Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.04

As amended through October 28, 2024
Rule 11.04 - Inapplicability to Discovery

Rules 11.01 -.03 do not apply to discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Rules 26 through 37.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.04

Amended effective 8/1/2000.
This rule amendment is patterned after 4th Dist. R. 1.01(c) & (e).
The Task Force believes that the simple additional requirement for signing pleadings, widely followed in practice, should best be made part of this rule governing signing of pleadings, motions and other papers.
Advisory Committee Comments--2000 Amendments
Rule 11 is amended to conform completely to the federal rule. While Rule 11 has worked fairly well in its current form under the Supreme Court's guidance in Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1990), the federal rules have been amended and create both procedural and substantive differences between state and federal court practices. Additionally, the Minnesota Legislature has created a statutory mechanism that follows the federal procedure, resulting in a confusing array of practice requirements and remedies. See Minnesota Statutes, section 549.211. On balance, the Committee believes that the amendment of the Rule to conform to its federal counterpart makes the most sense, given this Committee's long-standing preference for minimizing the differences between state and federal practice unless compelling local interests or long-entrenched reliance on the state procedure makes changing a rule inappropriate.
It is the intention of the Committee that the revised Rule would modify the procedure for seeking sanctions, but would not significantly change the availability of sanctions or the conduct justifying the imposition of sanctions. Courts and practitioners should be guided by the Uselman decision, cited above, and should continue to reserve the seeking of sanctions and their imposition for substantial departures from acceptable litigation conduct.
Advisory Committee Comment-2010 Amendment
Rule 11.01 is amended to add the last sentence. This amendment makes it clear that "signing" in accordance with a rule allowing for filing and service by electronic means where authorized by an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court is treated as a signature for the purpose of Rule 11 or other provision in the rules. This amendment is intended to facilitate a pilot project on electronic filing in one or two districts, but is designed to be a model for the implementation of electronic filing and service if the pilot project is made permanent and statewide.
Advisory Committee Comment-2012 Amendment
Rule 11.01 is amended to add the second paragraph. The sole purpose of the amendment is to make explicit the status of "signatures" affixed to pleadings and other documents that are electronically served. Whatever means is used to sign these documents, whether quill pen and ink, facsimile of a signature, or an indication that the document is signed (such as a "/s/ Pat Smith" notation), each will be treated the same way and deemed to be signatures for all purposes under the rule.
Advisory Committee Comments-2015 Amendments
The only substantive amendment to Rule 11 is found in Rule 11.02, which adds an additional certification made upon the signing of a pleading. Under this provision, signing a pleading is deemed to be a certification that the pleading does not contain any restricted identifiers in violation of Rule 11 of the General Rules of Practice. Rule 11.03 is amended in 2015 to recognize that relief is available under other rules including Gen. R. Prac. 11.04 regarding improper submission of restricted identifiers.
The remaining amendments to Rule 11 are not substantive in nature or intended effect. The replacement of "paper" with "document" is made through these rules, and simply advances precision in choice of language. Most documents will not be filed as "paper" documents, so paper is retired as a descriptor of them.
"Self-represented litigant" is used uniformly throughout the judicial branch, and is preferable to "non-represented party" and "pro se party," both to avoid a Latin phrase not used outside legal jargon and because it facilitates the drafting of clearer rules.