Rule Text
Unless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party’s discovery.
Amendment history: The provisions of this Rule 4007.3 adopted November 20, 1978, effective April 16, 1979, 8 Pa.B. 3551.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
In a Pennsylvania civil case, both sides can gather information (called discovery) at the same time. One party does not have to wait for the other side to finish their discovery before starting their own.
If a party thinks the timing or order of discovery is causing a problem, they can ask the court to change things. The court can adjust the schedule if it would make things easier for everyone involved and be fair to all parties.
Committee Notes
Neither the Federal Rules, prior to their amendment in 1970, nor prior Rule 4007 dealt with this subject. Some courts held that a party who first gave notice obtained a priority which would prevent depositions or discovery by other parties until the first party had completed his own depositions and discovery. This led to a ‘‘race to the courthouse.’’ The proposed Rule, which is taken almost verbatim from Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(d), is designed to reverse these decisions.
In principle, a party first initiating discovery gets no priority whatever. Nothing prevents other parties from proceeding simultaneously with their discovery.
Further, all methods of discovery may be used in any sequence; for example, interrogatories may precede oral depositions, or oral depositions may be followed by interrogatories or requests for admissions or requests for production of documents.
All this, however, is subject to the control of the court, which may enter special orders ‘‘for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.’’
