A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement previously made is (A) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.
If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
Discovery materials shall be filed with the court only when ordered by the court or when required by law. If the original of a deposition is not in the possession of a party who intends to offer it in evidence at a hearing, that party may give notice to the party in possession of it that the deposition will be needed at the hearing. Upon receiving such notice the party in possession of the deposition shall either make it available to the party who intends to offer it or produce it at the hearing.
Neb. Sup. Ct. R. 6-326
COMMENTS TO RULE 26
26(a) This subsection provides a catalog of the discovery devices, and is new to Nebraska law. Although there is no limit on the frequency of use of these methods, the limit on interrogatory questions in Rule 33 will restrict the extent of discovery by interrogatory.
26(b)(1) and (2) The definition of the scope of discovery in subsection (1) follows former Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1267.02 (Repealed 1982). The provision of subsection (2) was taken from the federal rules and follows the rule established in Walls v. Horback, 189 Neb. 479, 203 N.W.2d 490 (1973).
26(b)(3) Subsection (3) provides for protection of material often described as an attorney's work product, and follows the language of the federal rule. Prior Nebraska law on discovery of work product was established in Haarhues v. Gordon, 180 Neb. 189, 141 N.W.2d 856 (1966). A provision similar but not identical to the second paragraph of subsection (3) was found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1222.02 (Repealed 1982). That section, however, applied only to statements by parties and provided only the sanction of exclusion at trial. The language found in subsection (3) was adopted to maintain uniformity of language, to authorize a wider range of sanctions, and to cover statements by parties and nonparties.
26(b)(4) Subsection (4) on experts presents in the expanded language of the federal rules the idea found in former Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-705(2) (Repealed 1982). The committee recommended repeal of that section, a part of the Nebraska Evidence Rules, because it is a discovery procedure better codified here in the discovery rules.
26(c) This provision on sanctions is substantially similar to former Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1267.22 and 25-267.31 (Repealed 1982), but is expanded to include all kinds of discovery and not just depositions and interrogatories.
26(d) This is a new provision identical to the federal rules; it would not appear to change current Nebraska practice.
26(e) This provision on supplementation of discovery was added to the federal rules in 1970 and is now adopted for the first time in Nebraska. The proposed language follows the federal rule, except that in subsection (e)(3) the federal language allowing imposition of the duty to supplement by a request for supplementation was rejected.
26(f) A provision on service of discovery papers is necessary because Nebraska law prior to the adoption of these rules did not cover the topic. This is a nonuniform addition to the language of the federal rules because such a provision is in Rule 5(a) of the federal rules, while Nebraska has no similar rule.
26(g) This rule has been adopted because the routine filing of discovery material has unnecessarily overcrowded court files. Parties are now required to keep possession of the discovery material and file it only upon court order or when required by law. Discovery materials used to support or resist a motion for summary judgment shall not be filed separately; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332 (Amended 2001) makes clear that the court may consider them only if they are admitted as evidence.