Home
All Resources
Consilio Advanced Learning Institute

Everything in Moderation: Proportionality in Discovery

Written by Annie Malloy

Updated: Jun 24, 2024

Authors

Matthew Verga, Esq.

Director of Education

About Author

Matthew Verga is an attorney, consultant, and eDiscovery expert proficient at leveraging his legal experience, his technical knowledge, and his communication skills to make complex eDiscovery topics accessible to diverse audiences. A fifteen-year industry veteran, Matthew has worked across every phase of the EDRM and at every level, from the project trenches to enterprise program design. As Director of Education for Consilio, he leverages this background to produce engaging educational content to empower practitioners at all levels with knowledge they can use to improve their projects, their careers, and their organizations.

More from the author

Summary

For discovery, the two most significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) of the last two decades occurred in 2006 and 2015. The 2006 amendments marked the official dawn of the age of eDiscovery, incorporating references to electronically-stored information into the rules and their comments. The 2015 amendments revised, among other things, 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. In general, courts responded to this change by increasing their focus on proportionality and beginning to treat it as a fundamental requirement for obtaining discovery, on par with relevance.

In this Whitepaper

  • The origin of the proportionality requirement
  • The six key factors courts consider
  • Guidance from The Sedona Conference

Key Insights

  • The importance of non-monetary factors in assessing proportionality
  • The role of ESI protocols in resolving proportionality disputes
  • The need to argue proportionality with specificity and supporting evidence

Summary

For discovery, the two most significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) of the last two decades occurred in 2006 and 2015. The 2006 amendments marked the official dawn of the age of eDiscovery, incorporating references to electronically-stored information into the rules and their comments. The 2015 amendments revised, among other things, 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. In general, courts responded to this change by increasing their focus on proportionality and beginning to treat it as a fundamental requirement for obtaining discovery, on par with relevance.

In this Whitepaper

  • The origin of the proportionality requirement
  • The six key factors courts consider
  • Guidance from The Sedona Conference

Key Insights

  • The importance of non-monetary factors in assessing proportionality
  • The role of ESI protocols in resolving proportionality disputes
  • The need to argue proportionality with specificity and supporting evidence

Fill out the form below to download the complete insight.

Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Sign up for Consilio updates

Discover, learn and grow with the latest insights from Consilio
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
By clicking Subscribe you are confirming that you agree with our Privacy Policy
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.