The new scope of discovery outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) has been discussed and analyzed by courts across the country. Surprisingly, some of this discussion has included references to language from the old rule. Nevertheless, most of the discussion has focused on what is “proportional to the needs of the case,” the critical new language included in the rule. What is proportional, however, is not clearly defined by the rule or commentary.
In a recent opinion, the District of Arizona has provided helpful details and a framework for focusing on some of the proportionality factors. In In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation , the court denied plaintiffs’ discovery requests for communications between foreign Bard entities and foreign regulatory bodies regarding the IVC filters at issue. In denying plaintiffs’ requests, the court reviewed the new legal standards governing the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). The court analyzed both the relevancy of the requested discovery and whether the requested discovery was proportional to the needs of the case, the two-step inquiry now required by Rule 26(b)(1).
This content has been archived.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]
