Nor have they ignored the recent proposals of the American Bar Associations Special Committee of the Section of Litigation. The amendments have not ignored the recent criticisms directed to the federal discovery procedures, particularly the capacity for abusive discovery with its escalation of costs and delay of adjudication. The amendments recognize that no effective system of discovery can be designed which is not subject to abuse, resulting in delay, expense and the burden on judges of disposing of dilatory motions, petitions and objections without real merit. Federal source material is identified in the detailed discussion of the amendments which follows. This retains the numbering of Rules dealing with particular subject matter. Certain Rules have been subdivided, e.g., 4003.1, 4003.2, etc.

New material is introduced by the use of decimal numbering. The advantages of retaining the present Rule numbers as closely as possible far outweigh any benefits of a so-called functional rearrangement which would require a complete new numbering system. Since 1950, the Rules have been the subject of numerous decisions, commentary, and articles.

It was considered important to retain as far as possible the rule numbering and the internal arrangement of the Pennsylvania Rules. The Federal Rules as last revised have been used as a model, but the Civil Procedural Rules Committee has not hesitated to depart from Federal language where it has acquired a questionable gloss or has received inconsistent interpretations in the courts. The differences between state and federal practice still prevent absolute identity. More than twenty-five years of experience and the general acceptance of the philosophy of discovery justify bringing the Pennsylvania system into as close conformity as possible with the federal system. The 1970 federal revisions effected even wider differences, particularly in the discovery of reports, memoranda, statements or other things secured in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.

Also, the difference in the amounts involved in federal cases and in state cases had an important effect twenty-five years ago. From the beginning, it was felt that the differences between federal and state practice did not permit any such identity. The Pennsylvania Rules have never been identical with the Federal Rules. The 1978 amendments to the Deposition and Discovery Rules represent the culmination of a continuing and comprehensive review of the operation of the 1950 Rules and of the Federal Discovery and Deposition Rules as completely revised in 1970. Abolition of Practice and Procedure under Repealed Statutes. Persons Before Whom Depositions May be Taken. Physical and Mental Examination of Persons. Motion for Entry Upon Property of a Person Not a Party. Request for Entry upon Property of a Party. Entry Upon Property for Inspection and Other Activities. ENTRY UPON PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 4009.31. Certificate Prerequisite to Service of Subpoena. Certificate of Compliance by a Person Not a Party. Subpoena Upon a Person Not a Party for Production of Documents and Things.

SUBPOENA UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY 4009.21. Answer to Request Upon a Party for Production of Documents and Things. Request Upon a Party for Production of Documents and Things. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ENTRY FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER ACTIVITIES PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS GENERAL PROVISIONS 4009.1. Production of Documents and Things and Entry for Inspection and Other Purposes. Procedure in Deposition by Oral Examination. Answers to Written Interrogatories by a Party. Procedure on Depositions by Written Interrogatories. Agreement Regarding Discovery or Deposition Procedure.

Motion to compel deposition sample