(a) Discovery Methods. At any time after the filing of a joint case conference report, or not sooner than 14 days after a party has filed a separate case conference report, or upon order by the court or discovery commissioner, any party who has complied with Rule 16.1(a)(1), 16.2, or 16.205 may obtain discovery by any means permitted by these rules.
Rule 26.General provisions governing discovery
Group V: Disclosures and Discovery · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 26 opens the door to discovery once the case conference report is on file, defines what parties may dig for and what stays protected, and lays out the mechanics for protective orders, supplementation, and signing discovery papers.
Full Text of Rule 26
(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.
(1) Scope. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claims or defenses 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) Limitations.
(A) Frequency. The court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions and interrogatories, the length of depositions under Rule 30, or the number of requests under Rule 36.
(B) Electronically Stored Information. A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery, including costs of complying with the court’s order.
(C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:
(i) 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;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
(3) Trial Preparation: Materials.
(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:
(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and
(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
(B) Protection Against Disclosure. If the court orders discovery of those materials, it must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.
(C) Previous Statement. Any party or other person may, on request and without the required showing, obtain the person’s own previous statement about the action or its subject matter. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order, and Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses. A previous statement is either:
(i) a written statement that the person has signed or otherwise adopted or approved; or
(ii) a contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording—or a transcription of it—that recites substantially verbatim the person’s oral statement.
(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.
(A) Deposition of an Expert Who May Testify. A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If a report from the expert is required under Rule 16.1(a)(2)(B), 16.2(e)(3), or 16.205(e)(3), the deposition may not be conducted until after the report is provided.
(B) Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rule 26(b)(3) protects drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 16.1(a), 16.2(d) or (e), 16.205(d) or (e), or 26(b)(1), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.
(C) Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party’s Attorney and Expert Witnesses. Rule 26(b)(3) protects communications between the party’s attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 16.1(a), 16.2(d) or (e), or 16.205(d) or (e), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:
(i) relate to compensation for the expert’s study or testimony;
(ii) identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or
(iii) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.
(D) Expert Employed Only for Trial Preparation. Ordinarily, a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition, discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial. But a party may do so only:
(i) as provided in Rule 35(b); or
(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
(5) Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial Preparation Materials.
(A) Information Withheld. 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:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) 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.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The producing party must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
(c) Protective Orders.
(1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to an out-of-state deposition, in the court for the judicial district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification 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. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery;
(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;
(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;
(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;
(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and
(H) requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the court directs.
(2) Ordering Discovery. If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partially denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.
(3) Awarding Expenses. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses.
(d) Sequence of Discovery. Unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice:
(1) methods of discovery may be used in any sequence; and
(2) discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.
(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 16.1, 16.2, or 16.205—or responded to a request for discovery with a disclosure or response—is under a duty to timely supplement or correct the disclosure or response to include information thereafter acquired if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed is 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.
(2) Expert Witness. With respect to testimony of an expert from whom a report is required under Rule 16.1(a)(2)(B), 16.2(e)(3), or 16.205(e)(3), the duty extends both to information contained in the report and to information provided through a deposition of the expert. Any additions or other changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party’s disclosures under Rule 16.1(a)(3), 16.2(f), or 16.205(f) are due.
(f) Form of Responses. Answers and objections to interrogatories or requests for production must identify and quote each interrogatory or request for production in full immediately preceding the statement of any answer or objections thereto. Answers, denials, and objections to requests for admission must identify and quote each request for admission in full immediately preceding the statement of any answer, denial, or objection thereto.
(g) Signing of Disclosures, Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.
(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure and report made under Rules 16.1, 16.2, and 16.205, other than reports prepared and signed by an expert witness, and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name—or by the party personally, if self-represented—and must, when available, state the signer’s physical and email addresses, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:
(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, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the violation.
(h) Demand for Prior Discovery. If a party makes a written demand for disclosures or discovery that took place before the demanding party became a party to the action, whether under Rule 16.1 or 26, each party who has previously made disclosures or responded to a request for admission or production or answered interrogatories must make available to the demanding party each document in which the disclosures and responses to discovery are contained for inspection and copying, or furnish the demanding party a list identifying each such document by title. Upon further demand from the demanding party, at the expense of the demanding party, the recipient of such demand must furnish a copy of any listed discovery disclosure or response specified in the demand or, in the case of document disclosure or request for production, must make available for inspection by the demanding party all documents and things previously produced. Further, each party who has taken a deposition must make a copy of the transcript available to the demanding party at its expense.
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: The initial-disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a) of the federal rules, as amended in 2000, are adopted as modified in Rule 16.1(a) of the Nevada rules; only other discovery methods are retained as part of Rule 26(a) of the Nevada rules. Subdivision (b) retains the Nevada rule as to the scope of discovery — “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Thus, the Nevada rule does not conform to the 2000 amendments to its federal counterpart which limits the scope of discovery to “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,” except upon a showing of “good cause.” The insurance discovery provisions in subdivision (b)(2) of the former rule have been amended and moved to Rule 16.1(a)(1)(D). Subdivision (b)(2)(iii) does not incorporate the weighing provisions that were added to the federal rule in 1993 but instead retains the language in the Nevada rule, which was based on the federal provision as it was adopted in 1983. Expert discovery under subdivision (b)(4) is modified consistent with expert disclosure under revised Rule 16.1(a)(2). The provisions of former subdivision (b)(5) regarding demands for expert witness lists and the exchange of reports and writings, are repealed as unnecessary under the new expert disclosure provisions in Rule 16.1. New subdivision (b)(5) conforms to the federal rule. Subdivision (c) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendment to subdivision (c) of the federal rule. The amendment requires that the parties meet and confer in an effort to resolve discovery disputes before seeking a protective order from the court. The party filing a motion for a protective order must include a certificate stating that the parties met and conferred, or, if the moving party is unable to get opposing parties to meet and confer regarding the dispute, indicating the moving party’s efforts in attempting to arrange such a meeting. Subdivision (d) is amended to clarify that once the parties have complied with the provisions of subdivision (a) of the rule, the parties may use any method of formal discovery provided in the rules in any sequence unless the court orders otherwise. The provision is similar to subdivision (d) of the federal rule, but it does not include the first sentence of the federal rule, which provides that with certain exceptions, the parties may not commence formal discovery until after they have met and conferred as required by subdivision (f) of the federal rule (cf. NRCP 16.1(b)). The parties must comply with subdivision (a) of the Nevada rule. Subdivision (e) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendments to subdivision (e) of the federal rule. The rule is amended to provide that the requirement for supplementation applies to disclosures required by Rule 16.1(a). Paragraph (1) is amended to address when a party must supplement disclosures made under Rule 16.1(a) and to require supplementation of expert reports and depositions. Paragraph (2) is amended to address the duty to supplement responses to formal discovery requests including interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Like its federal counterpart, paragraph (2) does not include deposition testimony. However, under paragraph (1), a party must supplement information provided through a deposition of an expert from whom a report is required under Rule 16.1(a)(2)(B). Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the former rule are repealed. Subdivision (f) of the former rule is repealed as duplicative of provisions in Rules 16 and 16.1. To avoid redesignating the remaining subdivisions, former subdivision (f) is replaced with the language from former subdivision (j) regarding the form of responses to discovery requests. There is no federal counterpart to this provision. Subdivision (g) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendments to subdivision (g) of the federal rule. Paragraph (1) is added to require signatures on certain disclosures required by Rule 16.1. Paragraph (2) retains language from the former rule for signatures on discovery requests, responses, and objections with some revisions to conform to the 1993 amendments to the federal rule. Paragraph (3) retains language from the former rule regarding sanctions if a certification is made in violation of the rule with modifications to make it consistent with Rules 37(a)(4) and 37(c)(1)-in combination, these rules provide sanctions for violation of the rules regarding disclosures and discovery matters. Subdivision (h) is amended to address technical issues. It has no federal counterpart. The provision is retained because it clarifies responsibilities to exchange discovery with new parties. Subdivision (i) of the former rule is repealed in favor of a strong scheduling order under Rule 16 that will set discovery deadlines.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: Subsection (a). The amendments retain the former NRCP 26(a), with stylistic revisions. The majority of FRCP 26(a) is subsumed by the initial disclosure requirements located in Rules 16.1, 16.2, and 16.205. Subsection (b). Rule 26(b) redefines the scope of allowable discovery consistent with the proportionate discovery provision in FRCP 26(b). As amended, Rule 26(b)(1) requires that discovery seek information “relevant to any party’s claims or defenses and proportional needs of the case,” departing from the past scope of “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” This change allows the district court to eliminate redundant or disproportionate discovery and reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.
Amendment History
Amended eff. 9-27-71; Amended eff. 12-9-75; Amended 12-13-85, eff. 1-13-86; Amended 12-13-85, eff. 2-11-86; Amended 7-1-87, eff. 1-1-88; Amended eff. 1-1-05; Amended eff. 7-1-08; Amended eff. 3-1-19.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 26 sets the gate and the boundary line for civil discovery in Nevada. Discovery cannot start the moment a lawsuit is filed; a party generally has to wait until a joint case conference report is on file, or at least 14 days after filing its own separate report, or until the court or a discovery commissioner orders otherwise. Once that gate opens, the scope is broad but not unlimited: a party can dig into anything nonprivileged that bears on a claim or defense, but the request also has to be proportional to the case, weighed against the amount at stake, each side's access to the information, the parties' resources, and whether the burden of asking outweighs the value of the answer. A court can tighten those limits further, capping the number of depositions or interrogatories, shielding hard-to-reach electronic sources from a burdensome search, or cutting off requests that are cumulative, already answered, or reaching outside the permitted scope altogether.
The rule then protects two categories of material that a party might otherwise have to hand over. Documents and things a lawyer or party prepared for litigation are generally off-limits unless the requesting side shows a real need and no other way to get the substantial equivalent, and even then, a lawyer's own mental impressions, opinions, and legal theories stay shielded. Expert discovery gets its own set of guardrails: a testifying expert can be deposed, but only after any required report is turned over; draft reports are protected no matter what form they take; and communications between a lawyer and a testifying expert are off-limits except for the narrow slice touching the expert's pay, the facts or data the lawyer gave the expert, or the assumptions the lawyer asked the expert to accept. An expert hired only to help prepare for trial, with no plan to testify, is largely walled off from discovery entirely, absent an independent medical exam under Rule 35 or a showing that there is no other way to get comparable information.
The rest of Rule 26 handles the machinery that keeps discovery moving in good order. A party who wants to fight a request can move for a protective order, but only after certifying a good-faith attempt to work things out first, and the rule lists the kinds of limits a court can impose once that motion is before it. Absent a court order, parties can pursue any discovery method in any sequence, and one side's discovery does not have to wait on another's. A party has an ongoing duty to correct or supplement anything it disclosed once it learns the earlier answer was incomplete or wrong, discovery responses have to quote the request they are answering, and every disclosure or discovery paper needs a signature that certifies it was made in good faith and is not being used to harass or run up costs. Nevada also keeps a distinctive housekeeping rule: a party who joins a case after discovery is already underway can demand copies of what has already been exchanged, at that party's own expense.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can I start taking discovery in a Nevada case?
Not immediately after filing suit. You generally have to wait until a joint case conference report is filed, or at least 14 days after you file your own separate report, unless the court or a discovery commissioner orders discovery to begin sooner.
What does it mean for discovery to be 'proportional to the needs of the case'?
It means a request has to be weighed against factors like how much is at stake, how important the issue is, each side's access to the information, the parties' resources, and whether the cost or hassle of digging up the answer outweighs what the answer is worth to the case. A technically relevant request can still be cut back or denied if it fails that balancing test.
Can I get documents the other side's lawyer prepared for trial?
Only in limited circumstances. Materials an attorney or party prepared in anticipation of litigation are generally protected, and you can only reach them by showing you have a substantial need for them and cannot get their equivalent any other way without real hardship. Even then, the lawyer's own opinions, mental impressions, and legal theories stay off-limits.
What can I ask a testifying expert's lawyer about their conversations with the expert?
Not much. Communications between an attorney and a testifying expert are protected except for three things: what the expert was paid, the facts or data the attorney gave the expert to consider, and the assumptions the attorney asked the expert to rely on in forming an opinion.
What happens if I accidentally hand over privileged material during discovery?
You can notify the receiving party of the claim and the basis for it. Once notified, that party has to promptly return, sequester, or destroy the material and any copies, stop using or disclosing it until the claim is resolved, and take reasonable steps to retrieve it if it was already passed along to someone else.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Advisory Committee
Notes, and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: scope of discovery nevadaproportionality discovery nevadawork product doctrine nevadaexpert witness discovery nevadaprotective order nevada discoveryprivilege log nevada