(10) A statement as to whether or not a jury demand has been filed. After any subsequent case conference, the parties must supplement, but need not repeat, the contents of prior reports. Within 7 days after service of any case conference report, any other party may file a response thereto objecting to all or a portion of the report or adding any other matter which is necessary to properly reflect the proceedings occurring at the case conference. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (d) Discovery Disputes. (1) Where available or unless otherwise ordered by the court, all discovery disputes (except those presented at the pretrial conference or trial) must first be heard by the discovery commissioner. (2) Following each discovery motion before a discovery commissioner, the commissioner must prepare and file a report with the commissioner’s recommendations for a resolution of each unresolved dispute. The commissioner may direct counsel to prepare the report. The clerk of the court shall forthwith serve a copy of the report on all parties. Within 5 days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to the recommendations. Written authorities may be filed with an objection, but are not mandatory. (3) Upon receipt of a discovery commissioner’s report and any objections thereto, the court may affirm, reverse or modify the commissioner’s ruling, set the matter for a hearing, or remand the matter to the commissioner for further action, if necessary. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (e) Failure or Refusal to Participate in Pretrial Discovery; Sanctions. (1) If the conference described in Rule 16.1(b) is not held within 180 days after an appearance by a defendant, the case may be dismissed as to that defendant upon motion or on the court’s own initiative, without prejudice, unless there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for a continuance beyond this period. (2) If the plaintiff does not file a case conference report within 240 days after an appearance by a defendant, the case may be dismissed as to that defendant upon motion or on the court’s own initiative, without prejudice. (3) If an attorney fails to reasonably comply with any provision of this rule, or if an attorney or a party fails to comply with an order entered pursuant to subsection (d) of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon a party or a party’s attorney, or both, appropriate sanctions in regard to the failure(s) as are just, including the following: (A) Any of the sanctions available pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) and Rule 37(f); (B) An order prohibiting the use of any witness, document or tangible thing which should have been disclosed, produced, exhibited, or exchanged pursuant to Rule 16.1(a). [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (f) Complex Litigation. In a potentially difficult or protracted action that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems, the court may, upon motion and for good cause shown, waive any or all of the requirements of this rule. If the court waives all the requirements of this rule, it shall also order a conference pursuant to Rule 16 to be conducted by the court or the discovery commissioner. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (g) Proper Person Litigants. When a party is not represented by an attorney, the party must comply with this rule. [As amended; effective January 1, 1988.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment Subdivision (a) is amended to conform to the 1993 and 2000 amendments to Rule 26(a) of the federal rules, with some notable exceptions. Consistent with the federal rule, the revised rule imposes an affirmative duty to disclose certain basic information without a formal discovery request. Subdivision (a)(1) incorporates the federal rule but adopts the “subject matter” standard for the scope of discovery that is retained in revised Rule 26(b) of the Nevada rules. Paragraph (1) also retains the Nevada requirement that impeachment witnesses and documents be disclosed, whereas the federal rule exempts impeachment evidence. Paragraph (1)(C) is intended to apply to special damages, not general or other intangible damages. Paragraph (1)(D) expands on the federal rule by requiring disclosure and production of liability policy denials, limitations or reservations of rights. Subdivision (a)(2) imposes an additional duty to disclose information regarding expert testimony and requires that certain experts must prepare a detailed and complete written report. But unlike its federal counterpart, subdivision (a)(2)(B) allows the court to relieve a party of this duty upon a showing of good cause. The requirement of a written report applies only to an expert who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony. Given this limitation, a treating physician could be deposed or called to testify without any requirement for a written report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) advisory committee note (2000). The expert witness disclosures and written reports are not part of the initial disclosure under paragraph (1). Instead, subdivision (a)(2)(C) contemplates that the court will set the time for such disclosures but that they must be made at least 90 days before the discovery cut-off date absent extraordinary circumstances. This provision differs from its federal counterpart, which allows the disclosures to be made at least 90 days before the trial date or the date the case is to be ready for trial. Subdivision (a)(3) retains the Nevada requirement for pretrial disclosure of impeachment and rebuttal evidence and the names of witnesses who have been subpoenaed for trial. Unlike the federal rule, there is no requirement that the information disclosed be filed with the court. Subdivision (b) is repealed in its entirety. New subdivision (b)(1) incorporates the requirement under former Rule 16.1(a) of attendance at an early case conference. It is based on Rule 26(f) of the federal rules, but is tailored to practice in state court and, unlike the federal rule, it requires the parties to meet in person. The rule also retains deadlines that are unique to Nevada. Subdivision (b)(2) incorporates provisions of Rule 26(f) of the federal rules regarding planning for discovery. But the Nevada provision expands the subjects to be discussed at the early case conference beyond those listed in the federal rule to include an estimated time for trial. Subdivision (c) is amended to reflect the new disclosure provisions of subdivision (a). The requirements for a case conference report are more detailed and extensive than those in Rule 26(f) of the federal rules and include specific time periods for the close of discovery, filing of motions to amend pleadings or add parties, expert disclosures, and filing of dispositive motions. Subdivision (d) retains the Nevada provisions on discovery disputes with some revisions. RULE 16.2. DISCOVERY COMMISSIONERS (a) Appointment and Compensation. The court may appoint one or more discovery commissioners to serve at the pleasure of the court. In multi-judge districts, appointment shall be by the concurrence of a majority of all the judges of such district. The compensation of a discovery commissioner may not be taxed against the parties, but when fixed by the court must be paid out of appropriations made for the expenses of the district court. (b) Powers and Duties. As directed by the court, a discovery commissioner may enter scheduling orders pursuant to Rule 16(b) and preside at the case conferences and discovery resolution conferences required by Rule 16.1. A discovery commissioner also may conduct settlement conferences pursuant to an agreement by the parties or an order of the district court. The discovery commissioner has and shall exercise the power to administer oaths and affirmations, to regulate all proceedings in every conference before him, and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties. [Added; effective January 1, 1988; Amended effective May 16, 1991.] IV. PARTIES

Vegas Law