State Rules on e-Discovery as compiled by Thomas Allman

Alaska

The Alaska Supreme Court circulated proposals to adopt amendments based on the Federal Amendments and is currently considering further action.

Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court adopted a comprehensive set of e-discovery rules which became effective on January 1, 2008 and largely mirror the Federal Amendment. See: See Arizona State Rules

Arkansas

Arkansas adopted a state counterpart to proposed Federal Rule 502 which allows a claim of non-waiver after production of privilege and work product information based on "all material circumstances." The rule also provides that disclosure to a state office or agency does not waive the privilege as to non-governmental entities. See Arkansas State Rules.

California

California Judicial Council proposals, as amended by post-publication negotiations, have been included in Assembly Bill No. 926 (Amended July 2, 2008), and passed by the Senate and the Assembly. If signed the changes would be effective in January, 2009 with related Civil Rule amendments currently proposed to be enacted effective at the same time. A copy of the enrolled Bill is available here.

Colorado

The Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure agreed early in 2007 to wait and see how the federal amendments were working before taking any action.

Connecticut

A set of draft proposals for e-discovery rule changes has been adopted by a Connecticut Bar Association committee and will next be considered by Commission on Courts which may - or may not – pass it to thethe Rules Committee of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Delaware

A member of the relevant Delaware Bar Committee reports that the State Rules Committee sees no need to act at this time.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia is required by law to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has stayed the deadline for compliance to enable the Superior Court and its advisory committee time to revise the local rules.

Florida

A Subcommittee of the Rules Committee has been considering possible amendments based on the 2006 Federal Amendments.

Idaho

Idaho amended the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure effective July 1, 2006 to include provisions modeled on the 2006 Amendments and Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4. See Idaho State Rules.

Illinois

A subcommittee of the Judicial Conference is reported to be evaluating the adaptability of the 2006 Amendments.

Indiana

The Indiana Supreme Court adopted E-Discovery Amendments largely replicating the Federal Amendments which became effective on January 1, 2008. Click here for details.

Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court adopted a series of amendments modeled on the 2006 Amendments for use in Iowa which became on effective May 1, 2008.

Kansas

The Legislature has held hearings on Kansas Bill SB 434 which would amend the Kansas Rules to largely mirror the Federal Amendments.

Louisiana

The legislature has adopted some, but not all, of the 2006 Federal Amendments. See Louisiana State Rules.

Maryland

The Court of Appeals (the highest court) adopted amendments effective January 1, 2008 which largely mirror the Federal Amendments and are available here..

Massachusetts

The Advisory Committee on Rules has discussed the need for e-discovery rules and has decided to monitor experience under the Federal rules as well as experience in the state courts. In the meantime, the Chief Justice has distributed and posted copies of the Guidelines issued by the Conference of Chief Justice Guidelines.

Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court requested public comment (which were due by August 1, 2008) on proposals similar to the Federal Amendments. Click here for more information.

Minnesota

The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure which largely mirror the Federal E-Discovery Amendments. Click here for more information.

Mississippi

Mississippi adopted e-discovery amendments in 2003 to its Rule 26 (“General Provisions Governing Discovery”).

Missouri

The Judicial Rules Committee is considering the issue of the need for e-discovery rules.

Montana

The Supreme Court of Montana adopted amendments to its civil rules which incorporated all of the 2006 Amendments except the modifications to the "meet and confer" obligations, which have no counterpoint under Montana law. Click here for more information.

Nebraska

The Supreme Court has adopted amendments to Rules 33, 34 and 34A (non-party) effective in June, 2008 which largely parallel some of the federal amendments. Click here for more information.

Nevada

There are no current ongoing efforts to consider e-discovery rules.

New Hampshire

Superior Court Rule 62 was amended effective March 1, 2007 to require discussion of key e-discovery topics at meet and confers, including accessibility, costs, form of production and the need for and extent of litigation holds. Click here for more information.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Civil Rules, effective September 1, 2006, incorporate the provisions of the 2006 Amendments with certain minor exceptions.

New Mexico

The Rules Committee is working on series of proposed e-discovery amendments based on the Federal Amendments.

New York

The state bar CPLR advisory Committee has prepared a possible set of e-discovery rule amendments, which have been approved by the State Bar Association. Legislative action in 2008 is unlikely. The Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (trial level commercial courts) were amended in 2006 (§202.70) to require consultations regarding e-discovery issues prior to a preliminary conference.

North Carolina

Reportedly there is no interest at the Supreme Court in developing statewide e-discovery rules at this time. The North Carolina Business Courts have include provisions relating to discussion of e-discovery issues in their rules. Click here for more information.

North Dakota

The Joint Procedure Committee has adopted the 2006 Amendments without the provisions for "meet and confers" and scheduling conferences, effective March 1, 2008. Click here for more information.

Ohio

Amendments to the Civil Rules, largely based on the Federal Amendments, became effective in Ohio on July 1, 2008. Click here for more information.

Oregon

The Council on Court Procedures has thus far not identified discovery as a subject of rulemaking during this cycle

South Carolina

The South Carolina Bar Practice and Procedure Committee has created a subcommittee to study and evaluate the issue of e-discovery amendments.

Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court has requested comments on a series of proposed e-discovery amendments with a deadline of November 26, 2008. Click here for more information.

Texas

Texas was the first state to enact e-discovery rules, having added §§196.3 and 196.4 to its Civil Procedure code in 1999.

Utah

The Utah Supreme Court approved a set of e-discovery amendments (2007-03-28) largely based on the Federal Rules, effective on November 1, 2007. See: Utah State Rules.

Vermont

The Rules Committee plans to take up consideration of e-discovery amendments in 2008

Virginia

The Virginia Advisory Committee has released a revised draft of e-discovery amendments which was open for Public Comments until March, 2008 after which time they may be recommended to the Judicial Council of Virginia and ultimately the Supreme Court. The comments received included the suggestion that Rule 4:1(b)(7) preclude the duty to preserve discovery of information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost unless, after a motion, good cause is shown to order it preserved.

Washington

A subcommittee of the Washington State Rules Committee has proposed adoption of the provisions of the Federal Amendments. The proposal will be considered by the Supreme Court in 2008 and would not come into effect until 2009 at the earliest.