Also known as: unduly burdensome · FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) · proportionality
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard used to evaluate whether a requirement, condition, regulation, or discovery request imposes excessive cost, effort, or restriction relative to the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues, or the constitutional interests at stake.
Nova Pharmaceuticals sued Nexus Technologies for patent infringement and served requests for ten years of server logs stored on obsolete tapes. Nexus showed that restoration would cost over four hundred fifty thousand dollars and take months. The court denied the motion to compel because the requests were not unduly burdensome given the needs of the case and the amount in controversy.
Nathaniel Newman sought a building permit to expand his commercial property. The city demanded a large cash payment for unrelated park improvements. The court held the demand not unduly burdensome only after confirming a direct nexus and rough proportionality to the project's traffic impact.
Natasha Nielsen challenged a state law requiring physicians to provide specific disclosures before performing abortions. The court upheld the requirement because the mandated statements were not unduly burdensome on the woman's decision-making process.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseNeil Nair sought to expand his church under a local zoning ordinance. The city imposed extensive documentation requirements. The court found the requirements not unduly burdensome because they did not substantially interfere with religious exercise.
St. Peter Catholic Church was built in 1923 in Boerne, Texas. Its structure replicates the mission style of the region's earlier history. The church seats about 230 worshippers, a number too small for its growing parish. Some 40 to 60 parishioners cannot be accommodated at some Sunday masses. To meet the needs of the congregation, the Archbishop of San Antonio gave permission to the parish to plan alterations to enlarge the building. A few months later, the Boerne City Council passed an ordinance authorizing the city's Historic Landmark Commission to prepare a preservation plan with proposed historic landmarks and districts. Under the ordinance, the commission must preapprove construction affecting historic landmarks or buildings in a historic district. Soon afterwards, the Archbishop applied for a building permit so construction to enlarge the church could proceed. City authorities, relying on the ordinance and the designation of a historic district which they argued included the church, denied the application. The Archbishop brought this suit challenging the permit denial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint contained multiple claims, but to this point the litigation has centered on RFRA and the question of its constitutionality. The District Court concluded that by enacting RFRA Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court certified its order for interlocutory appeal and the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding RFRA to be constitutional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and now reverses. Congress enacted RFRA in direct response to the Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith. RFRA prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. Unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, it must also show that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The Act applies to all federal and state law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of RFRA.
View caseNora Nash obtained a large punitive award against Norton Bank. The bank argued the award was not unduly burdensome only if it remained proportional to the actual harm and the bank's conduct.
In 1981, Curtis Campbell was driving with his wife Inez in Cache County, Utah, when he attempted to pass six vans on a two-lane highway. This caused an oncoming driver, Todd Ospital, to swerve onto the shoulder, lose control, and collide with a vehicle driven by Robert G. Slawson and his wife, killing Ospital and permanently disabling Slawson. Campbell's insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, declined settlement offers of the $50,000 policy limit from Slawson and Ospital's estate despite early investigations indicating Campbell's fault and advice from its own adjuster. A jury in the underlying tort actions found Campbell 100 percent at fault and returned a judgment of $185,849 against him. State Farm refused to pay the $135,849 excess over policy limits or post a supersedeas bond. The Campbells then entered an agreement with Slawson and Ospital's estate under which the claimants would not seek satisfaction of the judgment in exchange for the Campbells pursuing a bad-faith action against State Farm, being represented by the claimants' attorneys, and assigning 90 percent of any recovery to them. The Campbells sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court bifurcated the case into two phases before separate juries. In phase one the jury found State Farm's refusal to settle unreasonable. In phase two the jury heard evidence that State Farm's decision was part of a nationwide Performance, Planning and Review policy implemented since 1979 to cap payouts and meet corporate profit goals, including testimony from former Utah employees and experts about practices in multiple states over twenty years. The jury awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the compensatory award to $1 million and the punitive award to $25 million. Both sides appealed. The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the $145 million punitive damages award after applying the three guideposts from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore and relying on the nationwide evidence, State Farm's wealth, and the statistical likelihood of punishment in only one of 50,000 cases. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNigel Nelson challenged a handgun possession ban. The court held that a registration requirement was not unduly burdensome because it left ample channels for lawful self-defense in the home.
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA request becomes unduly burdensome when the cost or effort of compliance outweighs the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues. Courts weigh prior discovery already conducted and the parties' resources. If the burden is excessive, the court may limit or deny the request.
Monetary exactions are subject to the same nexus and proportionality tests as property dedications. A demand lacking an essential nexus or rough proportionality to the project's impact is treated as an unconstitutional taking.
A covenant to pay for shared services becomes unduly burdensome when the obligation grows excessive relative to the value the burdened land actually receives. Courts may modify or terminate the covenant after accounting for the service provider's reasonable reliance investments.