Also known as: FRCP 26 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A provision of the federal rules of civil procedure that authorizes a court to limit the extent of discovery. When the proposed discovery falls outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1) or when its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit, the court may restrict or prohibit the requests.
Raymond Ramos sued Reliance Insurance seeking extensive internal memos on policy pricing. Reliance objected that the requests reached far beyond the claims at issue and would require review of thousands of unrelated files. The court limited the production to documents directly tied to Ramos's policy and denied the remainder as outside permitted discovery.
Rachel Ramirez's counsel produced a privileged email during a large document review. Upon discovery of the error the next day, counsel immediately notified opposing counsel and demanded return of the document under the applicable clawback procedure. The court held that the prompt action preserved the privilege.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Robert Rivera served twenty-eight interrogatories on Riverside Healthcare without seeking leave. Riverside moved for a protective order citing the numerical cap. The court struck the excess interrogatories and required Rivera to narrow his requests before serving any additional ones.
Rita Russell served an interrogatory asking Regal Apparel to state its legal position on whether certain conduct constituted a breach. Regal objected that the question called for a legal conclusion. The court overruled the objection and ordered an answer because the interrogatory sought application of law to fact.
Rebecca Ross and Raven Logistics appeared for a pretrial conference. The court entered an order capping the number of depositions and requiring phased production of electronic records. The order structured the remaining discovery to focus on key issues before trial.
Roger Ramirez sought production of an attorney's interview notes taken from potential witnesses shortly after an accident. The opposing party refused on the ground that the notes reflected litigation preparation. The court sustained the objection and required a showing of substantial need before ordering production.
The requesting party must demonstrate good cause after the producing party shows undue burden or cost. The court then weighs proportionality factors including whether the information is cumulative or obtainable from other sources.
Supporting sources
Rule 26(b)(5)(B) supplies the procedure that Evidence Rule 502(b)(3) incorporates for prompt rectification. A party that follows the Rule 26 clawback steps after an inadvertent production satisfies the rectification element needed to avoid waiver.
Supporting sources
No. The default limit is twenty-five including discrete subparts. Leave may be granted only when consistent with the scope and proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).
Supporting sources
The court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete or until a pretrial conference. This timing device prevents premature disclosure of legal theories before facts are developed.
Supporting sources
Rule 16(c)(2)(F) expressly authorizes the court to include orders affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 when entering a pretrial order. The scheduling conference therefore becomes the primary vehicle for tailoring discovery obligations to the needs of the case.
Supporting sources
…questions (Rule 31), interrogatories (Rule 33), and requests for admission (Rule 36), while enjoying protection from harassment (Rule 26(c)), and possibly obtaining costs and attorney's fees for some of the work involved (Rules 37(a)(4), (b)-(d)). Moreover, a change of venue may be possible. 28 U. S. C. § 1404. In state…