Oregon Public Utility Commission

Rule Rule 860-001-0500
Discovery in Contested Case Proceedings


Discovery must be commensurate with the needs of the case, the resources available to the parties, and the importance of the issues to which the discovery relates.


Discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, burdensome, or overly broad is not allowed. Instructions and definitions included in discovery requests must be consistent with these rules and ORS Chapters 756, 757, and 759.


Privileged material is not discoverable except as provided under the Oregon Rules of Evidence.


A party will not be required to develop information or prepare a study for another party, unless the capability to prepare the study is possessed uniquely by the party from whom discovery is sought, the discovery request is not unduly burdensome, and the information sought has a high degree of relevance to the issues in the proceedings.


Parties must make every effort to engage in cooperative informal discovery and to resolve disputes themselves. If a party receives a data request that is likely to lead to a discovery dispute, then that party must inform the requesting party of the dispute as soon as practicable and attempt to resolve it informally.


If parties are unable to resolve a dispute informally, then any of the parties involved in the dispute may request that the ALJ conduct a conference to facilitate the resolution of discovery disputes. A requesting party must identify the specific discovery sought and describe the efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute informally.


A party may file a motion to compel discovery. The motion must contain a certification that the parties have conferred and been unable to resolve the dispute. A party filing a motion to compel will be allowed the opportunity to file a reply to the response to the motion.


A party’s assertion that information responsive to a discovery request is confidential may not be used to delay the discovery process; provided, however, a party pursing protection will not be required to produce information that it claims is inadequately protected until such time as its claim for the need for a general protective order or a modified protective order is resolved. If an answering party believes that a response to a discovery request involves confidential information that is inadequately protected by the safeguards existing in the docket, the answering party must notify the requesting party of this belief as soon as practicable and, if appropriate, promptly move for an appropriate protective order.


A party may by motion, or the ALJ may on the ALJ’s own motion, propose that sanctions be imposed if a party fails or refuses to comply with an oral or written ruling resolving a discovery dispute. The ALJ may impose sanctions including: default; dismissal; or striking of testimony, evidence, or cross-examination.

Last accessed
Jun. 8, 2021