H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal
Of the many changes to e-discovery practice introduced by the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the most impactful may have been the change to Rule 26(b)(1) that restored proportionality to the determination of the appropriate scope of discovery. After the amendments went into effect, many courts around the country quickly—and even proactively—incorporated the principle and factors of proportionality from Rule 26(b)(1) into their decisions, often as part of limiting the scope of requested discovery.
In a recent decision, a court denied a motion to compel additional discovery, criticizing the moving party for focusing its arguments on relevance, and not on whether the requested discovery was proportional to the needs of the case. The decision is a reminder of the fundamental importance of proportionality post-2015, when allowable discovery is not determined by relevance alone.
‘Weidman v. Ford’
This content has been archived.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]
