December 7, 1999



99-27



Proposed Amendment of Rule
2.310 of the Michigan
Court Rules (Production of
Documents and Things; Entry
on Land For Inspection and
Other Purposes)
_______________________________


          On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court
is considering an amendment of Rule 2.310 of the Michigan Court
Rules.  Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted,
changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to
afford any interested person the opportunity to comment on the form
or the merits of the proposal.  We welcome the views of all who
wish to address the proposal or who wish to suggest alternatives. 

          As whenever this Court publishes an administrative
proposal for comment, we emphasize that publication of this
proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the
subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its
present form.

[The present language would be amended as indicated below.]

ICLE Editor's Note:

Rule 2.310     Requests for Production of Documents and Other
     Things; Entry on Land for Inspection and Other Purposes

(A) - (B)      [Unchanged.]

(C)  Request to Party.

(1)  [Unchanged.]

(2)  The party on whom the request is served must serve a
     written response within [14] 28 days after
     service of the request, except that a defendant may serve
     a response within 42 days after being served with the
     summons and complaint.  The court may allow a longer or
     shorter time.  With respect to each item or category, the
     response must state that inspection and related
     activities will be permitted as requested or that the
     request is objected to, in which event the reasons for
     objection must be stated.  If objection is made to part
     of an item or category, the part must be specified.

(3) - (5)   [Unchanged.]

(D)       [Unchanged.]


          Staff Comment:  The change from 14 to 28 days in
MCR 2.310(C)(2) has been recommended by the Representative Assembly
of the State Bar of Michigan, with the following explanation from
the Civil Procedure Committee:

     "The Supreme Court amended MCR 2.310(C)(2) on
December 1, 1998, to change the time for parties to
respond to document requests from 28 to 14 days.  The
amendment was part of a set of amendments, approved by
the Representative Assembly, to clarify that the rules
authorize record-only subpoenas to nonparties.  Those
amendments included a requirement that a record subpoena
to a nonparty be served at least 14 days before the time
for production.  MCR 2.305(B)(1).  The response time
under MCR 2.310(C)(2) was changed to 14 days to make the
time for parties to respond to document requests the same
as the time for nonparties to respond to record
subpoenas.  

     "The committee has reconsidered this change in MCR
2.310(C)(2) in light of comments from practitioners and
concluded that it was not well advised.  With the change,
there are now different time periods for responses to
different types of discovery requests.  A party must
respond to interrogatories and requests for admission in
28 days (MCR 2.309(B)(4), 2.312(B)(1)), but has half that
time to respond to document requests.  This lack of
uniformity can complicate discovery practice,
particularly when document requests are combined with
other discovery requests, as is frequently done.  It can
result in multiple discovery responses served at
different times and potentially increase motion practice.

     "The committee concluded that uniformity in the time
for parties to respond to discovery requests is desirable
and that 28 days is a reasonable time for all such
responses.  This will eliminate multiple responses to
mixed requests and possible increased motion practice. 
The committee believes the benefits of this proposed
change outweigh any argument that parties and nonparties
should have the same 14-day time period to respond to
document requests and subpoenas.  

     "The committee considered, but rejected, the
argument that if the rule is changed to allow parties 28
days to respond to document requests, then MCR
2.305(B)(1) should also be amended to provide nonparties
28 days to respond to a document subpoena.  The committee
concluded that the 14-day period is more appropriate for
nonparties.  Record production by nonparties does not
involve the same case implications as production by
parties.  The December 1, 1998 amendment providing for a
14-day response period for record subpoenas increased the
time for nonparties to respond under the rule before
amendment.  A 28-day response time for nonparties would
unduly slow the progress of discovery.  (If a 14-day
response time imposes an undue burden, the subpoenaed
person can object on that ground and is relieved from
compliance until the party issuing the subpoena obtains
an order requiring production or there is an agreement on
the time for production.  MCR 2.305(12)(1)-(2).)"

The staff comment is published only for the benefit of the bench
and bar and is not an authoritative construction by the Court.  

          _____________________________________________

Publication of this proposal does not mean
that the Court will issue an order on the
subject, nor does it imply probable adoption
in its present form.  Timely comments will be
substantively considered, and your assistance
is appreciated by the Court.                 
          _______________________________________________


          A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of
the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can
make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201.  Comments on this
proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court clerk within 60 days
after it is published in the Michigan Bar Journal.  When filing a
comment, please refer to our file No. 99-27.