26.01 Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and, requests for admission.
Rule 26.General Provisions Governing Discovery
Last amended August 20, 1984 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 26 lists the available discovery methods, defines the scope of discovery as anything relevant and not privileged, lets a court issue protective orders and limit discovery it finds cumulative or disproportionate, sets a duty to supplement certain responses, and requires every discovery request, response, or objection to be signed as a certification that it is warranted and not made for an improper purpose.
Full Text of Rule 26
26.02 Discovery Scope and Limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
1 IN GENERAL. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things, and electronically stored information, i.e. information that is stored in an electronic medium and is retrievable in perceivable form, and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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 and cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, e.g., where the party requesting discovery shows that the likely benefit of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely burden or expense, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues. The court shall specify conditions for the discovery. The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdivision 26.01 and this subdivision shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or, (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under subdivision 26.03.
2 [Reserved]
3 TRIAL PREPARATION: MATERIALS. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (4) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including an attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order. The provisions of Rule 37.01
4 apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement previously made is (A) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded. (4) TRIAL PREPARATION: EXPERTS. Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision (1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows: (A)
i A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. In addition, upon request in an interrogatory, for each person so identified, the party shall disclose the witness's qualifications (including a list of all publications authored in the previous ten years), a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
ii A party may also depose any other party's expert witness expected to testify at trial. (B) A party may not discover the identity of, facts known by, or opinions held by an expert who has been consulted by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not to be called as a witness at trial except as provided in Rule 35.02 or upon a showing that the party seeking discovery cannot obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. (C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (4)(A)(ii) and (4)(B) of this rule; and (ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (4)(A)(ii) of this rule the court may require, and with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (4)(B) of this rule the court shall require, the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
5 CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR PROTECTION OF TRIAL PREPARATION MATERIALS. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under the rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege protection. If information is produced in discovery that 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 and may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved. A receiving party may promptly present the information to the court under seal for determination of the claim. If the receiving party disclosed the information before being notified, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it. The producing party must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
26.03 Protective Orders. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
1 that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court; (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; (8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 37.01 (4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
26.04 Sequence and Timing of Discovery. Unless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party's discovery.
26.05 Supplementation of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement the response to include information thereafter acquired, except as follows:
1 A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement the party's response with respect to any question directly addressed to (A) the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters; and (B) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of that testimony.
2 A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response if the party obtains information upon the basis of which the party (A) knows that the response was incorrect when made; or (B) knows that the response though correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment.
3 A duty to supplement responses also may be imposed by order of the court, agreement of the parties, or at any time prior to trial through new requests for supplementation of prior responses.
26.06 Discovery Conference.
1 At any time after commencement of an action the court may direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference on the subject of discovery. The court shall do so upon motion by the attorney for any party if the motion includes:
A A statement of the issues as they then appear;
B A proposed plan and schedule of discovery;
C Any limitations proposed to be placed on discovery;
D Any other proposed orders with respect to discovery; and
E A statement showing that the attorney making the motion has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with opposing attorneys on the matters set forth in the motion. Each party and the party's attorney are under a duty to participate in good faith in the framing of a discovery plan if a plan is proposed by the attorney for any party. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties. Objections or additions to matters set forth in the motion shall be served not later than 10 days after service of the motion.
2 In any case in which an issue regarding the discovery of electronically stored information is raised or is likely to be raised, a judge should encourage counsel to meet and confer in order to voluntarily come to an agreement on the discovery of electronically stored information and on a schedule that will enable discovery to be completed within the time period specified in the Rules of Civil Procedure or by a scheduling order.
3 In any case in which an issue regarding the discovery of electronically stored information is raised or is likely to be raised, and in which counsel have not reached agreement, a judge upon its own initiative or upon a motion by the attorney for any party may order the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference and, after reasonable notice to and an opportunity to be heard from the parties, may issue an order governing the discovery of electronically stored information.
4 The judge upon its initiative, or upon a motion by the attorney, may direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a further conference to ascertain whether counsel have reached any agreements and to address any disputes regarding electronic discovery issues, e.g., (a) the electronically stored information to be exchanged including information that is not readily accessible; (b) the form of production; (c) the steps the parties will take to segregate and preserve relevant electronically stored information; (d) the procedures to be used if privileged electronically stored information is inadvertently disclosed; and (e) the allocation of costs.
5 Following the discovery conference, the court shall enter an order tentatively identifying the issues for discovery purposes; establishing a plan and schedule for discovery; setting limitations on discovery, if any; and, determining such other matters, including the allocation of expenses, as are necessary for the proper management of discovery in the action. An order may be altered or amended whenever justice so requires.
6 The shifting of discovery costs to the requesting party or the sharing of those costs between the requesting and responding party should be considered when electronically stored information sought is not reasonably accessible information and when restoration and production of responsive electronically stored information from a small sample of the requested electronically stored information would not be sufficient. When these conditions are present, the judge should consider the following factors in determining whether any or all discovery costs should be borne by the requesting party: the extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information; the availability of such information from other sources; the total cost of production compared to the amount in controversy; the total cost of production compared to the resources available to each party; the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and the relative benefits of obtaining the information.
7 Subject to the right of a party who properly moves for a discovery conference to a prompt convening of the conference, the court may combine the discovery conference with a pretrial conference authorized by Rule 16.
26.07 Signing of Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections. Every request for discovery or response or objection thereto made by a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the request, response, or objection and state the party's address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that the attorney or party has read the request, response, or objection, and that to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry it is: (1) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and, (3) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party making the request, response or objection and a party shall not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until it is signed. If a certification is made in violation of the rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who made the certification, the party on whose behalf the request, response, or objection is made, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments [2000].
The Supreme Court in Hawkins v. Superior Motors, Inc., 999 S.W.2d 769 (1999), noted that -- unlike federal procedure -- state rules contained no provision for privilege logs. New rule 26.02(5) adopts the federal language, making this mechanism available in state courts.
Advisory Commission Comments [2001].
The Commission is of the opinion that a party has a duty under the criteria in Rule 26.05(2) to supplement responses made during a deposition.
Advisory Commission Comments [2002].
Addition of the word "also" in Rule 26.05(3) makes clear that subsections (1) and (2) require supplementation without regard to a court order and the like.
Advisory Commission Comments [2003].
The introduction to Rule 26.02 is amended to delete a reference to nonexistent Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.1, a proposal withdrawn by the Supreme Court during the 2002 legislative session.
Amendment History
- Added by order entered January 31, 1984, effective August 20, 1984.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 26.01 lists the discovery methods available: depositions by oral examination or written questions, written interrogatories, requests to produce documents or things or to enter land for inspection, physical and mental examinations, and requests for admission. Rule 26.02(1) defines the scope broadly — parties may obtain discovery on any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the discovering party's own claim or defense or to any other party's, and it is not a valid objection that the information sought would be inadmissible at trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The court can limit the frequency or extent of discovery it finds unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, more easily obtained from another source, already pursued to a sufficient degree, or unduly burdensome given the needs of the case.
Rule 26.02(3) protects documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial — ordinary work product — unless the requesting party shows a substantial need for the material and an inability to get its substantial equivalent without undue hardship, and even then the court must guard against disclosing an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. Rule 26.02(4) governs discovery of expert witnesses: a party may use interrogatories to learn the identity of any expert the other side expects to call at trial, the subject of that testimony, the substance of the expected facts and opinions, the expert's qualifications, recent publications, other cases testified in, and compensation, and may also depose that expert. An expert who was consulted in anticipation of litigation but will not testify is largely off-limits absent a showing that the facts or opinions cannot be obtained by other means, and a party who obtains that kind of discovery must generally pay the expert a fair share of the resulting fees and expenses.
Rule 26.02(5) requires a party withholding information as privileged or protected trial-preparation material to say so expressly and describe the withheld material well enough for other parties to assess the claim without revealing the protected information itself, and it creates a claw-back procedure when privileged material is produced by mistake. Rule 26.03 lets the court issue a protective order — barring the discovery entirely, limiting its terms, restricting who may be present, or directing that certain matters not be inquired into — on a showing of good cause to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Rule 26.04 lets discovery proceed in any sequence and provides that one party's ongoing discovery does not delay any other party's.
Rule 26.05 imposes a duty to supplement a discovery response in specific situations: identifying persons with knowledge of discoverable matters, identifying expected expert witnesses and the substance of their testimony, and correcting a response the party later learns was wrong or has become materially incomplete. Rule 26.06 lets the court convene a discovery conference to set a discovery plan and schedule, address issues specific to electronically stored information, and allocate discovery costs. Rule 26.07 requires every discovery request, response, or objection made by an attorney or an unrepresented party to be signed, certifying that it is warranted by existing law, not made for an improper purpose such as harassment or delay, and not unreasonable or unduly burdensome given the needs of the case — an unsigned paper must be struck unless it is promptly signed once the omission is noticed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does discovery have to be admissible at trial to be obtainable?
No. Rule 26.02(1) allows discovery of any relevant, non-privileged matter, and it is not a valid objection that the information sought would be inadmissible at trial, so long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Can I discover the opinions of an expert the other side consulted but will not call at trial?
Generally not. Rule 26.02(4) protects the identity, facts, and opinions of a non-testifying expert who was consulted in anticipation of litigation, unless the requesting party shows it cannot obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
What has to happen when I withhold a document as privileged?
Rule 26.02(5) requires you to say so expressly and describe the document well enough — without revealing the privileged content — for the other side to evaluate the claim. This is commonly done through a privilege log.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: scope of discoverywork product protectionexpert discoveryprotective orderprivilege logduty to supplement
Advisory Commission Comments.
Rules 26 and 30 do not repeal T.C.A. Tit. 24, Ch. 9, but are cumulative thereto.
Rules 26 through 37, inclusive, relating to depositions and discovery, have been amended [in 1979] to conform substantially but not identically to Rules 26 through 37, inclusive, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each rule should be compared carefully with its Federal counterpart to determine the differences if any. [1979.] Subdivisions (3) and (4) of Rule 26.02 provide detailed rules in the heretofore uncharted areas of discovery of work product and expert testimony. [1979.] Rule 26.05 is a detailed rule dealing with supplementation of responses previously made. [1979.]
26.02(1): A paragraph virtually identical to the 1983 federal amendment is suggested. The Commission is of the view that unbounded discovery can and has led to abuse. The court can limit unnecessary and unduly burdensome discovery under the criteria set forth in the amendment. [1984.] (4): The [1987] revision should reduce meritless claims and defenses by protecting consultation with experts without fear of disclosing their identity. The Commissioners found in practice that allowing discovery of the identity of a mere consulting expert substantially interfered with trial preparation. Consequently, the amendment would prevent discovery except in rare instances. [1987.] Depositions of trial experts are now a matter of right. [1997.]
26.04: Rule 26.04 restates the text of T.C.A. § 24-1208 [repealed] with the following differences: The Rule permits the use of the deposition of a managing agent of an individual proprietorship which is a party. The Rule also adds a provision that the deposition of a witness may be used at the trial when: (1) the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of trial, or (2) the witness has a right to claim exemption from attendance at the trial, or (3) when the parties consent to the use. Paragraph (e) of T.C.A. § 24-1208 [repealed] appears as Rule 26.06.
26.05: Rule 26.05 restates the substance of T.C.A. § 24-1210 [repealed].
26.06: The court can order a discovery conference or a party can obtain a conference by a properly detailed motion, including efforts made to reach agreement on planning and scheduling. Note that the court's order must identify - at least tentatively - the "issues for discovery purposes." [1984.]
26.07: This [1984] amendment places a burden on the lawyer to insure that the philosophy of the discovery scope amendment is adhered to. The Commission favors the concept that a lawyer's signature constitutes a certificate as to the enumerated matters, with sanctions sufficient to encourage compliance. [1984.]