Also known as: FRCP 26 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 · Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 · Rule 26 · FRCP Rule 26
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule establishing the framework for pretrial discovery in civil actions. It sets required initial disclosures, defines the scope of permissible discovery, imposes limits on cumulative or burdensome requests, and provides protections for work product and expert communications.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fidelity Trust served a request on Frontier Capital seeking every internal email from the past decade. Frontier moved for a protective order. The court denied the request because the proposed discovery fell outside the scope permitted by the rule.
Ferrum Metals produced a privileged memo during document review. Upon discovery of the error the next morning, its counsel immediately notified opposing counsel and filed a motion to enforce the clawback order. The court held that the prompt steps preserved the protection.
Felipe Figueroa served thirty interrogatories on Fisher Foods without stipulation or court order. Fisher moved to strike the excess five. The court limited the interrogatories to twenty-five under the numerical cap.
Flora Ford served an interrogatory asking Frontier Capital to state its legal theory for denying liability. Frontier objected that the question sought a legal conclusion. The court overruled the objection because the interrogatory related to a matter within the permitted scope.
The court entered a scheduling order directing the parties to complete all Rule 26 disclosures by a set date and to limit subsequent discovery to specific categories. Fabian Flynn later sought broader document requests. The court enforced the order and denied the additional requests.
Freya Freeman, in-house counsel for Fidelity Trust, interviewed mid-level engineers about a product defect at the direction of superiors. The resulting memos were withheld from discovery. The court upheld the protection because the communications were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
The requesting party must demonstrate substantial need for the materials and an inability to obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Opinion work product revealing mental impressions receives heightened protection.
Supporting sources
Rule 26(b)(5)(B) supplies the procedure for notifying the receiving party and demanding return or sequestration after an inadvertent production. Compliance with that procedure satisfies the prompt-rectification requirement of Rule 502(b)(3).
…National Council on Crime and Delinquency that a "clear and convincing" standard be adopted. Model Rules for Juvenile Courts, Rule 26, p. 57 (1969). See generally Cohen, The Standard of Proof in Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 567 (1970). [^maj-4]: (Majority n. 4) Appellee, New…
…was reaffirmed recently in United States v. Nobles , 422 U. S. 225, 236-240 (1975), and has been substantially incorporated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (3).[^maj-7] As we stated last Term, the obligation imposed by a tax summons remains "subject to the traditional privileges and limitations." United States v. Euge , 444 U. S. 707,…
…learn whether NASCO could afford to pay for the station, the court canceled the depositions consistent with its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
…therefore any additional discovery would be unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, burdensome and expensive within the meaning of Rule 26
Supporting sources
Absent stipulation or court order, a party may serve no more than twenty-five interrogatories. Additional interrogatories are permitted only when consistent with the proportionality and scope limits of Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).
Supporting sources
The disclosure must identify the subject matter on which the expert is expected to present evidence and provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.
Supporting sources
Rule 16(c)(2)(F) expressly authorizes the court to control and schedule discovery, including orders that affect disclosures and discovery conducted under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37.
Supporting sources