Apparently, even the Minnesota Supreme Court can make mistakes.
Apple Valley lawyer Matthew Schaap contacted Minnesota Lawyer yesterday to let us know that there is a mistake in the discovery rules contained in the current version of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 26.02(e), which relates to experts, contains several references to subdivisions purportedly contained in Rule 26.02(d) that don’t actually exist. Presumably, the references should be to the subdivisions contained within Rule 26.02(e) itself. The errors were most likely made when the lettering of the subdivisions was changed in the round of amendments to the civil rules that became effective July 1, 2007.
The mistakes apparently got past the rules committee and the Minnesota Supreme Court, but not Schaap’s sharp gaze.
Schaap also pointed out that Thomson West (or Thomson Reuters, or whatever they’re calling it now) made its own separate error when it published the civil rules in the latest edition of “Minnesota Rules of Court.” West’s version of Rule 26.02(a) contains an extra paragraph that should no longer be there. In the July 2007 amendments, that paragraph was reworked into a new Rule 26.02(b).