The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure soon will be expressly bounded by a requirement of proportionality. Amended FRCP 26, as currently contemplated, will explain that proportionality is determined by balancing “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.”
This article focuses on the evidence a party resisting discovery might provide to support a proportionality objection or motion. As is typically the case in discovery, unsupported claims of burden generally are looked upon with skepticism. Here, the party resisting discovery has access to the requested data and, accordingly, has the ability to generate and provide metrics that can quantify their arguments. As will be developed below, the methodologies used to generate this evidence may vary, depending in part on whether the allegedly disproportionate discovery obligation at issue involves production or preservation.
Sampling
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
