Minn. R. Civ. P. 16.03

As amended through October 28, 2024

Rule 16.03 - Subjects for Consideration

At any conference under this rule consideration may be given, and the court may take appropriate action, with respect to:

(a) the formulation and simplification of the issues, including the elimination of frivolous claims or defenses;

(b) the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(c) the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof, stipulations regarding the authenticity of documents, and advance rulings from the court on the admissibility of evidence;

(d) the avoidance of unnecessary proof and of cumulative evidence, and limitations or restrictions on the use of testimony under Rule 702 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence;

(e) the appropriateness and timing of summary adjudication under Rule 56;

(f) the control and scheduling of discovery, including orders affecting discovery pursuant to Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37;

(g) the identification of witnesses and documents, the need and schedule for filing and exchanging pretrial briefs, and the date or dates for further conferences and for trial;

(h) the advisability of referring matters pursuant to Rule 53;

(i) settlement and the use of special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or rule;

(j) the form and substance of the pretrial order;

(k) the disposition of pending motions;

(l) the need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems;

(m) an order for a separate trial pursuant to Rule 42.02 with respect to a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or with respect to any particular issue in the case;

(n) an order directing a party or parties to present evidence early in the trial with respect to a manageable issue that could, on the evidence, be the basis for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.01 or an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02(b);

(o) an order establishing a reasonable limit on the time allowed for presenting evidence; and

(p) such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.

At least one of the attorneys for each party participating in any conference before trial shall have authority to enter into stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed. If appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by telephone in order to consider possible settlement of the dispute.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 16.03

Amended effective 1/1/2006.

Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
This change conformsRule 16.03to its federal counterpart. The rule is expanded to enumerate many of the functions with which pretrial conferences must deal. Although the courts have inherent power to deal with these matters even in the absence of a rule, it is desirable to have the appropriate subjects for consideration at pretrial conferences expressly provided for by rule. The federal changes expressly provide for discussion of settlement, in part, to remove any confusion over the power of the court to order participation in court-related settlement efforts. See, e.g., G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989); Strandell v. Jackson County, Ill. (In re Tobin), 838 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1988); Klothe v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1985); Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1984).
Advisory Committee Comment-2006 Amendment
Rule 16.03(n) is amended to reflect the new name for motions underRule 50.01as amended effective January 1, 2006.
Advisory Committee Comment-2007 Amendment
Rule 16.02is amended to allow the court to include provision for discovery of electronically stored information. Although this discovery may not require special attention in a pretrial order, in many cases it may be helpful to address this subject separately. The rule also permits the pretrial order to memorialize the court's approval of agreements relating to claims of privilege. The rule specifically contemplates that parties may desire to permit documents to be reviewed or sampled, in order to permit the requesting parties to assess the reasonable need for further production without prejudice to any privilege claims.