Proving a Discovery Proportionality Challenge
The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure soon will be expressly bounded by a requirement of proportionality.
January 12, 2015 at 01:50 PM
7 minute read
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
One mechanism that can be used to provide objective proof in document production is sampling. First, a party can project the likely total volume of responsive documents by applying a proposed keyword strategy to a reasonable sampling of documents. It is then a relatively straightforward proposition to project the cost based upon the expected volume by considering components such as average vendor costs per unit of data and the added expense of a reasonable privilege review.
Sampling also can reveal the importance (or lack thereof) of the requested discovery to the substantive issues under consideration. If a significant portion of the results of a given search is nonresponsive, this would weigh against requiring discovery. Here the requested discovery could be found to be less important to the case than it would have been had the request been scoped properly.
This content has been archived.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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Are Adopting Gen AI Five Times Faster Than the Cloud
Mitigating Off-Channel Communications: A Guide for In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals
12 minute readE-Discovery Services Company Repario Taps Former UnitedLex VP as New GC
From In-House at AstraZeneca to an E-Discovery Startup: New Fileread GC Discusses Major Career Move
Trending Stories
- 1Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
- 2Am Law 100 Lateral Partner Hiring Rose in 2024: Report
- 3The Importance of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Its Impact on Privilege
- 4What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
- 5People in the News—Jan. 30, 2025—Rubin Glickman, Goldberg Segalla
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250