Rule 29.Stipulations Regarding Discovery Procedure
Effective July 1, 1974 · Last verified June 26, 2026
Full Text of Rule 29
Rule History
Effective July 1, 1974.
Reporter’s Notes
Reporter’s Notes (1973) Rule 29 changes Federal Rule 29. The Federal Rule requires court approval for any extension of time: (a) to answer interrogatories; (b) to produce documents, etc.; or (c) to respond to a request for admission. This requirement clashes squarely with Massachusetts practice. Under G.L. c. 231 s. 72, "[p]arties may make agreements relative to amendments and the time of filing papers, which shall be equivalent to an order of the court to the same effect." Because existing practice seems to have worked so well, and because the requirement of prior court approval seems so likely to produce unnecessary anguish to bench and bar, Rule 29 follows Massachusetts procedure. It should be noted that even Arizona, which has otherwise adopted a firm policy of tracking the Federal Rules without change (see Frank, "Arizona and the Federal Rules," 41 F.R.D. 79, 86-87 (1966)), has rejected the court-approval requirement of Federal Rule 29.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 29 gives the parties room to tailor discovery to their case. By written stipulation, they may provide that depositions be taken before any person, at any time or place, on any notice, and in any manner—and such depositions may be used like any others. They may also modify the procedures the rules set for other discovery methods. The court retains the last word and may order otherwise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the parties agree to change discovery procedures?
Yes. Rule 29 lets the parties stipulate in writing to alter how depositions are taken and to modify the procedures for other discovery methods, unless the court orders otherwise.
Does a stipulation under Rule 29 need the court to approve it first?
No. The parties can agree between themselves without asking the court first; the court only steps in if it later orders otherwise.