NRCP Rule 34 allows Parties to serve Requests Production of Documents and Things. Of course, the scope of the requests is limited by NRCP 26(b) which authorizes parties to obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged. See, State ex rel. Tidvall v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 91 Nev. 520, 539 P.2d 456 (1975). In other words, the material sought should be relevant to the issues of the case.
There is no numerical limit to the number of Requests for Production that can be asked as there is a limit on the number of Interrogatories that can be asked. However, Parties should be reasonable in making Discovery Requests. I cannot imagine that a Court or Discovery Commissioner would allow Requests for Production to be abused by a party if it appears that the Requests were being used to harass the other Party rather than to seek information to prepare the case for settlement or Trial.
Most often, Requests for Production seek documents within the other Party’s possession or control. If a party uses a third party to care for or control its records, such as a billing company, then that Party should be responsible for gathering that information and producing it to the other Party for use in the case for settlement or Trial. Documents should be produced in a manner that is meaningful to the Requesting Party. Rule 34(b) requires that producing party “shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.”
NRCP 34
Rule 34 can also be used to obtain things, such the tires from a car involved in an accident in a case where the Plainitff is claiming injuries as a result of an accident caused by bad tires. In such a case, the Court has the power to require the owner of the tires (or their insurer) to produce the tires for inspection and testing by the adverse party’s expert witness. The Court may place restrictions on the testing to be conducted on the tire(s) and will look to ensure there is a proper evidentiary trail to guarantee that the actual tires are the only ones being examined and commented upon during the course of litigation.
Using NRCP 34, a Party should may be allowed to enter another’s land if doing so is necessary for the case. This would be the case where a defendant’s experts would need to enter a Plaintiff’s home in a construction defect case where the Plaintiff is claiming damages as a result of a poorly constructed home. Clearly, the Defendant’s experts would need to enter the home to examination the allegedly damaged area so they could form their opinions regarding what, if any, defects were made in constructing the home. Rendering wuch an opinion could not be done from a distance or with photographs.
As you can see, NRCP Rule 34 is another tool for gathering information allowing Parties to prepare for Trial by finding evidence relevant to the case. Attorneys will often use Requests for Production prior to Interrogatories and Depositions to form appropriate questions. Sometimes, they are used as follow ups to the other tools to gather documents and things that were identified in Interrgoatoies or Deposition.
