May 2, 2011 § Leave a comment

The MRCP sets out the rules that establish discovery in our courts.

Just as important as the MRCP are the Uniform Chancery Court Rules (UCCR), where some critical discovery provisions reside.  UCCR 1.10 provides:

A. All discovery must be completed within ninety days from service of an answer by the applicable defendant. Additional discovery time may be allowed with leave of court upon written motion setting forth good cause for the extension. Absent special circumstances the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial.

B. When responding to discovery requests, interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, the responding party shall, as part of the responses, set forth immediately preceding the response the question or request to which such response is given. Responses shall not be deemed to have been served without compliance to this subdivision.

C. No motion to compel shall be heard unless the moving party shall incorporate in the motion a certificate that movant has conferred in good faith with the opposing attorney in an effort to resolve the dispute and has been unable to do so. Motions to compel shall quote verbatim each contested request, the specific objection to the request, the grounds for the objection and the reasons supporting the motion.

I have enforced that 90-day deadline whenever asked to do it.  It’s there, and it’s enforceable.  It’s also there to expedite litigation, which is almost always a good thing for the litigants.

As for the 60-day requirement for disclosure of experts, I posted about it here.

I’ve noticed some younger lawyers in our district not complying with 1.10(B).  To save yourself some trouble, get counsel opposite to email the discovery requests to you so that you don’t have to retype them.

Week before last I had a motion to compel presented that did not repeat the discovery request or response.  Let me assure you that it is always counterproductive to put the judge to unnecessary inconvenience and trouble, particularly when you have not complied with the clear requirement of the rules.

Tagged: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading DISCOVERY AND THE UCCR at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.


%d bloggers like this: