Like a host of other states, Minnesota is amending its civil procedure rules to emphasize proportionality, collaboration, and informality in the discovery process. These changes should help litigants and courts resolve cases speedily, effectively, and fairly by narrowing the parameters of e-discovery. The new rules go into effect on July 1, 2013.

PROPORTIONALITY

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 1 previously mirrored its federal counterpart by requiring that the rules should “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” The amended rule adds: “It is the responsibility of the court and the parties to examine each civil action to assure that the process and the costs are proportionate to the amount in controversy and the complexity and importance of the issues” by considering the “needs of the case, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, and complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” In effect, our Rules Committee has made proportionality a central guiding principle for all civil litigation in Minnesota.

Proportionality is especially emphasized in the discovery process. Amended Rule 26.02 states that “[d]iscovery must be limited to matters that would enable a party to prove or disprove a claim or defense or impeach a witness and must comport with the factors of proportionality” (emphasis added). The permissible scope of discovery in the new rule is arguably much narrower than the current Minnesota and federal rules, which permit discovery of essentially anything that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” While battles over the scope of discovery are as old as litigation itself, we can expect new skirmishes as litigants attempt to define the limits prescribed by the new rule.

MORE DISCLOSURE

The new Rule 26 will mirror the expansive disclosures of the federal rule by requiring initial, expert-witness, and pretrial disclosures. Similarly, Rule 37.03 will follow the federal rule by authorizing courts to sanction any party who does not disclose information or witnesses by

1. Precluding the party from using that information or witness.
2. Ordering the party to pay the other party’s “reasonable expenses.”
3. Informing the jury of the party’s failure, or (4) imposing “other appropriate sanctions.”

COLLABORATION AND INFORMALITY

Amended Rule 26.06 tracks the federal rule by requiring the parties to “confer [on discovery] as soon as practicable — and in any event within 30 days from the initial due date for an answer,” then file a discovery plan. The court may sanction a party that does not cooperate in framing a discovery plan. Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.06.

Finally, Rule 115.04 will allow courts to resolve motions to compel through an informal telephonic conference with the court, an option not previously in either Minnesota or federal court.

With these amendments, Minnesota has joined the nationwide groundswell of support for proportionality, collaboration, and early judicial involvement in determining the scope of permissible discovery. As commentators mull amendments to the federal rules to address the many challenges of e-discovery, Minnesota may provide an example of how changes in civil-procedure rules can help litigants and the courts place rational limits on discovery.