In RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL PRACTICE - RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT RULE 11(d); TO AMEND RULE 26(b); 26(c)(1) AND (2); 26(f)(1) AND (2); 26(f)1) AND (2); AND TO ADOPT RULE 26(g)(1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ARKANSAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

── In RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL PRACTICE - RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT RULE 11(d); TO AMEND RULE 26(b); 26(c)(1) AND (2); 26(f)(1) AND (2); 26(f)1) AND (2); AND TO ADOPT RULE 26(g)(1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ARKANSAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ── Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. 106 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME Opinion Delivered: June 4, 2026 COURT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL PRACTICE – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT RULE 11(D); TO AMEND RULE 26(B); 26(C)(1) AND (2); 26(F)(1) AND (2); AND TO ADOPT RULE 26(G)(1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ARKANSAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PER CURIAM The Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Civil Practice submitted this recommendation to adopt Rule 11(d); to amend Rule 26(b); 26(c)(1) and (2); 26(f)(1) and (2); and to adopt Rule 26(g)(1), (2), and (3) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re Ark. Sup. Ct. Comm. on Civ. Prac. – Recommendations to Adopt Rule 11(d); to amend Rule 26(b); 26(c)(1) and (2); 26(f)(1) and (2); and to adopt Rule 26(g)(1), (2), and (3) of the Ark. Rules of Civ. Proc., 2026 Ark. 65 (per curiam). It was published for comment, and we adopt the changes, effective as of the date of this per curiam. The adopted amendments are shown in “line-in, line-out” form. We thank the Committee members for their work on this project. Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 **** (d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, and objections under Rules 26 through 37. Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2026 Amendment. This provision is modeled on the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d). Simultaneously with this amendment, new Rule 26(g) is being added. New Rule 26(g) and the existing provisions of Rules 26 and 37 establish certification standards and sanctions that apply to discovery disclosures, requests, responses, and objections. It is appropriate that Rules 26 through 37, which are specially designed for the discovery process, govern such documents and conduct rather than the more general provisions of Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Advisory Committee N. (1993 Amend.). Subdivision (d) has been added to accomplish this result. New Rule 11(d) differs from its federal counterpart in one material respect: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d) exempts discovery motions from the federal Rule 11. However, discovery motions are not included in the federal Rule 26(g) (the discovery-specific counterpart to Rule 11), creating a potential gap where discovery motions are held to a lesser standard than any other filing. New Arkansas Rule 11(d) fills this gap by omitting “motions” from the exclusion created by the new rule, thereby making it clear that discovery motions remain subject to the requirements of Rule 11. Ark. R. Civ. P. 26 **** (b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: (1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which that is relevant to the issues in the pending actions, whether it relates to any party’s the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party,—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, identity and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who have knowledge of any discoverable matter or who will or may be called as a witness at the trial of any cause—and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Information wit