Title: Amendments To The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Electronic Discovery

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC11-1542 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL 
PROCEDURE—ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY. 
 
[July 5, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) filed an 
out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 
to address discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
BACKGROUND 
 
The Committee proposes amendments to seven civil procedure rules: 1.200 
(Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions 
Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of 
Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 
1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena).  The 
Committee’s proposals were unanimously approved by The Florida Bar Board of 
 
 
- 2 - 
Governors.  After the Committee submitted its report to the Court, the Court 
published the proposed amendments in The Florida Bar News for public comment.  
We received and considered comments from several organizations and members of 
the Bar.  We have also considered the issues discussed during the oral argument in 
this case.  As explained below, we adopt the amendments as proposed by the 
Committee. 
AMENDMENTS 
 
First, rule 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure) is amended to allow the trial court to 
consider various issues related to electronic discovery during a pretrial conference, 
including the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact, the voluntary exchange of 
documents and electronically stored information, and stipulations regarding the 
authenticity of documents and electronically stored information; the need for 
advance rulings on the admissibility of some documents or ESI; and finally, 
specifically as to electronically stored information, the possibility of an agreement 
between the parties regarding the extent to which such information should be 
preserved and the form in which it should be produced.  Similarly, rule 1.201 
(Complex Litigation) is also amended to require the parties in a complex civil case 
to address the possibility of an agreement between them addressing the extent to 
which electronic information should be preserved and the form in which it should 
be produced. 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
Next, rule 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery) is amended to 
expressly authorize discovery of electronically stored information.  Rule 1.280 is 
also amended to add new subdivision (d), which provides some specific limitations 
on discovery of ESI; the subsequent subdivisions are relettered accordingly.  Under 
new subdivision (d)(1), a person may object to a discovery request seeking 
electronically stored information.  On a motion to compel discovery, or a motion 
for a protective order, the person from whom the discovery is sought must show 
that the information sought or the format requested is not reasonably accessible 
because of undue burden or cost.  If this showing is made, the court may 
nonetheless order the discovery if the requesting party shows good cause.  
However, the court may specify certain conditions of discovery, including ordering 
that some or all of the expenses incurred while complying with the discovery 
request be paid by the party seeking the discovery.  Under subdivision (d)(2) the 
court, in addressing a motion pertaining to discovery of ESI, must limit the 
frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that the information sought is: (i) 
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or 
in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or 
(ii) the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 
 
Rule 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties) and rule 1.350 (Production of 
Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes) 
 
 
- 4 - 
are both amended to allow for the production of electronically stored information, 
either as an answer to an interrogatory or in response to a specific request.  Both 
rules provide for a party to produce the ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily 
maintained or in a reasonably usable form. 
 
Rule 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions) is amended to provide 
that, absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions on a 
party for failing to provide electronically stored information that was lost as a 
result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.   
 
Finally, rule 1.410 (Subpoena) is amended to authorize a subpoena 
requesting electronically stored information.  A person receiving a subpoena may 
object to the discovery of the ESI.  The person from whom discovery is sought 
must show that the information or the form requested is not reasonably accessible 
because of undue costs or burden.  If that showing is made, the court may 
nonetheless order the discovery if the requesting party shows good cause and 
consistent with the limitations provided in rule 1.280(d)(2) discussed above.  The 
court may also specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or 
all of the expenses be paid by the party seeking the discovery. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth in 
the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions 
 
 
- 5 - 
are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes are offered for 
explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules.  These 
amendments shall become effective September 1, 2012, at 12:02 a.m. 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.  
 
 
Original Proceedings – The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Committee 
 
Kevin D. Johnson, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida and 
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Henry P. Trawick, Jr. of Henry P. Trawick, P.A., Sarasota, Florida; Ralph 
Artigliere, Blue Ridge, Georgia, William F. Hamilton of Quarles & Brady, LLP, 
Tampa, Florida and Ralph C. Losey of Jackson, Lewis, LLP, Orlando, Florida; 
Donald R. Fountain, Jr. of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-
Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, Florida; L. Johnson Sarber, III, Marks of Marks, 
Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Florida and L. Gino Marchetti, President, 
Lawyers for Civil Justice, Washington, D.C., 
 
  
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 6 - 
APPENDIX 
RULE 1.200. 
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE 
 
 
(a) 
Case Management Conference. At any time after responsive 
pleadings or motions are due, the court may order, or a party by serving a notice 
may convene, a case management conference. The matter to be considered shall be 
specified in the order or notice setting the conference. At such a conference the 
court may: 
  
 
 
(1) – (4) 
[No Change] 
  
 
 
(5) 
consider the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and 
voluntary exchange of documents and electronically stored information, and 
stipulations regarding authenticity of documents and electronically stored 
information; 
 
 
 
(6) 
consider the need for advance rulings from the court on the 
admissibility of documents and electronically stored information; 
 
 
 
(7) 
discuss as to electronically stored information, the possibility of 
agreements from the parties regarding the extent to which such evidence should be 
preserved, the form in which such evidence should be produced, and whether 
discovery of such information should be conducted in phases or limited to 
particular individuals, time periods, or sources; 
 
 
 
(58) schedule disclosure of expert witnesses and the discovery of 
facts known and opinions held by such experts;  
 
 
 
(69) schedule or hear motions in limine;  
 
 
 
(710) pursue the possibilities of settlement;  
 
 
 
(811) require filing of preliminary stipulations if issues can be 
narrowed;  
 
 
 
(912) consider referring issues to a magistrate for findings of fact; and  
 
 
 
(1013) schedule other conferences or determine other matters that 
may aid in the disposition of the action.  
 
 
- 7 - 
 
 
(b) – (d) 
[No Change]  
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
1971 - 1992 Amendments. [No Change]  
 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (a)(5) to (a)(7) are added to address issues 
involving electronically stored information.    
 
 
Court Commentary 
 
[No Change] 
 
 
RULE 1.201. 
COMPLEX LITIGATION 
 
 
(a)  
[No Change] 
 
 
(b) 
Initial Case Management Report and Conference.  The court shall 
hold an initial case management conference within 60 days from the date of the 
order declaring the action complex. 
 
 
 
(1) 
At least 20 days prior to the date of the initial case management 
conference, attorneys for the parties as well as any parties appearing pro se shall 
confer and prepare a joint statement, which shall be filed with the clerk of the court 
no later than 14 days before the conference, outlining a discovery plan and stating: 
 
 
 
 
(A) – (I) 
[No Change] 
 
 
 
 
(J) 
the possibility of obtaining agreements among the parties 
regarding the extent to which such electronically stored information should be 
preserved, the form in which such information should be produced, and whether 
discovery of such information should be conducted in phases or limited to 
particular individuals, time periods, or sources; 
 
 
 
 
(JK) suggestions on the advisability and timing of referring 
matters to a magistrate, master, other neutral, or mediation; 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
 
 
 
(KL) a preliminary estimate of the time required for trial; 
 
 
 
 
(LM) requested date or dates for conferences before trial, a 
final pretrial conference, and trial; 
 
 
 
 
(MN) a description of pertinent documents and a list of fact 
witnesses the parties believe to be relevant; 
 
 
 
 
(NO) number of experts and fields of expertise; and 
 
 
 
 
(OP)  any other information that might be helpful to the court 
in setting further conferences and the trial date. 
 
 
 
(2) – (3) 
[No Change] 
 
(c)  
The Case Management Order.  The case management order shall 
address each matter set forth under rule 1.200(a) and set the action for a pretrial 
conference and trial.  The case management order also shall specify the following: 
 
 
 
(1) 
Dates by which all parties shall name their expert witnesses and 
provide the expert information required by rule 1.280(b)(45).  If a party has named 
an expert witness in a field in which any other parties have not identified experts, 
the other parties may name experts in that field within 30 days thereafter.  No 
additional experts may be named unless good cause is shown. 
 
 
 
(2) – (6)  
[No Change] 
 
(d) 
[No Change] 
 
 
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(1)(J) is added to address issues 
involving electronically stored information.    
 
 
RULE 1.280. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY 
 
 
(a) 
[No Change]  
 
 
 
- 9 - 
 
(b) 
Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in 
accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:   
 
 
 
(1) – (2) 
[No Change]  
 
 
 
(3) 
Electronically Stored Information.  A party may obtain 
discovery of electronically stored information in accordance with these rules.  
 
 
 
(34) Trial Preparation: Materials. Subject to the provisions of 
subdivision (b)(45) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and 
tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and 
prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for 
that party’s representative, including that party’s attorney, consultant, surety, 
indemnitor, insurer, or agent, only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery 
has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue 
hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In 
ordering discovery of the materials when the required showing has been made, the 
court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, 
opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party 
concerning the litigation. Without the required showing a party may obtain a copy 
of a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that 
party. Upon request without the required showing a person not a party may obtain 
a copy of a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made 
by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for an order to obtain 
a copy. The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred 
as a result of making the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement 
previously made is a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by 
the person making it, or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording 
or transcription of it that is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by 
the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.  
 
 
 
(45) Trial Preparation: Experts. Discovery of facts known and 
opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of 
subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of 
litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:  
 
 
 
 
(A)(i) By interrogatories a party may require any other party to 
identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at 
trial and to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to 
 
 
- 10 - 
state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to 
testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.  
 
 
 
 
 
(ii) 
Any person disclosed by interrogatories or 
otherwise as a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial may be 
deposed in accordance with rule 1.390 without motion or order of court.  
 
 
 
 
 
(iii) 
A party may obtain the following discovery 
regarding any person disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person 
expected to be called as an expert witness at trial:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 
The scope of employment in the pending 
case and the compensation for such service.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 
The expert’s general litigation experience, 
including the percentage of work performed for plaintiffs and defendants.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 
The identity of other cases, within a 
reasonable time period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 
An approximation of the portion of the 
expert’s involvement as an expert witness, which may be based on the number of 
hours, percentage of hours, or percentage of earned income derived from serving 
as an expert witness; however, the expert shall not be required to disclose his or 
her earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services.  
 
An expert may be required to produce financial and business records only under 
the most unusual or compelling circumstances and may not be compelled to 
compile or produce nonexistent documents. Upon motion, the court may order 
further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and other 
provisions pursuant to subdivision (b)(45)(C) of this rule concerning fees and 
expenses as the court may deem appropriate. 
  
 
 
 
(B) 
A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an 
expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in 
anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be 
called as a witness at trial, only as provided in rule 1.360(b) or upon a showing of 
exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking 
discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.  
 
 
 
- 11 - 
 
 
 
(C) 
Unless manifest injustice would result, the court shall 
require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time 
spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (b)(45)(A) and (b)(45)(B) of 
this rule; and concerning discovery from an expert obtained under subdivision 
(b)(45)(A) of this rule the court may require, and concerning discovery obtained 
under subdivision (b)(45)(B) of this rule shall require, the party seeking discovery 
to pay the other party a fair part of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by 
the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.  
 
 
 
 
(D) 
As used in these rules an expert shall be an expert 
witness as defined in rule 1.390(a).  
 
 
 
(56) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation 
Materials. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under 
these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial 
preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe 
the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed 
in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will 
enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.  
 
 
(c) 
[No Change] 
  
 
(d) 
Limitations on Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.   
 
 
 
(1) 
A person may object to discovery of electronically stored 
information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible 
because of burden or cost.  On motion to compel discovery or for a protective 
order, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the information 
sought or the format requested is not reasonably accessible because of undue 
burden or cost.  If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order the 
discovery from such sources or in such formats if the requesting party shows good 
cause.  The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that 
some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is sought 
be paid by the party seeking the discovery. 
   
 
 
(2) 
In determining any motion involving discovery of electronically 
stored information, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery 
otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that (i) the discovery sought is 
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or 
in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or 
 
 
- 12 - 
(ii) the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering 
the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the 
importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery 
in resolving the issues. 
 
 
(de) Sequence and Timing of Discovery. Except as provided in 
subdivision (b)(45) or unless the court upon motion for the convenience of parties 
and witnesses and in the interest of justice orders otherwise, methods of discovery 
may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, 
whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not delay any other party’s discovery.  
 
 
(ef) 
Supplementing of Responses. A party who has responded to a 
request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no 
duty to supplement the response to include information thereafter acquired.  
 
 
(fg)  Court Filing of Documents and Discovery.  Information obtained 
during discovery shall not be filed with the court until such time as it is filed for 
good cause. The requirement of good cause is satisfied only where the filing of the 
information is allowed or required by another applicable rule of procedure or by 
court order. All filings of discovery documents shall comply with Florida Rule of 
Judicial Administration 2.425. The court shall have the authority to impose 
sanctions for violation of this rule. 
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
1972 - 2011 Amendments.  [No Change]  
  
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (b)(3) and (d) are added to address 
discovery of electronically stored information. 
 
 
The parties should consider conferring with one another at the earliest 
practical opportunity to discuss the reasonable scope of preservation and 
production of electronically stored information. These issues may also be 
addressed by means of a rule 1.200 or rule 1.201 case management conference.  
 
 
Under the good cause test in subdivision (d)(1),  the court should balance the 
costs and burden of the requested discovery, including the potential for disruption 
of operations or corruption of the electronic devices or systems from which 
discovery is sought, against the relevance of the information and the requesting 
party’s need for that information.  Under the proportionality and reasonableness 
 
 
- 13 - 
factors set out in subdivision (d)(2), the court must limit the frequency or extent of 
discovery if it determines that the discovery sought is excessive in relation to the 
factors listed.    
 
 
In evaluating the good cause or proportionality tests, the court may find its 
task complicated if the parties know little about what information the sources at 
issue contain, whether the information sought is relevant, or how valuable it may 
be to the litigation.  If appropriate, the court may direct the parties to develop the 
record further by engaging in focused discovery, including sampling of the 
sources, to learn more about what electronically stored information may be 
contained in those sources, what costs and burdens are involved in retrieving, 
reviewing, and producing the information, and how valuable the information 
sought may be to the litigation in light of the availability of information from other 
sources or methods of discovery, and in light of the parties’ resources and the 
issues at stake in the litigation.  
 
Court Commentary 
 
[No Change] 
 
 
RULE 1.340.  
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES 
 
 
(a) – (b) 
[No Change] 
 
 
(c) 
Option to Produce Records. When the answer to an interrogatory 
may be derived or ascertained from the records (including electronically stored 
information) of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed or from an 
examination, audit, or inspection of the records or from a compilation, abstract, or 
summary based on the records and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the 
answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the 
party to whom it is directed, an answer to the interrogatory specifying the records 
from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and offering to give the party 
serving the interrogatory a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the 
records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries is a sufficient 
answer.  An answer shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to 
locate and to identify, as readily as can the party interrogated, the records from 
which the answer may be derived or ascertained, or shall identify a person or 
persons representing the interrogated party who will be available to assist the 
interrogating party in locating and identifying the records at the time they are 
 
 
- 14 - 
produced.  If the records to be produced consist of electronically stored 
information, the records shall be produced in a form or forms in which they are 
ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. 
 
 
(d)  
[No Change] 
 
(e) 
Service and Filing. Interrogatories shall be arranged so that a blank 
space is provided after each separately numbered interrogatory. The space shall be 
reasonably sufficient to enable the answering party to insert the answer within the 
space. If sufficient space is not provided, the answering party may attach additional 
papers with answers and refer to them in the space provided in the interrogatories. 
The interrogatories shall be served on the party to whom the interrogatories are 
directed and copies shall be served on all other parties. A certificate of service of 
the interrogatories shall be filed, giving the date of service and the name of the 
party to whom they were directed. The answers to the interrogatories shall be 
served upon the party originally propounding the interrogatories and a copy shall 
be served on all other parties by the answering party. The original or any copy of 
the answers to interrogatories may be filed in compliance with Florida Rule of 
Judicial Administration 2.425 and rule 1.280(fg) by any party when the court 
should consider the answers to interrogatories in determining any matter pending 
before the court. The court may order a copy of the answers to interrogatories filed 
at any time when the court determines that examination of the answers to 
interrogatories is necessary to determine any matter pending before the court.  
  
  
Committee Notes 
 
 
1972 - 2011 Amendments. [No Change]  
 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to provide for the production 
of electronically stored information in answer to interrogatories and to set out a 
procedure for determining the form in which to produce electronically stored 
information. 
 
Court Commentary 
 
[No Change] 
 
  
 
 
- 15 - 
RULE 1.350. 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND  
 
 
 
ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER  
 
 
 
PURPOSES  
 
 
(a) 
Request; Scope. Any party may request any other party (1) to 
produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting in the 
requesting party’s behalf, to inspect and copy any designated documents, including 
electronically stored information, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, 
phono-records, and other data compilations from which information can be 
obtained, translated, if necessary, by the party to whom the request is directed 
through detection devices into reasonably usable form, that constitute or contain 
matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or 
control of the party to whom the request is directed; (2) to inspect and copy, test, or 
sample any tangible things that constitute or contain matters within the scope of 
rule 1.280(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party to 
whom the request is directed; or (3) to permit entry upon designated land or other 
property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served 
for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or 
sampling the property or any designated object or operation on it within the scope 
of rule 1.280(b).   
 
 
(b) 
Procedure. Without leave of court the request may be served on the 
plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after 
service of the process and initial pleading on that party. The request shall set forth 
the items to be inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe each 
item and category with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a 
reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection or performing the 
related acts. The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written 
response within 30 days after service of the request, except that a defendant may 
serve a response within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on 
that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. For each item or 
category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be 
permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons 
for the objection shall be stated. If an objection is made to part of an item or 
category, the part shall be specified. When producing documents, the producing 
party shall either produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or 
shall identify them to correspond with the categories in the request.  A request for 
electronically stored information may specify the form or forms in which 
electronically stored information is to be produced.  If the responding party objects 
to a requested form, or if no form is specified in the request, the responding party 
 
 
- 16 - 
must state the form or forms it intends to use.  If a request for electronically stored 
information does not specify the form of production, the producing party must 
produce the information in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or 
in a reasonably usable form or forms. The party submitting the request may move 
for an order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the 
request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested.  
 
 
(c)  
[No Change]  
 
 
(d) 
Filing of Documents. Unless required by the court, a party shall not 
file any of the documents or things produced with the response. Documents or 
things may be filed in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 
2.425 and rule 1.280(fg) when they should be considered by the court in 
determining a matter pending before the court. 
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
1972 - 2011 Amendments. [No Change] 
 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to address the production of 
electronically stored information.  Subdivision (b) is amended to set out a 
procedure for determining the form to be used in producing electronically stored 
information. 
 
 
RULE 1.380. 
FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS  
 
 
(a) – (d) 
[No Change]  
 
 
(e) 
Electronically Stored Information; Sanctions for Failure to 
Preserve.  Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions 
under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information 
lost as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information 
system.  
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
1972 – 2005 Amendments. [No Change] 
  
 
 
 
- 17 - 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivision (e) is added to make clear that a party 
should not be sanctioned for the loss of electronic evidence due to the good-faith 
operation of an electronic information system; the language mirrors that of Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).  Nevertheless, the good-faith requirement contained 
in subdivision (e) should prevent a party from exploiting the routine operation of 
an information system to thwart discovery obligations by allowing that operation to 
destroy information that party is required to preserve or produce. In determining 
good faith, the court may consider any steps taken by the party to comply with 
court orders, party agreements, or requests to preserve such information. 
 
 
RULE 1.410.  
SUBPOENA  
 
 
(a) – (b) 
[No Change] 
  
 
(c) 
For Production of Documentary Evidence.  A subpoena may also 
command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, 
documents (including electronically stored information), or tangible things 
designated therein, but the court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at 
or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, may (1) 
quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or (2) condition 
denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the 
subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, 
documents, or tangible things. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing 
electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form 
or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or 
forms.  A person responding to a subpoena may object to discovery of 
electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not 
reasonably accessible because of undue costs or burden.  On motion to compel 
discovery or to quash, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that 
the information sought or the form requested is not reasonably accessible because 
of undue costs or burden.  If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order 
discovery from such sources or in such forms if the requesting party shows good 
cause, considering the limitations set out in rule 1.280(d)(2). The court may specify 
conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses of 
the discovery be paid by the party seeking the discovery.   A party seeking a 
production of evidence at trial which would be subject to a subpoena may compel 
such production by serving a notice to produce such evidence on an adverse party 
as provided in rule 1.080. Such notice shall have the same effect and be subject to 
the same limitations as a subpoena served on the party.  
 
 
- 18 - 
 
 
(d) – (h) 
[No Change]  
 
Committee Notes 
 
 
1972 - 2012 Amendments. [No Change] 
 
 
2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to address the production of 
electronically stored information pursuant to a subpoena. The procedures for 
dealing with disputes concerning the accessibility of the information sought or the 
form for its production are intended to correspond to those set out in Rule 1.280(d).