What costs cases under Rule 26 is this: Minnesota’s initial disclosures are self-executing and nobody sends you a reminder. No request triggers them. No scheduling order has to come first. They run off the answer date, and if you miss a witness, an expert, a document category, or a damages computation, Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.03(a) supplies the consequence with no motion to compel first:
If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26.01 or 26.05, the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
That’s an exclusion sanction that kicks in on its own terms. It’s also why the rest of this article matters.
What do Minnesota’s initial disclosures actually require, and when are they due?
Four categories, and a clock that runs from the answer date, not from a conference with opposing counsel.
Rule 26.01(a)(1) requires a party, “without awaiting a discovery request,” to provide the other parties with (A) the name and, if known, address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information along with the subjects of that information, that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, other than solely for impeachment; (B) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, ESI, and tangible things in the party’s possession, custody, or control that it may use to support its claims or defenses, again excepting impeachment-only use; (C) a computation of each category of damages claimed, with the supporting evidentiary material made available as under Rule 34, “including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered”; and (D) any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment, for inspection and copying as under Rule 34.
A federal practitioner will recognize those four categories. The timing won’t look familiar. Rule 26.01(a)(3):
A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 60 days after the original due date when an answer is required, unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless an objection is made in a proposed discovery plan submitted as part of a civil cover sheet required under Rule 104 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts.
You don’t wait for a Rule 26(f)-style conference to start the clock, and there’s no 14-day tail after one. The trigger is the original due date when an answer is required. A party first served or joined later has 30 days after being served or joined. Rule 26.01(a)(4).
Two more pieces of the Minnesota rule you should have down. Rule 26.01(a)(3) lets a party object to initial disclosures through a proposed discovery plan submitted with the Rule 104 civil cover sheet, and the court then “must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time for disclosure.” And 26.01(a)(5) shuts down the excuses lawyers actually offer:
A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosures.
All disclosures under Rule 26.01 must be in writing, signed, and served, unless the court orders otherwise. Rule 26.01(d). They aren’t filed. Rule 5.04(b) excludes Rule 26 disclosures, expert disclosures and reports, depositions, interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission from the filing requirement absent a court order or rule, and Rule 5.04(c)(3) authorizes the administrator to reject a discovery request or response tendered without the court’s express permission.
Which cases are exempt from initial disclosure?
Rule 26.01(a)(2) exempts twenty-two categories of proceeding from disclosures under Rule 26.01(a), (b), and (c) unless the court orders otherwise, and several are Minnesota-specific. The list runs from administrative-record review, in rem forfeiture actions arising from a state statute, habeas and other post-conviction challenges, and pro se prisoner actions, through actions to enforce or quash an administrative summons or subpoena, ancillary proceedings, arbitration-award enforcement, family court actions under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 301–378, Torrens actions, conciliation court appeals, forfeitures, housing court removals, harassment proceedings, name changes, default judgments, foreign-judgment docketing and re-docketing, trustee appointments, condemnation appeals, confessions of judgment, implied consent, restitution judgments, and tax court filings.
Read the list. Don’t assume. The exemption also carries through to the conference obligation in Rule 26.06(a) and to the discovery moratorium in Rule 26.04(a).
When may I actually start serving discovery?
Later than you think. Rule 26.04(a) imposes a moratorium:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 26.02, 30.01, 31.01(a), 33.01(a), 36.01, and 45, parties may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred and prepared a discovery plan as required by Rule 26.06(c) except in a proceeding exempt from initial disclosure under Rule 26.01(a)(2), or when allowed by stipulation or court order.
“From any source” includes Rule 45 subpoenas to non-parties. That’s the sentence that trips up the lawyer who serves a records subpoena on a treating provider the week the answer comes in.
There’s one release valve. Under Rule 26.04(b), more than 21 days after the summons and complaint are served on a party, a Rule 34 request may be delivered to that party by any other party, and by that party to any plaintiff or other served party. But the request “is considered to have been served when the parties have conferred and prepared a discovery plan as required by Rule 26.06(c).” Delivering early gets the response clock started earlier only in the sense that the clock starts at the conference. It doesn’t speed anything up.
Once discovery opens, sequence is unrestricted: methods “may be used in any sequence,” and one party’s discovery doesn’t delay another’s. Rule 26.04(c).
What is the scope of discovery, and what does proportionality require?
Relevance to a claim or defense, plus proportionality measured by six factors. Rule 26.02(b):
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Three structural limits sit under that standard. Rule 26.02(b)(1) gives the court authority to establish or alter limits on the number of depositions and interrogatories, the length of depositions under Rule 30, and the number of requests under Rule 36 — on motion or on its own initiative after reasonable notice. Rule 26.02(b)(2) is the two-tier ESI provision: a party need not provide discovery of ESI from sources it identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, the producing party bears the burden of that showing on a motion, and the court may still order production on a showing of good cause and proportionality. Rule 26.02(b)(3) requires the court to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or available from a more convenient source, where the requesting party has had ample opportunity to obtain it, or where the burden is outside the scope permitted by 26.02(b).
Minnesota covers insurance twice. Beyond the automatic disclosure in 26.01(a)(1)(D), Rule 26.02(c) lets any party require any other party to disclose coverage, limits, and amounts paid and payable, and to obtain the policy itself under Rule 34. The catch: the disclosure doesn’t make the information admissible.
How does expert discovery work under Rule 26?
Minnesota runs two expert-discovery tracks at once, and out-of-state counsel routinely see only the first.
Rule 26.01(b) is the report track. A party must disclose the identity of any witness it may use at trial under Minn. R. Evid. 702, 703, or 705. If the witness is retained or specially employed to give expert testimony, or is an employee whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony, the disclosure must come with a written report prepared and signed by the witness containing six things: all opinions and the basis and reasons for them; the facts or data considered; any exhibits used to summarize or support them; the witness’s qualifications including publications from the previous 10 years; a list of all other cases in which the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the previous 4 years; and a statement of compensation. Rule 26.01(b)(2)(A)–(F). A witness who doesn’t have to provide a report gets the lighter treatment in 26.01(b)(3): subject matter, plus a summary of the facts and opinions. Absent stipulation or order, disclosures are due “at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial,” and rebuttal disclosures within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure. Rule 26.01(b)(4).
Rule 26.02(e) is the older track, and it’s still in the rule. Its first paragraph provides that “[a] party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” Then: “Upon motion, the court may order further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such provisions, pursuant to Rule 26.02(e)(3), concerning fees and expenses, as the court may deem appropriate.” Rule 26.02(e)(1)(B). Non-testifying retained experts are discoverable only as provided in Rule 35.02 or on a showing of exceptional circumstances. Rule 26.02(e)(2). And fee-shifting for expert discovery is largely mandatory: unless manifest injustice would result, the court “shall” require the party seeking discovery to pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery under 26.02(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2). Rule 26.02(e)(3).
What that means day to day: in most cases, expert depositions in Minnesota state court happen by stipulation or scheduling order, not by unilateral notice, because the text conditions “further discovery by other means” on a motion. And Rule 26.02(e) has three numbered paragraphs, and none of them addresses draft reports or communications between counsel and a testifying expert. So don’t import the federal work-product protections for those materials without checking what your scheduling order and any stipulated protective order actually say. Rule 26.05(b), for its part, assumes expert depositions happen: it extends the duty to supplement a Rule 26.01(b)(2) report both to the report and to “information given during the expert’s deposition,” with additions and changes disclosed by the time pretrial disclosures are due.
What do I have to do when I withhold something as privileged?
Claim it expressly and describe it. Rule 26.02(f)(1):
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.
Rule 26.02(f)(2) supplies the clawback, and it binds the receiving lawyer right away: “After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has and may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved.” The receiving party may present the material to the court under seal for a determination; if it already disclosed the material, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it; and the producing party must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. Nothing in the paragraph decides whether the privilege survives. It tells you what to do in what order. It doesn’t tell you who wins on waiver.
What has to be in the discovery plan, and when is it due?
The parties must confer “as soon as practicable — and in any event within 30 days from the initial due date for an answer,” unless the proceeding is exempt under 26.01(a)(2) or the court orders otherwise. Rule 26.06(a). At the conference the parties consider the nature and basis of claims and defenses and settlement possibilities, make or arrange for the Rule 26.01(a) and (b) disclosures, discuss preservation, and develop a proposed plan. Attorneys of record and self-represented litigants who have appeared are jointly responsible for setting it up. Rule 26.06(b). And:
A written report outlining the discovery plan must be filed with the court within 14 days after the conference or at the time the action is filed, whichever is later.
The plan must state the parties’ views on six subjects: changes to the timing, form, or requirement of Rule 26.01 disclosures, including when initial disclosures were or will be made; the subjects on which discovery is needed, completion timing, and phasing; ESI issues including form of production; privilege and trial-preparation-material issues, including any agreed post-production claw-back procedure the parties want embodied in an order; changes to the discovery limitations imposed by rule or local rule; and any other orders the court should issue under Rule 26.03 or Rules 16.02 and 16.03. Rule 26.06(c)(1)–(6).
Failing to participate in good faith carries its own cost provision. Rule 37.06 authorizes the court, after an opportunity to be heard, to require the party or attorney to pay another party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure.
Separately, Rule 26.06(d) lets any party move the court for a discovery conference, and the court “shall” convene one if the motion includes the seven items the rule lists, including a statement of the issues, a proposed plan and schedule, ESI issues, privilege issues, proposed limitations, other proposed orders, and a statement showing the movant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with opposing counsel. Objections or additions are served within 14 days after service of the motion.
What does signing a discovery response certify?
More than most lawyers stop to think about. Under Rule 26.07(a), every Rule 26.01(a) and (c) disclosure and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name, with address, e-mail address, and telephone number. The signature certifies, after reasonable inquiry, that a disclosure is complete and correct as of the time made, and that a request, response, or objection is consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for change; not interposed for an improper purpose; and “not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.”
An unsigned paper imposes no duty to respond, and the court “must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.” Rule 26.07(b). If a certification violates the rule, the court, on motion or on its own, “must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both,” which may include the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees caused by the violation. Rule 26.07(c).
Protective orders, supplementation, and the scheduling order
Rule 26.03(a) authorizes a protective order on motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, for good cause shown, from the court where the action is pending or, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken. The rule lists eight forms of relief, from barring the discovery entirely, to specifying terms and conditions “including a designation of the time or location or the allocation of expenses,” to limiting the subject matter, to sealing a deposition, to protecting trade secrets, to simultaneous sealed exchange. Cost-shifting is on the menu in the text. You don’t have to argue your way to it. Expenses on a protective-order motion are governed by Rule 37.01(d), the same fee-shifting provision that governs motions to compel.
The duty to supplement in Rule 26.05(a) reaches disclosures under Rule 26.01 and responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, and it runs “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,” unless the corrective information has otherwise been made known to the other parties during discovery or in writing.
One last practice point that isn’t in Rule 26 at all. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.03(a) requires the court to enter a scheduling order no sooner than the due date of the last Rule 104 civil cover sheet and no longer than 90 days after the action has been filed, and 111.03(b) requires that order to establish a discovery completion date. Whatever Rule 26 says about timing, the scheduling order is the document that governs your case. So are the assigned judge’s standing orders and practice pointers, which often impose requirements the rules don’t and which control where they conflict with a lawyer’s assumptions. They’re published on the district’s page at mncourts.gov. Read them before your first discovery conference. That part isn’t optional.
If the other side doesn’t respond, see compelling discovery under Rule 37. For the mechanics of the requests themselves, see written discovery under Rules 33, 34, and 36 and depositions under Rule 30. For what happens when evidence gets lost, our client-facing discussion of discovery sanctions and spoliation covers ground this article doesn’t, and the Rule 35 medical examination piece handles the one discovery device Rule 26.02(a) lists that isn’t covered here.
Madgett Law, LLC associates with lawyers on Minnesota matters and appears as local counsel. If you’ve got a Minnesota discovery question in front of you, send us a message.
Sources: Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.01(a)(1)–(5), 26.01(b)(1)–(5), 26.01(c), 26.01(d); 26.02(a), 26.02(b) and (b)(1)–(3), 26.02(c), 26.02(d), 26.02(e)(1)–(3), 26.02(f)(1)–(2); 26.03(a)–(c); 26.04(a)–(d); 26.05(a)–(b); 26.06(a)–(d); 26.07(a)–(c); Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(b), 5.04(c)(3); Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.03(a), 37.06; Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 104; Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.03(a)–(b). Rule text: the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes’ publication of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and General Rules of Practice, August 10, 2026. This article is general legal information about Minnesota procedure, not legal advice; it creates no attorney–client relationship and promises no outcome.