Explore

Proportionality

On December 1, 2015, the most significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective since the 2006 amendments that made the era of ESI official.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(b)(1), which defines the scope of discovery, was revised. Here we survey a sampling of proportionality decisions from the past two years to learn how this amendment is affecting the scope and process of discovery.

Learn more about our selection of eDiscovery services.

Key Points from the Case Law Survey – Proportionality Series, Part 6

In this case law survey, we will briefly review a variety of cases from across 2016 that have touched on proportionality in discovery since the December 2015 Amendments.  We will review them in chronological order, beginning with these four from the first half of 2016: In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016); Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016); Hahn v. Hunt, Case No. 15-2867 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016); and Mitchell v. Reliable Sec., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03814-AJB (N.D. Ga. May 24, 2016).

Read More

Cases from 2017 – Proportionality Series, Part 5

In this case law survey, we will briefly review a variety of cases from across 2016 that have touched on proportionality in discovery since the December 2015 Amendments.  We will review them in chronological order, beginning with these four from the first half of 2016: In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016); Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016); Hahn v. Hunt, Case No. 15-2867 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016); and Mitchell v. Reliable Sec., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03814-AJB (N.D. Ga. May 24, 2016).

Read More

Cases from Late 2016 – Proportionality Series, Part 4

In this case law survey, we will briefly review a variety of cases from across 2016 that have touched on proportionality in discovery since the December 2015 Amendments.  We will review them in chronological order, beginning with these four from the first half of 2016: In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016); Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016); Hahn v. Hunt, Case No. 15-2867 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016); and Mitchell v. Reliable Sec., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03814-AJB (N.D. Ga. May 24, 2016).

Read More

Cases from Early 2016 – Proportionality Series, Part 3

In this case law survey, we will briefly review a variety of cases from across 2016 that have touched on proportionality in discovery since the December 2015 Amendments.  We will review them in chronological order, beginning with these four from the first half of 2016: In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016); Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016); Hahn v. Hunt, Case No. 15-2867 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016); and Mitchell v. Reliable Sec., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03814-AJB (N.D. Ga. May 24, 2016).

Read More

A Balm in Gilead – Proportionality Series, Part 2

In January 2016, just a few weeks after the amendments became effective, a court in California had the opportunity to apply the amended rule in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016).  This was a patent infringement case in which Merck alleged that Gilead was infringing “two of its patents to a certain kind of nucleoside analog.”  Gilead claimed that “it was the one to conceive and reduce to practice the inventions.” Read to see how the description of the Magistrate Judge’s summation of the proportionality requirement and discussion of recent amendments reflect the intentions of the amendments to elevate and emphasize proportionality as central to determining discovery scope.

Read More

Everything in Moderation, Including Discovery – Proportionality Series, Part 1

On December 1, 2015, the most significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective since the 2006 amendments that made the era of electronically-stored information official.  Among the rules revised was Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(b)(1), which defines the scope of discovery.  The change brought the existing-but-overlooked concept of proportionality front and center in an attempt to combat the runaway cost and scale of discovery in the digital era. So, in the two years since this amendment became effective, has the role of proportionality in discovery actually changed?  How are courts applying the multi-factor proportionality test now enshrined in FRCP 26(b)(1)?  Have objections based on proportionality been successful?

Read More

Because you need to know

Contact Us