Also known as: FRCP 26(b)(1) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) · 26(b)(1) · scope of discovery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule establishing the scope of civil discovery to encompass any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case after weighing factors including issue importance, amount in controversy, party resources, and burden versus benefit.
Renata Russo sues Radiance Media for breach of contract and seeks every internal email sent over five years. The company objects that the request sweeps far beyond the single disputed transaction and would require review of thousands of unrelated messages. The court denies the motion to compel after finding the burden outweighs the likely benefit given the modest amount in controversy and the narrower documents already produced.
Robert Rivera requests production of years of archived electronic records from Ridgeway Partners. The firm argues the cost of restoring backup tapes is prohibitive and the utility uncertain. The court permits sampling of a small subset of tapes to determine whether relevant information exists before deciding whether full restoration is proportional to the needs of the case.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ryan Roberts seeks class-wide evidence from Riverside Healthcare to support allegations of systemic billing errors. The hospital contends the requested data are irrelevant until the court rules on certification. The court permits the discovery because the information bears directly on the predominance and typicality elements of the class claims and is proportional to the stakes of the litigation.
Rajesh Rao seeks internal White House communications in a challenge to an executive decision. The government asserts the materials are privileged and the request overly broad. The court applies the relevance and proportionality standards to determine whether the need for the documents justifies overcoming the privilege claim.
The requesting party must demonstrate that the information is nonprivileged, relevant to a claim or defense, and proportional to the needs of the case after considering the listed factors. Relevance alone is insufficient once proportionality is raised.
Supporting sources
No. The rule expressly states that information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable, provided it meets the relevance and proportionality requirements.
Supporting sources
A court must weigh the importance of the issues, amount in controversy, parties' relative access to information, resources, importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. Requests that are cumulative or impose undue burden may be limited even if technically relevant.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts generally permit discovery relevant to personal jurisdiction under the same relevance and proportionality standards, because establishing jurisdiction is necessary to proceed with the action.
Supporting sources
The responding party may object or move for a protective order. The court can limit the scope to ensure proportionality and prevent harassment or undue expense.
Supporting sources
…trader” as she was a human resources employee. [^maj-29]: Hickman , 329 U.S. at 500-01 (emphasis added). [^maj-30]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). [^maj-31]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). [^maj-32]: Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders , 437 U.S. 340, 358 (1978). [^maj-33]: Rowe Entm’t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency,…