Also known as: cumulative or duplicative · cumulative discovery · duplicative discovery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A limitation on the scope of discovery that requires a court to restrict requests for information that repeats material already produced or obtainable from a more convenient source. The limitation applies even when the information is relevant and otherwise within the general scope of discovery. Courts must limit the frequency or extent of discovery when the requested material is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
NimbusSoft sued CodeSphere for patent infringement and demanded ten years of raw Slack archives and email backups. CodeSphere had already produced a curated project management database and a forensic audit report containing the same internal communications. The court granted CodeSphere's motion to limit discovery because the additional raw data would impose unnecessary burden without adding new information.
The estates of bus-crash victims requested three years of fleet-wide GPS logs, cellphone records, and dispatch communications from MetroCoach. MetroCoach had already produced targeted maintenance logs, driver schedules, and incident reports for the specific bus and route. The court granted the protective order because the broader electronic requests duplicated information available from narrower, less burdensome sources.
No. Relevance is necessary but not sufficient. Courts must limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative even when the information is relevant and within the general scope of discovery.
No. When a party has produced curated databases and reports containing the same internal communications, a request for raw archives is unreasonably cumulative. The court must limit the request to avoid unnecessary burden and expense.
No. The rule focuses on whether the requested discovery is unreasonably cumulative or available from a more convenient source. It does not turn on whether the requesting party has taken depositions.
Yes. When existing documents already summarize how complaints were processed, new requests for every related video, email, and database record are unreasonably cumulative and burdensome. The court should grant a protective order.
No. The duty to limit unreasonably cumulative or duplicative discovery applies to all discovery, including document requests and electronically stored information directed at parties generally.