Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 804.04 (2026)

Stipulations regarding discovery procedure

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

804.04804.04 Stipulations regarding discovery procedure. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties may by written stipulation (1) provide that depositions may be taken before any person, at any time or place, upon any notice, and in any manner and when so taken may be used like other depositions, and (2) modify the procedures provided by this chapter for other methods of discovery.

804.04 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 664 (1975).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1983–2009 · leading case: Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 4× “If that reason is consistent with First Amendment principles, the use of discovery to uncover the speaker's identity may chill the exercise of the right to free speech. Such a use of the discovery process also violates the basic principle that litigants are not entitled to…”

Schmid v. Olsen, 330 N.W.2d 547 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 4× “Under the former section, a party could seek admissions of only those facts `material in the action,' whereas under the new rule, by explicit cross reference to section 804.04(2) [804.01(2)], admissions can be sought regarding all relevant non-privileged matters reasonably…”

Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 1498 (E.D. Wis. 1992). · cites it 3× “” See 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 804.04[2] (“the relationship between the party and his predecessor-in-interest is a privity relationship .”

Zellner v. Herrick, 2009 WI 80 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 4× “356 (8) requires that an intervenor's appeal of a circuit court decision in an open records case be filed within the time period set out in Wis. Stat. § 804.04 (1m) for record subjects.”

Miller Brewing Co. v. Ace U.S. Holdings, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 735 (E.D. Wis. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Wis. Stat. § 804.04 (6). Thus, under the FDJA, judicial discretion is considerably broader than under the Wisconsin statute.”

Schimpf v. Gerald, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 804.04[l][c] (2d ed. 1997 & Supp.1999) (prior testimony need not meet the requirements of Rule 804(b)(1) if it satisfies some other hearsay exception, qualifies for admission under Rule 801, or is used in a nonhearsay way such as for…”

— Wis. Stat. § 804.04(2) — 1 case

Schmid v. Olsen, 330 N.W.2d 547 (Wis. 1983). “Under the former section, a party could seek admissions of only those facts `material in the action,' whereas under the new rule, by explicit cross reference to section 804.04(2) [804.01(2)], admissions can be sought regarding all relevant non-privileged matters reasonably…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.