主页
所有资源
Consilio 高阶学院

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.

Singapore
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
South Sudan
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Taiwan, Province of China
Tajikistan
Tanzania, United Republic of
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tokelau
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Sign up for Consilio updates

不管怎么样,我们都很友善,祝你好运。在悲惨的情绪中,人们对各种各样的恐惧感情有独钟的感觉。
谢谢!您提交的内容已收到!
单击 “注册” 即表示您确认您同意我们的 隐私政策
哎哟!提交表单时出了点问题。