Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.1
Advisory Committee Note 2019 Amendment Subsection (a). Rule 16.1(a) borrows language but differs in key respects from its federal counterpart, FRCP 26(a). Rule 16.1(a)(l)(A)(i) retains Nevada's initial disclosure requirement as to witnesses, which is broader than the federal rule in that it reaches witnesses with knowledge relevant to impeachment or rebuttal. Rule 16.1(a)(l)(A)(ii) incorporates language from the federal rule requiring that a party disclose materials that it may use to support its claims or defenses. However, the disclosure requirement also includes any record, report, or witness statement in any form, including audio or audiovisual form, concerning the incident that gives rise to the lawsuit. The initial disclosure requirement of a "record" or "report"
under Rule 16.1(a)(l)(A)(ii) includes but is not limited to: incident reports, records, logs and summaries, maintenance records, former repair and inspection records and receipts, sweep logs, and any written summaries of such documents. Documents identified or produced under Rule 16.1(a)(l)(A)(ii) should include those that are prepared or exist at or near the time of the subject incident. The reasonable time required for production of such documents will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A party who seeks to avoid disclosure based on privilege must provide a privilege log.
Rule 16.1(a)(l)(A)(iii) is new. An "appropriate" authorization must comply with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.
Rule 16.1(a)(1)(B) includes a list of case types that are exempt from the initial disclosure requirements. Family law actions are subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.205. Probate proceedings are exempted from these requirements as an initial matter; but under NRS 155.170 and 155.180, courts remain free to apply these provisions as they deem appropriate.
Rule 16.1(a)(2) incorporates the federal rule requirement that the report of a retained expert witness disclose "the facts or data considered by the witness" in forming his or her opinions. The former language-"the data or other information considered by the witness"-has been construed broadly by most federal courts to include drafts of expert reports and virtually any communications between counsel and the expert. The new language avoids that result. The 2019 amendments do not abrogate the 2012 drafter's notes to Rule 16.1.
Rule 16.1(a)(2)(E) has been revised to include cases in which
simultaneous disclosure of expert testimony may not be appropriate. In such a case, if the parties are unable to stipulate to the timing of such disclosures, either or both may seek a court order to schedule the disclosures of each expert.
An initial expert may also serve as a rebuttal expert and offer rebuttal opinions so long as those opinions are disclosed at the time of the rebuttal expert disclosure, or as a required supplement in accordance with Rule 26(e)(2).
Unlike its federal counterpart, Rule 16.1(a)(3)(A)(i) retains the requirement that a party's pretrial disclosures identify those witnesses who have been subpoenaed for trial.
Subsection (b). The amendments reorganize Rule 16.1(b) in the style of the federal rules. Rule 16.1(b)(1) is new, and it specifies the circumstances when a case conference is not required. Rule 16.1(b)(2) contains new provisions addressing the timing of supplemental case conferences. Rule 16.1(b)(3) makes clear that parties are not required to attend a case conference in person, although the court can order attendance. Rule 16.1(b)(4) includes the federal requirements that parties discuss and address issues pertaining to the preservation of discoverable information, including electronically stored information, and issues pertaining to privilege and work-product claims (e.g., inadvertent disclosure).
Subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g). The changes in Rules 16.1(c) and 16.1(e) are stylistic. The amendments relocate the report and recommendation, objection, response, and review sections of the former NRCP 16.1(d) into Rule 16.3. Rule 16.1(g) has been reworded for enhanced clarity.
Drafter's Notes-2012 Amendment
[Subsection (a)(2)(C)] specifies the information that must be included in a disclosure of expert witnesses who are not otherwise required to provide detailed written reports. A treating physician is not a retained expert merely because the patient was referred to the physician by an attorney for treatment. These comments may be applied to other types of non-retained experts by analogy. In the context of a treating physician, appropriate disclosure may include that the witness will testify in accordance with his or her medical chart, even if some records contained therein were prepared by another healthcare provider. A treating physician is not a retained expert merely because the witness will opine about diagnosis, prognosis, or causation of the patient's injuries, or because the witness reviews documents outside his or her medical chart in the course of providing treatment or defending that treatment. However, any opinions and any facts or documents supporting those opinions must be disclosed in accordance with [subsection (a)(2)(C)].