Also known as: FRCP 26(b)(1) · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) · Rule 26(b)(1) · scope of discovery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule establishing the scope of discovery in federal civil actions. Parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense when the request is proportional to the needs of the case after weighing specified factors including issue importance, amount in controversy, access to information, resources, and burden versus benefit. Discoverable information need not be admissible at trial.
Flora Ford sued Fidelity Trust alleging breach of a supply agreement. She requested five years of internal emails discussing similar contracts with other clients. The court limited the request to two years of emails involving the same product line because broader production would impose disproportionate expense relative to the modest damages at stake.
Francesca Fowler claimed age discrimination after termination from Frostline Textiles. She sought every email sent by her former supervisor over eight years. The court narrowed the request to the two years before her discharge because the older messages offered little additional relevance while the search would consume substantial resources.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco, lead plaintiff in a securities class action against Foster Forge, sought internal audit reports spanning a decade. The court permitted production only of reports from the three years surrounding the alleged misstatements because earlier documents had minimal bearing on the class claims and would generate excessive burden.
Finn Fletcher sued a federal agency seeking records of internal deliberations. The agency withheld certain memos as privileged. The court ordered production of the factual portions after finding they were relevant to the claims and that the limited production would not outweigh the benefit of resolving the central issues.
A party must demonstrate that the requested matter is nonprivileged and relevant to a claim or defense. The request must also satisfy the proportionality factors listed in the rule.
Supporting sources
No. The rule expressly states that information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Supporting sources
Courts weigh the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, their resources, the importance of the discovery for resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule permits a court to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or disproportionate after considering the listed factors.
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,…