Key Points from the Case Law Survey – Proportionality Series, Part 6
A multi-part series reviewing decisions on proportionality in eDiscovery since the December 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
by Matthew Verga, JD, Xact Data Discovery
In the first Part of this series, we reviewed the amendments made to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) in December 2015. In the second Part, we reviewed one of the first decisions applying the amended rule. In the third Part, we reviewed four cases from the first half of 2016, and in the fourth Part, we reviewed three cases from the back half of 2016. In the fifth Part, we reviewed a few relevant cases from 2017, and in this Part, we pull together the key points from this case law survey.
Key Points from the Proportionality Case Law
The twelve cases we have reviewed from 2016 and 2017 reveal six key points about how courts are handling proportionality in discovery since the December 2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26:
- First, proportionality is now being treated as a fundamental requirement for obtaining discovery, on par with relevance, as intended by the amendments and the associated Committee Notes. This is clearly articulated in Gilead Sciences and Takata Airbags, and it is demonstrated in all twelve cases we’ve reviewed.
