Opinion ID: 6534454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Overview of ORCP 36 B

Text: The rule that contains general provisions governing discovery is ORCP 36. Section B of the rule, with three subsections, governs the scope of discovery. Subsection (1) provides the general scope of discovery in civil actions; subsection (2) addresses discovery concerning insurance agreements or policies; and subsection (3) covers trial preparation materials. Plaintiff asserts that ORCP 36 B(1) controls in this case. It provides: For all forms of discovery, parties may inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things, and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not a ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In brief, the legislature deleted a proposed fourth subsection of ORCP 36 B when the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure were first promulgated. 1 In 1977, the legislature established the Council on Court Procedures. Or. Laws 1977, ch. 890, § 1. As provided in ORS 1.735(1), the Council was charged with promulgating rules governing pleading, practice and procedure  in all civil proceedings in all courts of the state which shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant. In 1978, the Council promulgated what it described as unique Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 Legislative History Relating to Promulgation of Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure 2 (1979). The Council explained that it had sought to promulgate the best rules which could be developed for practice in Oregon courts. Id.  The Council heavily relied on existing rules, but when they were inadequate, the Council looked to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, procedural rules in other states, or developed entirely new rules. Id. As originally promulgated by the Council on Court Procedures in 1978, ORCP 36 B(4) would have permitted limited discovery of expert witnesses to be called at trial. But in 1979, the legislature rejected ORCP 36 B(4), enacting a statute that omitted its specific provision for expert discovery. Stevens , 336 Or. at 401-02 , 84 P.3d 140 . Preservation of Oregon practice was an important aspect of the 1979 Legislative Assembly's decision to reject limited expert discovery, and the legislature's rejection of ORCP 36 B(4) cemented the bar on expert discovery. In May 1980, as the Council on Court Procedures was reviewing possible amendments to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure that had gone into effect, the  Council recognized that ORCP 36 B did not cover expert discovery: The Council discussed the question of use of Rule 36 B. to authorize interrogatories relating to expert witnesses. It was pointed out that: (a) Rule 36 B. does not create interrogatories or any other discovery device but merely defines scope of discovery for these devices authorized elsewhere in the rules and that there is no rule authorizing interrogatories in the ORCP; and, (b) the matter of discovery of experts is not covered by ORCP 36 . Minutes, Council on Court Procedures, May 10, 1980, 3-4 in Oregon Council of Court Procedures, 3 Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure and Amendments: 1979-81 Biennium (emphasis added). For those reasons, Oregon's longstanding practice barring expert discovery ought to inform this court's decision.