Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 26
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule incorporates the 2010 and 2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 with the following exceptions: 1) subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) does not include references to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; 2) the timing of expert disclosures in subsection (a)(2)(D) differs; 3) the subsection entitled "Early Rule 34 Requests" is omitted because there is no discovery moratorium in the Superior Court; and 4) amendments to section (f) are not incorporated because this section was previously omitted. New subsection (b)(5)(C) was created to address an issue raised by a 2015 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Instead of referencing Federal Rule of Evidence 502 in Rule 16(b)(4)(C), Rule 26(b)(5)(C) includes the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e). These new provisions govern the manner and means by which litigants and the court can control the effects of disclosure of privileged or protected information. Agreements reached under Rule 26(b)(5)(C) can be included in a scheduling order issued under Rule 16(b)(4).
COMMENT
Subsection (a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) is inconsistent with Superior Court practice, and would ultimately slow down the process of discovery. The Superior Court rules allow parties to begin discovery at the filing of the complaint; this process gives parties greater options for early discovery than those available under the Federal Rules.
Subsection (a)(2) is new. It requires a written report from an expert; however, it clarifies the federal rule in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Notes and case decisions, which explain that legal counsel are not prohibited from being substantively involved with the preparation of the expert's written report so long as the substance and conclusions are the expert's own.
Subsection (a)(3). As it relates to pretrial disclosures, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) is incorporated in the pretrial statement required under Rule 16.
Subsection (b). The Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain a lengthy discussion of the 2006 amendments to the federal rule addressing the discovery of electronically-stored information. Because these 2015 amendments to the Superior Court Rules closely follow the 2006 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments, parties and counsel should refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Advisory Committee Notes for guidance. In particular, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26(b) address the potential for costshifting in the context of discovery and state as follows:
The good-cause inquiry and consideration of the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) limitations are coupled with the authority to set conditions for discovery. The conditions may take the form of limits on the amount, type, or sources of information required to be accessed and produced. The conditions may also include payment by the requesting party of part or all of the reasonable costs of obtaining information from sources that are not reasonably accessible. A requesting party's willingness to share or bear the access costs may be weighed by the court in determining whether there is good cause. But the producing party's burdens in reviewing the information for relevance and privilege may weigh against permitting the requested discovery.