Also known as: needlessly cumulatively · cumulative evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence that repeats information already presented without adding meaningful probative value. A court may exclude such evidence when its incremental contribution is slight compared with the time and attention it would consume at trial.
Nathan Nguyen sued Valley Regional Hospital for delayed cancer diagnosis. He planned to call six oncologists who would each address the identical standard-of-care question with largely overlapping slides and graphs. The hospital moved to limit him to two experts. The court granted the motion because the additional witnesses would add little beyond repetition.
Nexus Technologies sued StratoWare for patent infringement. Its lead programmer began walking through hundreds of nearly identical source-code printouts line by line. StratoWare objected that the examination wasted time. The judge sustained the objection and directed counsel to use representative samples instead.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nina Nielsen sued MegaMart after slipping on a wet aisle. MegaMart offered eight hours of security video to show its cleaning practices. Nielsen objected that only the twenty minutes around her fall mattered and that the rest was repetitive. The court sustained the objection and limited the video to the relevant segment.
Noah Nakamura sued Riverbend Medical Center for malpractice. The estate offered a twenty-minute graphic video of the patient's final days even though records and expert testimony already covered the pain and suffering. The hospital objected. The court excluded the video because it added little beyond what the existing proof already supplied.
Metro Airlines sued Sun Aero for breach of contract over a delayed satellite launch. Sun Aero offered classified threat briefings and dense technical logs from unrelated missions. The court excluded the materials because they would consume substantial time while adding little beyond what expert testimony could convey more efficiently.
Vanessa sued Pine Cargo after a bus collision. She offered more than a dozen dashcam recordings of minor fleet incidents to show a pattern of unsafe operation. Pine Cargo objected that the recordings were repetitive and unrelated to the specific crash. The court excluded them because they would waste time without materially advancing the central issues.
A court may limit experts when their proposed testimony is largely overlapping and would waste time without adding meaningful value. The rule permits reasonable limits even on a key element provided the party retains a fair opportunity to present its case through fewer witnesses.
Supporting sources
No. The standard is whether the additional evidence is needlessly cumulative in light of what earlier proof already supplies. Even small nuances do not prevent limitation when the marginal value is slight compared with the added time.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the jury has already seen photos and heard testimony on the same point, additional hours of uneventful footage add little probative value while consuming substantial time. The court may therefore limit the presentation to the relevant segment.
Supporting sources
The rule focuses on needless repetition. Parties may introduce more than one item to emphasize a key point, but once the point is adequately covered, further duplicative evidence may be excluded to avoid wasting time.
Supporting sources
…confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.) Hearsay rules, see Fed. Rule Evid. 802, similarly prohibit the introduction of testimony which, though unquestionably relevant, is deemed insufficiently…