Also known as: reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence · discovery relevance standard · scope of discovery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A former test for the scope of discovery allowing parties to obtain nonprivileged information that might lead to admissible evidence at trial even if the information itself would be inadmissible.
MetroLink requests years of router logs and capacity reports from TitanFiber in a federal throttling case. TitanFiber seeks a protective order citing cost and the availability of narrower samples. The court evaluates whether the broad technical data meets the former test by potentially leading to admissible proof of discriminatory practices and limits production to proportional subsets.
Plaintiffs in a federal suit seek wide-ranging documents from the Vice President's office. The government objects that the requests exceed what is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and impose undue burden. The district court narrows the scope after considering the former test alongside privilege claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff requests ten years of company-wide Slack messages and backups in a patent suit. The defendant shows the same communications already exist in produced project databases. The court applies the former test and limits discovery because the additional raw data would not meaningfully advance admissible evidence beyond what is already available.
Investors seek internal company documents to support a securities class action. The defendant argues the requests are overbroad under the former test. The court permits targeted discovery after determining the materials could lead to admissible proof of reliance and loss causation.
A newspaper defendant seeks detailed financial information from a religious organization plaintiff. The plaintiff objects that the requests exceed the former test for leading to admissible evidence. The trial court issues a protective order after finding the materials would cause oppression without sufficient connection to trial proof.
No. The current Rule 26(b)(1) expressly states that information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The former reasonably calculated test has been replaced by a relevance-plus-proportionality standard.
Supporting sources
The former test focused solely on whether information might lead to admissible evidence. Today's rule requires that discovery also be proportional to the needs of the case, weighing factors such as burden, expense, and importance of the issues.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts must still limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or obtainable from a more convenient source, regardless of whether the information might lead to admissible evidence.
Supporting sources
…to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii).[^maj-30] In turn, Rule 26(b)(2) imposes general limitations on the scope of discovery in the form…