Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.04 (2026)
Inapplicability to Discovery
Rules 11.01-.03 do not apply to discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Rules 26 through 37.
(Amended effective January 1, 1992; amended effective July 1, 2000; amended effective August 1, 2000.)
Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendment
Rule 11 is amended to conform completely to the federal rule. While Rule 11 has worked fairly well in its current form under the Supreme Court's guidance in Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1990), the federal rules have been amended and create both procedural and substantive differences between state and federal court practices. Additionally, the Minnesota Legislature has created a statutory mechanism that follows the federal procedure, resulting in a confusing array of practice requirements and remedies. See Minnesota Statutes, section 549.211. On balance, the Committee believes that the amendment of the Rule to conform to its federal counterpart makes the most sense, given this Committee's long-standing preference for minimizing the differences between state and federal practice unless compelling local interests or long-entrenched reliance on the state procedure makes changing a rule inappropriate.
It is the intention of the Committee that the revised Rule would modify the procedure for seeking sanctions, but would not significantly change the availability of sanctions or the conduct justifying the imposition of sanctions. Courts and practitioners should be guided by the Uselman decision, cited above, and should continue to reserve the seeking of sanctions and their imposition for substantial departures from acceptable litigation conduct.
Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption
This rule amendment is patterned after 4th Dist. R. 1.01(c) & (e).
The Task Force believes that the simple additional requirement for signing pleadings, widely followed in practice, should best be made part of this rule governing signing of pleadings, motions and other papers.