Also known as: non-frivolous argument · nonfrivolous arguments · non-frivolous arguments · non frivolous argument
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal contention that is either warranted by existing law or supported by a reasoned argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.
Granite Ridge Capital sued Summit Bank alleging that a standard commercial loan agreement constituted an unregistered security. Counsel filed the complaint after conducting a detailed economic-reality analysis and expressly invited the court to reconsider long-settled contrary precedent. The court denied sanctions because the legal contention rested on a nonfrivolous argument for modifying existing doctrine.
Peak Life Sciences served requests for production on River Therapeutics seeking five years of lab notebooks and emails across all research divisions. Counsel certified the requests after reviewing the integrated structure of River's operations and the direct relevance of the records to proving systematic data theft. The court found no violation because the certification rested on a nonfrivolous argument that the breadth was consistent with the rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Rule 11 permits a contention that conflicts with precedent when counsel advances a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. The rule protects reasoned efforts to press for legal change even when the position is novel or unpopular.
Supporting sources
An argument is nonfrivolous when it offers at least some arguable foothold in existing doctrine or a reasoned path from constitutional text, statutes, or precedent to the proposed change. Pure policy preferences or moral appeals without any doctrinal anchor do not satisfy the standard.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rule 26(g)(1)(B)(i) requires that every discovery request, response, or objection be warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. Blanket objections or refusals that lack any plausible legal basis violate the certification even if the signer subjectively believes the position is justified.
Supporting sources