Opinion ID: 852618
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty to Supplement After Trial Begins

Text: Trial Rule 26(E) provides several exceptions to the general rule that there is no continuing duty to supplement discovery responses that were complete when made. Among these is Trial Rule 26(E)(2)(a), which provides that a party has a duty to supplement a prior discovery response if he obtains information upon the basis of which he knows that the response was incorrect when made. Under Rule 26(E)(2)(b), there is also a duty to supplement a response that was correct when made but is no longer true if, under the circumstances, a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment. At the point the plaintiffs determined to present Roysdon's testimony, the omission of the substance of that testimony from their answer to Interrogatory 12, even if correct when made, became no longer true and a knowing concealment as those terms are used in Rule 26(E)(2)(b). The Markleys first argue that the duty to supplement discovery does not continue during trial. Outback cites federal authority for the proposition that the duty to supplement under FRCP 26(e) is an ongoing obligation. See Smith v. Ford, 626 F.2d 784, 795 (10th Cir.1980) (citing Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 515 F.2d 449, 457 (2d Cir.1975)). Indiana Trial Rule 26 does not explicitly address whether a party's duty to supplement continues during trial. But, importantly, it does not say this duty ceases at the onset of trial. We see no reason why the duties imposed by Trial Rule 26(E)(2)(a) and (b) stop at the outset of trial. To permit a party discovering its own error or omission to remain silent would permit that party to benefit from its own concealment or error. Whether the initial response to Interrogatory 12 was intentionally or inadvertently incomplete, the duty to supplement was triggered by either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Trial Rule 26(E) requires that a supplemental response be seasonably made. This suggests a need for timely response. We think it also indicates that it may be reasonable and appropriate to modify the method of supplementing a discovery response if new information is discovered on the eve of or during trial. Here no effort at all was made. That is surely inadequate by any measure.