Also known as:proportionate to the needs of the case · proportionality · discovery proportionality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A limitation on the scope of discovery that requires requested information to be relevant to a claim or defense while ensuring the burden or expense of production does not outweigh its likely benefit. The assessment weighs the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, their resources, and the value of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Sources & Authorities· 4 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Biotech Data Production Dispute
Peak Life Sciences served requests seeking five years of lab notebooks and emails from every research division at River Therapeutics. River objected that the volume of archived materials would require months of forensic work and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The court reviewed the requests under the proportionality factors and limited production to active-division records because the burden on River outweighed the marginal benefit to proving the misappropriation claim.
Permit Condition Challenged as Taking
Stone Creative sought a building permit to expand its gallery. The city conditioned approval on dedication of a large portion of the grounds as a public park. Stone Creative refused, arguing the required dedication lacked rough proportionality to the traffic and green-space impacts of the modest expansion. The court applied the exactions test and struck down the condition because the city failed to show the demanded land bore the required relationship to the project's effects.
Punitive Damages Award Reviewed
A jury awarded $2 million in punitive damages against BMW for failing to disclose that a new car had been repainted. BMW challenged the award as grossly excessive. The Supreme Court examined whether the punishment was proportional to the harm caused and the degree of reprehensibility, ultimately holding that the award violated due process because it bore no reasonable relationship to the actual injury.
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore517 U.S. 559, 575, 580-81 (1996)
Insurance Bad-Faith Verdict Scrutinized
A jury returned a $145 million punitive award against State Farm for mishandling a single claim. State Farm argued the amount was disproportionate to the harm suffered by the Campbells. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the award exceeded constitutional limits because it was not reasonably proportional to the actual damages or the reprehensibility of the conduct.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003)
RFRA Scope Challenge
A church challenged a local historic-preservation ordinance that prevented expansion of its building. The city argued that RFRA imposed burdens not proportional to any compelling interest. The Court held that Congress lacked authority under Section 5 to impose such a sweeping prophylactic remedy, because the statute was not congruent and proportional to the constitutional violations it sought to prevent.
City of Boerne v. Flores521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Age-Discrimination Abrogation Attempt
State employees sued under the ADEA for age discrimination. The states moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The Court held that Congress had not validly abrogated state immunity because the ADEA's remedies were not congruent and proportional to any pattern of unconstitutional age discrimination by the states.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents528 U.S. 62, 80 (2000)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What factors does a court weigh when deciding whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case?+
Rule 26(b)(1) directs the court to consider the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. These factors replaced the former subject-matter standard and now define the outer boundary of permissible discovery. Courts apply them to prevent overly broad or expensive requests even when the information is relevant.
Who bears the burden of showing that requested discovery is or is not proportional?
+
The party resisting discovery must ordinarily demonstrate that the burden or expense is not proportional to the needs of the case. Once that showing is made, the requesting party may still obtain the information by demonstrating good cause under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) or by satisfying the limitations in Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The rule places the initial burden on the producing party because it possesses the best information about the cost and difficulty of compliance.
Supporting sources
How does the proportionality requirement interact with electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible?+
Rule 26(b)(2)(B) permits a party to avoid producing ESI from sources identified as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. Even if the information is relevant, the court must still assess proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) before ordering production. When good cause is shown, the court may order discovery subject to conditions such as cost shifting or phased restoration.
Supporting sources
Can an attorney be sanctioned for certifying discovery requests or responses that ignore proportionality?+
Yes. Rule 26(g) requires every discovery request, response, or objection to be signed and certified as consistent with the rules and supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument. A certification that fails to account for the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) lacks substantial justification and may result in sanctions. Both overbroad requests and categorical refusals unsupported by a developed proportionality analysis can violate the certification requirement.
Supporting sources
proportionality
between the size of the award and the underlying punitive damages objectives shows that the award falls into the category of "gross excessiveness" set forth in this Court's prior…
between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end." Id. , at 520. In City of Boerne , we applied that "congruence and
proportionality
" test and held that…
proportionality
between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end." Id. , at 520. II The first step in applying these now familiar principles is to identify with some…
Civil ProcedurePretrial procedures · Discovery (including e-discovery), disclosure, and sanctionsUBEFoundational