictly exempt
from discovery, as the court may, upon motion that “shows good cause,” order disclosure of the information. The rule explicitly authorizes the court to impose conditions on any order for disclosure of this information, and conditions that either ease the undue burden or minimize the total cost or cost borne by the producing party would be appropriate. Rule 26.02(f)(2) is a new provision that creates a uniform procedure for dealing with assertions of privilege that are made following production of information in discovery. The rule creates a mandatory obligation to return, sequester, or destroy information that is produced in discovery if the producing party asserts that it is subject to a privilege or work-product protection. The information cannot be used for any purpose until the privilege claim is resolved. The rule provides a mechanism for the receiving party to have the validity of the privilege claim resolved by the court. The rule does not create any presumption or have any impact on the validity of the claim of privilege, nor does it excuse the inadvertent or regretted production. If the court determines that that production waived an otherwise valid privilege, then the information should be ordered for production or release from sequestration of the information.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 26.02 is amended to adopt the changes made to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) in 2015. The amendments are intended to improve the operation of the rule and to avoid some of the problems that were encountered under the former rule.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 26.03 is amended to adopt a change made to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) in 2015. The amendment explicitly provides that cost-shifting is one option available to the court in implementing protective relief, where appropriate. The rule is not intended to make cost- shifting a routine part of discovery motions, but recognizes that there are some situations where it is appropriate. The rule is also subdivided and numbered to make it easier to use and cite; the headings are not intended to affect the interpretation of the rule.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 26.04 is amended to adopt a change made to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) in 2015, which allows the service of Rule 34 requests before other discovery is permitted. The rule permits a party responding to the request additional time to prepare an appropriate response, but does not compel earlier response or production. The service of an earlier request may also provide earlier notice to a party of the need to preserve evidence for use in the case, and thus eliminate some disputes over spoliation of evidence. The effect of the rule is to authorize earlier service of Rule 34 requests but the rule does not allow a serving party to accelerate the response deadline by doing so.
Advisory Committee Comment—2021 Amendments
Rule 26.05 is amended to apply the rule’s duty to supplement to initial and expert disclosures as well as other discovery responses. The amendments are substantially modeled on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
Advisory Committee Comment—2007 Amendment
Rule 26.06 is amended to add to the required provisions in a motion for a discovery conference. These changes require the party seeking a discovery conference to address electronic discovery issues, but do not dictate any particular resolution or conference agenda for them. Many cases will not involve electronic discovery issues, and there is no need to give substantial attention to them in a request for a conference under this rule.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 26.06(c) is amended to provide expressly for inclusion of preservation of evidence as a subject to be addressed in the discovery plan in every case. This requirement recognizes both the importance of document-preservation issues and the benefits of addressing the issue early in the case.
Advisory Committee Comment—2020 Amendments
Rule 26.06(d) is amended as part of the extensive amendments made to the timing provisions of the rules. These amendments implement the adoption of a standard “day” for counting deadlines under the rules—counting all days regardless of the length of the period and standardizing the time periods, where practicable, to a 7-, 14-, 21- or 28-day schedule. The only change to this rule lengthens the 10-day limit to 14 days to respond to a motion for a discovery conference. This change affects only the time limit, and is not intended to have any other effect.
Advisory Committee Comments--2000 Amendments
The changes made to Rule 26 include some of the recent amendments to the federal rule made in 1993. The changes made to the Minnesota rule have been modified to reflect the fact that Minnesota practice does not include the automatic disclosure mechanisms that have been adopted in some federal courts; the resulting differences in the rules are minor, and the authorities construing the federal rule should be given full weight to the extent applicable. The changes in Rule 26.02(a) adopt similar amendments made to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b) in 1993. The new rule is intended to facilitate greater judicial control over the extent of discovery. The rule does not limit or curtail any form of discovery or establish numeric limits on its use, but does clarify the broad discretion courts have to limit discovery. Rule 26.02(e) is a new rule adopted directly from its federal counterpart. The requirement of a privilege log is necessary to permit consideration, by opposing counsel and ultimately by the courts, of the validity of privilege claims. Privilege logs have been in use for years and are routinely required when a dispute arises. See generally Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.R.D. 118, 122 & n.6 (D. Nev. 1993) (enumerating deficiencies in log); Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (ordering privilege log and specifying requirements); Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 386-87 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (holding failure to provide privilege log deemed "presumptive evidence" claim of privilege not meritorious). The requirement of the log should not, however, be an invitation to require detailed identification of every privileged document within an obviously privileged category. Courts should not require a log in all circumstances, especially where a request seeks broad categories of non-discoverable
information. See, e.g., Durkin v. Shields (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 174 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Cal. 1997)(recognizing document-by-document log would be unduly burdensome). It is the intention of the rule, however, to require the production of logs routinely to encourage the earlier resolution of privilege disputes and to discourage baseless assertions of privilege. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2) expressly requires production of a privilege log by a non-party seeking to assert a privilege in response to a subpoena. Although the Committee does not recommend adoption of the extensive changes that have been made in federal Rule 45, this recommendation is made to minimize disruption in existing Minnesota subpoena practice. The difference in rules should not prevent a court from ordering production of a privilege log by a non-party in appropriate cases. The cost of producing a privilege log may be properly shifted to the party serving the subpoena under Rule 45.06. Rule 26.05 is amended to adopt in Minnesota the same supplementation requirement as exists in federal court. It is a more stringent and more explicit standard, and reflects a sounder analysis of when supplementation is necessary. It states affirmatively the duty to disclose. The Committee believes it is particularly desirable to have state supplementation practice conform to federal practice in order that compliance with the requirements is more common and sanctions can more readily be imposed for failure to supplement. The rule relaxes the supplementation requirement to obviate supplementation where the information has been disclosed either in discovery (i.e., in other discovery responses or by deposition testimony) or in writing. The writing need not be a discovery response, and could be a letter to all counsel identifying a witness or correcting a prior response.
Advisory Committee Comment—2021 Amendments
Rule 26.07 is amended to extend the signing requirement for automatic disclosures under Rule 26.01 and to conform to the federal rule, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)’s, guidance on the effect of an unsigned disclosure or discovery response and the potential sanction for violating the rule.
Amendment History
- (Amended effective July 1, 2013.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2021.)
- (Amended effective January 1, 2020.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2021.)
Plain-English Summary
Discovery is how parties in a lawsuit find out what evidence exists before trial, and Rule 26 is the framework that governs most of it. It starts with required initial disclosures: without waiting for anyone to ask, each party must identify people likely to have discoverable information, hand over or describe relevant documents and evidence, provide a computation of any damages claimed along with supporting material, and disclose any insurance agreement that could cover a judgment. A list of case types — things like habeas petitions, default judgments, harassment proceedings, and several others — is exempt from these automatic disclosure requirements. Initial disclosures are generally due at or within 60 days after the original due date for an answer, and a party joined later has 30 days after being served or joined to make its own disclosures.
The rule also covers expert witnesses. A party must disclose who it may call to give expert testimony, and if that expert was specially retained or regularly testifies as part of their job, a detailed written report is required covering their opinions, the reasoning and data behind them, their qualifications, and their compensation. These expert disclosures are generally due at least 90 days before trial, or within 30 days of an opposing party’s expert disclosure if the testimony is meant only to rebut it. Closer to trial, parties must also make pretrial disclosures identifying trial witnesses, deposition testimony they intend to use, and exhibits, generally at least 30 days before trial, with objections due within 14 days after that.
Beyond required disclosures, the rule defines how far discovery can reach: parties can obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense, as long as it is proportional to the needs of the case, weighing things like the stakes involved, the parties’ access to information and resources, and whether the burden of the discovery outweighs its likely value. Courts can limit discovery that is duplicative, that is easier to get another way, or that goes beyond what is proportional, and there are special provisions addressing electronically stored information that is hard to access, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation (which get extra protection unless the requesting party shows real need and hardship), and the more limited discovery available regarding experts who will not testify at trial.
The rule also requires parties to confer early on and prepare a discovery plan — generally within 30 days of the initial due date for an answer — addressing disclosure timing, the subjects and phasing of discovery, electronic evidence issues, and any proposed limits, with a written report on that plan filed within 14 days after the conference. Parties have an ongoing duty to supplement disclosures and discovery responses if they learn information was incomplete or incorrect, and every disclosure or discovery request, response, or objection must be signed, certifying it was made in good faith and is not unreasonably burdensome.
Frequently Asked Questions
What do I have to disclose automatically, without the other side asking?
Unless your case is exempt, you must disclose people likely to have discoverable information, relevant documents and evidence, a computation of any damages you are claiming with supporting material, and any insurance agreement that could cover a judgment.
When are initial disclosures due?
Generally at or within 60 days after the original due date for an answer, unless a different time is set by stipulation, court order, or objection in the discovery plan; a party joined later has 30 days after being served or joined.
How far in advance do I need to disclose my expert witnesses?
Absent a stipulation or court order, expert disclosures are generally due at least 90 days before trial, or within 30 days of the other side’s disclosure if your expert is only rebutting their testimony.
What is proportional discovery?
It means discovery has to be relevant to a claim or defense and weighed against factors like the stakes in the case, the parties’ resources and access to information, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit.
Do I get extra protection for documents my attorney prepared for litigation?
Yes, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial are only discoverable if the other side shows a substantial need and an inability to get the equivalent information another way, and the court will still protect your attorney’s mental impressions and legal theories.
Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment
The amendment to Rule 26.02 is simple but potentially quite important. The rule is amended to conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) as amended in 2000. Although the proposed changes were expected to create as many problems as they solved, see, e.g., John S. Beckerman, Confronting Civil Discovery’s Fatal Flaws, 84 Minn. L. Rev. 505, 537-43 (2000); Jeffrey W. Stempel & David F. Herr, Applying Amended Rule 26(b)(1) in Litigation: The New Scope of Discovery, in 199 F.R.D. 396 (2001), the change in the scope of discovery, to limit it to the actual claims and defenses raised in the pleadings, has worked well in federal court, and most feared problems have not materialized. See generally Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., A Square Peg in a Round Hole? The 2000 Limitation on the Scope of Federal Civil Discovery, 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 13, 25-27 (2001); Note, The Sound and the Fury or the Sound of Silence?: Evaluating the Pre-Amendment Predictions and Post- Amendment Effects of the Discovery Scope-Narrowing Language in the 2000 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), 37 Ga. L. Rev. 1039 (2003). Courts have simply not found the change dramatic nor given it a draconian interpretation. See, e.g., Sanyo Laser Prod., Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 496 (S.D. Ind. 2003). The narrowing of the scope of discovery as a matter of right does not vitiate in any way the traditional rule that discovery should be liberally allowed. It should be limited to the claims and defenses raised by the pleadings, but the requests should still be liberally construed. See, e.g., Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (“Even after the recent amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, courts employ a liberal discovery standard.”).