Advisory Committee Notes
The 2011 amendments to Rule 37 make two principal changes. First, the amended Rule 37 consolidates provisions for motions for a protective order (formerly set forth in Rule 26(c)) with provisions for motions to compel. By consolidating the standards for these two motions in a single rule, the Advisory Committee sought to highlight some of the parallels and distinctions between the two types of motions and to present them in a single rule.
Second, the amended Rule 37 incorporates the new Rule 26 standard of "proportionality" as a principal criterion on which motions to compel or for a protective order should be evaluated. As to motions to compel, Rule 37(a)(3) requires that a party moving to compel discovery certify to the court "that the discovery being sought is proportional under Rule 26(b)(2)." Rule 37(b) makes clear that a lack of proportionality may be raised as ground for seeking a protective order, indicating that "the party seeking the discovery has the burden of demonstrating that the information being sought is proportional."
Paragraph (h) and its predecessors have long authorized the court to take the drastic steps authorized by paragraph (e)(2) for failure to disclose as required by the rules or for failure to amend a response to discovery. The federal counterpart to this provision is similar. Yet the courts historically have limited those more drastic sanctions to circumstances in which a party fails to comply with a court order, persists in dilatory conduct, or acts in bad faith.
The 2011 amendments have brought new attention to paragraph (h). Those amendments, which emphasized greater and earlier disclosure, also emphasized the enforcement of that requirement by prohibiting the party from using the undisclosed information as evidence at a hearing. The committee intends that courts should impose sanctions under (e)(2) for failure to disclose in only the most egregious circumstances. In most circumstances exclusion of the evidence seems an adequate sanction for failure to disclose or failure to amend discovery.
Paragraph (a) adopts the expedited procedures for statements of discovery issues formerly found in Rule 4-502 of the Code of Judicial Administration. Statements of discovery issues replace discovery motions, and paragraph (a) governs unless the judge orders otherwise.
Former paragraph (a)(2), which directed a motion for a discovery order against a nonparty witness to be filed in the judicial district where the subpoena was served or deposition was to be taken, has been deleted. A statement of discovery issues related to a nonparty must be filed in the court in which the action is pending.
Former paragraph (h), which prohibited a party from using at a hearing information not disclosed as required, was deleted because the effect of non-disclosure is adequately governed by Rule 26(d). See also The Townhomes At Pointe Meadows Owners Association v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC, 2014 UT App 52 ¶14. The process for resolving disclosure issues is included in paragraph (a).