Skip to main content

JAMS ADR Insights

Discovery & Discovery Referees Mediation

Revisiting Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)

The 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is about continuity. That's because the proportionality analysis under Rule 26(b)(1), since it became effective in 2015, has always been a reflection of legacy, not change. Accordingly, the “new” Rule 26(b)(1) mandates consideration of six proportionality factors and eliminates the “reasonably calculated” language that many civil litigators considered a tacit endorsement of overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive discovery.

To the casual observer viewing this amendment in substantive and temporal isolation, the change might appear pioneering. But five of the six proportionality factors had been in existence, albeit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), for decades. And while the “relative access” factor was technically new in 2015, it was added “to provide explicit focus on considerations already implicit in … Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).” “New” was the fact that these factors had been elevated to the primetime of Rule 26(b)(1), thereby resolving any doubts about their rightful role in shaping the scope of discovery on a case-by-case basis.

Full Article Below:

Open in new window

This page is for general information purposes. JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness. Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals. See More

Scroll to top