On August 11, 2016, a Pennsylvania District Court granted a motion to compel discovery since request was “proportional to the needs of the case”
In this breach of agreement case, the parties disagreed about the scope of discovery. Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant to allow for a broad search of his electronic devices. Defendant objected “discovery search request as being overly broad and invasive, and argued that his own proposed electronically-stored information search protocol is “more than adequately tailored to” Plaintiff’s pleaded allegations.
The Court agree that Plaintiff’s request was “rather broad”. However, after analyzing the factors set out in Rule 26(b)(1), it found that the discovery request is “proportional to the needs of this case”.
In particular, the Court considered the benefit to the Plaintiff and the burden and costs to the Defendant and found that “weighing these factors makes clear that the potential harm First Niagara’s discovery requests may impose on Folino does not outweigh the presumption for disclosure of those requests”.
Niagara Risk Mgmt. v. Folino, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106094 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016) is available at https://www.paed.uscourts.gov… Open PDF
For more information, Francesca Giannoni-Crystal.
Follow us on& Like us on