is amended to add to the required provisions in a motion for a discovery conference.

These changes require the party seeking a discovery conference to address electronic discovery issues, but do not dictate any particular resolution or conference agenda for them. Many cases will not involve electronic discovery issues, and there is no need to give substantial attention to them in a request for a conference under this rule. Advisory Committee Comment - 2018 Amendments Rule 26.06(c) is amended to provide expressly for inclusion of preservation of evidence as a subject to be addressed in the discovery plan in every case. This requirement recognizes both the importance of document-preservation issues and the benefits of addressing the issue early in the case. Advisory Committee Comment - 2019 Amendments Rule 26.06(d) is amended as part of the extensive amendments made to the timing provisions of the rules. These amendments implement the adoption of a standard "day" for counting deadlines under the rules - counting all days regardless of the length of the period and standardizing the time periods, where practicable, to a 7-, 14-, 21- or 28-day schedule. The only change to this rule lengthens the 10-day limit to 14 days to respond to a motion for a discovery conference. This change affects only the time limit, and is not intended to have any other effect. 26.07 Signing of Disclosure and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections (a) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26.01(a) or 26.01(c) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by a least one attorney of record in the attorney's own name - or by the party personally if self-represented - and must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry: (1) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and (2) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is: Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 71 CIVIL PROCEDURE MINNESOTA COURT RULES (A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. (b) Failure to Sign. Other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request, response, or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney's or party's attention. (c) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification violates this rule, the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the violation. (Amended effective July 1, 2015; amended effective July 1, 2021.) Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendment The changes made to Rule 26 include some of the recent amendments to the federal rule made in 1993. The changes made to the Minnesota rule have been modified to reflect the fact that Minnesota practice does not include the automatic disclosure mechanisms that have been adopted in some federal courts; the resulting differences in the rules are minor, and the authorities construing the federal rule should be given full weight to the extent applicable. The changes in Rule 26.02(a) adopt similar amendments made to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) in 1993. The new rule is intended to facilitate greater judicial control over the extent of discovery. The rule does not limit or curtail any form of discovery or establish numeric limits on its use, but does clarify the broad discretion courts have to limit discovery. Rule 26.02(e) is a new rule adopted directly from its federal counterpart. The requirement of a privilege log is necessary to permit consideration, by opposing counsel and ultimately by the courts, of the validity of privilege claims. Privilege logs have been in use for years and are routinely required when a dispute arises. See generally Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.R.D. 118, 122 & n.6 (D. Nev. 1993) (enumerating deficiencies in log); Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (ordering privilege log and specifying requirements); Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 386-87 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (holding failure to provide privilege log deemed "presumptive evidence" claim of privilege not meritorious). The requirement of the log should not, however, be an invitation to require detailed identification of every privileged document within an obviously privileged category. Courts should not require a log in all circumstances, especially where a request seeks broad categories of non-discoverable information. See, e.g., Durkin v. Shields (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 174 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (recognizing document- by-document log would be unduly burdensome). It is the intention of the rule, however, to require the production of logs routinely to encourage the earlier resolution of privilege disputes and to discourage baseless assertions of privilege. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2) expressly requires production of a privilege log by a non-party seeking to assert a privilege in response to a subpoena. Although the Committee does not recommend adoption of the extensive changes that have been made in federal Rule 45, this recommendation is made to minimize disruption in existing Minnesota subpoena practice. The difference in rules should Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. CIVIL PROCEDURE 72 MINNESOTA COURT RULES not prevent a court from ordering production of a privilege log by a non-party in appropriate cases. The cost of producing a privilege log may be properly shifted to the party serving the subpoena under Rule 45.06.