New Year, New Rules: The 2026 Amendments to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

While January 1^st always ushers in a new year, 2026 ushered in something else for Indiana attorneys: an overhaul of Indiana’s Trial Rules. After creating the Civil Litigation Taskforce in 2021 and receiving recommendations from it, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure in 2025 that went into effect on January 1, 2026.

From serving lawsuits via social media to the end of “general objections” in discovery, the amendments to Indiana’s Trial Rules make these 7 significant changes in 2026. 

1. No More “General Objections” in Discovery Responses

Parties can no longer rely on a preamble of boilerplate objections in their discovery responses. 

The 2026 amendments to Indiana Trial Rule 33 (Interrogatories), Trial Rule 34 (Production of Documents), and Trial Rule 36 (Requests for Admission) explicitly ban “general objections,” which the new rules define as objections that are not directed to a specific request, do not specifically state the grounds on which they are based, or apply globally. Under the new rules, “[g]eneral objections must not be made and will have no effect.”

2. Parties Must Identify Non-Produced Responsive Materials When Objecting to Discovery

Under the old and new rules, parties are required by Trial Rule 26(B)(5) to provide a privilege log when they withhold otherwise discoverable information claiming it is privileged or protected trial preparation material. The new rules add a related and somewhat broader requirement when objecting to requests for production. Under the new Trial Rule 34(E), parties objecting to a request for production, for whatever reason, must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Notably, though, the new Trial Rule 34(E) does not explicitly require that parties describe the nature of the documents withheld in a manner that will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the objection, unlike Trial Rule 26(B)(5). How parties will comply with this Rule’s new requirement in practice remains to be seen.

3. Parties Can Serve Lawsuits via Social Media and Other Technology

Indiana’s new trial rules provide flexibility when it comes to hard-to-locate defendants. For instance, Indiana Trial Rule 4.14, as amended, allows for service via social media, email, or other technology under some circumstances. Under the new rule, if a party files a verified motion with facts sufficient to show that prior attempts to obtain service under the rules have been unsuccessful, the court can order service in “any other manner that is reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual knowledge of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.” The new rule provides that “[s]uch other forms of service may include social media, email, or other technology.” 

The new rules also simplify service in other ways. For instance, registered agents can be served electronically if they have consented to it under Rule 4.6(B), and Rule 5(B)(2) now allows for service by mail via third-party commercial carriers, like FedEx or UPS, in addition to U.S. Mail. 

4. Requests for Admission Must be Served Separately

Indiana litigators often combine written forms of discovery and serve them together. It is commonplace, for instance, to see interrogatories combined with requests for production with both served on adverse parties in one document. Prior to the new amendments, parties could also include requests for admission, which can be a serious problem for responding parties who fail to recognize they were included, as requests for admission are admitted if not answered within 30 days. Trial Rule 36(B) now provides that requests for admission cannot be “combined in the same document with any other pleading and must be served separately from any other form of discovery.”

The new Trial Rule 36(B) also adjusts the timing of when requests for admissions can first be served to “not earlier than ten days after the issues are first closed on the merits or thirty days from commencement of the action in cases where no responsive pleading is required.”

5. Timelines for Non-Party Requests and Procedures for Objections Have Changed

The timing of service of non-party requests for production has changed under the new trial rules. Under the new Trial Rule 34(G)(2), a party need only wait 10 days (as opposed to 15 days) after serving a copy of a non-party request for production on an adverse party before serving the request on the non-party. Trial Rule 34(G)(3) also provides new procedures to follow when a party objects to a non-party request. A party must object to a non-party request within the 10-day waiting period, providing specific grounds for the objection and a proposed date and time to meet and confer under Indiana Trial Rule 26(F). If no agreement is reached, the objecting party must move to quash or modify the non-party request within 20 days of the objection, or the request can be served. 

6. Parties Must Confer in Good Faith 15 Days Before 30(B)(6) Depositions

Indiana Trial Rule 30(B)(6) governs depositions of persons designated by organizations to testify on their behalf. It is not uncommon for disputes to arise amongst the parties as to the matters for examination, which under the old and new rules are to be designated with reasonable particularity in the deposition notice. However, under the new rule, parties must now meet and confer in good faith about the matters of examination at least 15 days prior to the deposition.

7. There is a New Standard for Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)

The 2026 amendments to Indiana Trial Rule 37 remove the “safe harbor” provision regarding the failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI). Prior to the amendments, absent exceptional circumstances, courts could not impose sanctions on a party for failing to provide ESI lost as the result of “the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” Under the amended Rule 37(D), courts can now impose sanctions on parties for “failing to take reasonable steps to preserve [ESI]” that is relevant, material, should have been preserved in anticipation of or during litigation and is lost because of the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it, cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, and either prejudice results to another party or the party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in litigation. Sanctions can include a presumption and jury instruction that the lost information was unfavorable to the party, dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other orders to cure any prejudice.

The Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure with annotations as to the changes can be found here. A full copy of the new Indiana Trial Rules can be found here.