Also known as:frivolous discovery requests · frivolous discovery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A discovery demand in pretrial procedure that lacks any reasonable basis in the claims or defenses and imposes undue burden without legitimate purpose. The demand must be evaluated for whether it bears a reasonable relationship to obtaining relevant evidence or instead serves primarily to harass or delay.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Overbroad Requests in Drug Litigation
Faith Fitzgerald represents patients suing Apex PharmaCorp over undisclosed side effects. She serves written discovery demanding every email and lab notebook entry generated anywhere in Apex's global research division over seven years, with no limits by topic, project, or custodian. Apex objects that the requests sweep in vast unrelated material. The court finds the demands frivolous because they bear no reasonable relationship to the pleaded issues and impose disproportionate burden.
Sweeping Requests in Wage Dispute
Francisco Frost represents sales associates in a class action against TrendWear. He demands all electronic timekeeping data for a five-year period but receives only partial datasets. When opposing counsel claims legacy records are inaccessible, internal IT records show retrieval is feasible with modest effort. The lawyer's failure to pursue the accessible data with reasonable steps renders the overall discovery conduct sanctionable as abusive.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
6
Practice Questions5
· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Hornbooks
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What distinguishes a frivolous discovery request from an aggressive but proper one?+
A request becomes frivolous when it lacks any reasonable connection to the claims or defenses and is designed primarily to burden the opposing party. Overbreadth alone does not violate the rule, but demands that sweep in vast unrelated material without tailoring or legitimate need cross the line into abuse.
Supporting sources
Does the rule prohibit all broad discovery requests in complex cases?+
No. The rule permits broad requests when the underlying claims genuinely require extensive evidence, such as proving a long-running conspiracy across multiple entities. The key inquiry is whether the lawyer made a good-faith effort to tailor the requests to the needs of the case rather than to impose maximum burden.
Supporting sources
Can a lawyer be disciplined for discovery conduct even without a court order?+
Yes. The ethical duty applies at the time the lawyer formulates and serves the requests. Discipline can result from serving facially overbroad demands or from failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with proper requests, independent of any subsequent court ruling.
Supporting sources
How does the rule apply when a lawyer responds to discovery rather than initiates it?+
The rule requires a reasonably diligent effort to locate and produce materials responsive to proper requests. Burying the opponent in unrelated files, delaying focused searches, or claiming inaccessibility when internal records show retrieval is feasible violates the duty of fairness in pretrial procedure.
Supporting sources
Professional ResponsibilityLitigation and other forms of advocacy · Fairness to opposing party and counselMPREIntermediate