(1) A party is under a duty to supplement at appropriate intervals its disclosures under Rule 16.1(a) if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. With respect to testimony of an expert from whom a report is required under Rule 16.1(a)(2)(B) the duty extends both to information contained in the report and to information provided through a deposition of the expert, and any additions or other changes to this information shall be disclosed by the time the party’s disclosures under Rule 16.1(a)(3) are due. (2) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production or request for admission, if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (f) Form of Responses. Answers and objections to interrogatories or requests for production shall identify and quote each interrogatory or request for production in full immediately preceding the statement of any answer or objections thereto. Answers, denials, and objections to requests for admission shall identify and quote each request for admission in full immediately preceding the statement of any answer, denial, or objection thereto. [Added; effective February 11, 1986; Amended effective January 1, 2005.] (g) Signing of Disclosures, Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections. (1) Every disclosure and report made pursuant to Rule 16.1(a)(1), (a)(3) and 16.1(c) shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose address shall be stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the disclosure and state the party’s address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made. (2) Every discovery request, response or objection made by a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose address shall be stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the request, response, or objection and state the party’s address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the request, response, or objection, is: (A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, obscure, equivocate or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party making the request, response or objection and a party shall not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until it is signed. (3) If without substantial justification a certification is made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who made the certification, the party on whose behalf the disclosure, request, response, or objection was made, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. [Added; effective January 1, 1988; Amended effective January 1, 2005.] (h) Demand for Prior Discovery. Whenever a party makes a written demand for discovery which took place prior to the time the party became a party to the action, each party who has previously made discovery disclosures, responded to a request for admission or production or answered interrogatories shall make available to the demanding party the document(s) in which the discovery disclosures and responses in question are contained for inspection and copying or furnish to the demanding party a list identifying each such document by title and upon further demand shall furnish to the demanding party, at the expense of the demanding party, a copy of any listed discovery disclosure or response specified in the demand or, in the case of document disclosure or request for production, shall make available for inspection by the demanding party all documents and things previously produced. Further, each party who has taken a deposition shall make a copy of the transcript thereof available to the demanding party at the latter’s expense. [Added; effective February 11, 1986; Amended effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment The initial-disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a) of the federal rules, as amended in 2000, are adopted as modified in Rule 16.1(a) of the Nevada rules; only other discovery methods are retained as part of Rule 26(a) of the Nevada rules. Subdivision (b) retains the Nevada rule as to the scope of discovery—‘‘any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.’’ Thus, the Nevada rule does not conform to the 2000 amendments to its federal counterpart which limits the scope of discovery to ‘‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,’’ except upon a showing of ‘‘good cause.’’ The insurance discovery provisions in subdivision (b)(2) of the former rule have been amended and moved to Rule 16.1(a)(1)(D). Subdivision (b)(2)(iii) does not incorporate the weighing provisions that were added to the federal rule in 1993 but instead retains the language in the Nevada rule, which was based on the federal provision as it was adopted in 1983. Expert discovery under subdivision (b)(4) is modified consistent with expert disclosure under revised Rule 16.1(a)(2). The provisions of former subdivision (b)(5) regarding demands for expert witness lists and the exchange of reports and writings, are repealed as unnecessary under the new expert disclosure provisions in Rule 16.1. New subdivision (b)(5) conforms to the federal rule. Subdivision (c) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendment to subdivision (c) of the federal rule. The amendment requires that the parties meet and confer in an effort to resolve discovery disputes before seeking a protective order from the court. The party filing a motion for a protective order must include a certificate stating that the parties met and conferred, or, if the moving party is unable to get opposing parties to meet and confer regarding the dispute, indicating the moving party’s efforts in attempting to arrange such a meeting. Subdivision (d) is amended to clarify that once the parties have complied with the provisions of subdivision (a) of the rule, the parties may use any method of formal discovery provided in the rules in any sequence unless the court orders otherwise. The provision is similar to subdivision (d) of the federal rule, but it does not include the first sentence of the federal rule, which provides that with certain exceptions, the parties may not commence formal discovery until after they have met and conferred as required by subdivision (f) of the federal rule (cf. NRCP 16.1(b)). The parties must comply with subdivision (a) of the Nevada rule. Subdivision (e) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendments to subdivision (e) of the federal rule. The rule is amended to provide that the requirement for supplementation applies to disclosures required by Rule 16.1(a). Paragraph (1) is amended to address when a party must supplement disclosures made under Rule 16.1(a) and to require supplementation of expert reports and depositions. Paragraph (2) is amended to address the duty to supplement responses to formal discovery requests including interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. Like its federal counterpart, paragraph (2) does not include deposition testimony. However, under paragraph (1), a party must supplement information provided through a deposition of an expert from whom a report is required under Rule 16.1(a)(2)(B). Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the former rule are repealed. Subdivision (f) of the former rule is repealed as duplicative of provisions in Rules 16 and 16.1. To avoid redesignating the remaining subdivisions, former subdivision (f) is replaced with the language from former subdivision (j) regarding the form of responses to discovery requests. There is no federal counterpart to this provision. Subdivision (g) is amended to conform to the 1993 amendments to subdivision (g) of the federal rule. Paragraph (1) is added to require signatures on certain disclosures required by Rule 16.1. Paragraph (2) retains language from the former rule for signatures on discovery requests, responses, and objections with some revisions to conform to the 1993 amendments to the federal rule. Paragraph (3) retains language from the former rule regarding sanctions if a certification is made in violation of the rule with modifications to make it consistent with Rules 37(a)(4) and 37(c)(1)—in combination, these rules provide sanctions for violation of the rules regarding disclosures and discovery matters. Subdivision (h) is amended to address technical issues. It has no federal counterpart. The provision is retained because it clarifies responsibilities to exchange discovery with new parties. Subdivision (i) of the former rule is repealed in favor of a strong scheduling order under Rule 16 that will set discovery deadlines. RULE 27. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL (a) Before Action. (1) Petition. A person who desires to perpetuate testimony regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the State may file a verified petition in a district court. The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show: 1, that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a court of the State but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought, 2, the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner’s interest therein, 3, the facts which the petitioner desires to establish by the proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring to perpetuate it, 4, the names or a description of the persons the petitioner expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known, and 5, the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which the petitioner expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition, for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony. (2) Notice and Service. The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the petition. At least 20 days before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner provided in Rule 4(d) for service of summons; but if such service cannot with due diligence be made upon any expected adverse party named in the petition, the court may make such order as is just for service by publication or otherwise, and shall appoint, for persons not served in the manner provided in Rule 4(d), an attorney who shall represent them, and, in case they are not otherwise represented, shall cross-examine the deponent. If any expected adverse party is a minor or incompetent the provisions of Rule 17(c) apply.

Vegas Law