Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.07

As amended through July 3, 2024

Rule 26.07 - Signing of Discovery Requests, Responses and Objections

(a) Signature Required; Effect of Signature . Every disclosure under Rule 26.01(a) or 26.01(c) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by a least one attorney of record in the attorney's own name-or by the party personally if self-represented-and must state the signer's address, e-mail address, 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:

(1) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and

(2) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and

(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

(b)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.

(c) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification is made in violation of this 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 reasonable attorney fees.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.07

Amended effective 7/1/2015; amended effective 7/1/2021.

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.