Tag: Scope of Discovery

1
D’Agostin v. Fitness Int’l, LLC (D. Conn. May, 12, 2021)
2
Hurley v. BMW of N. Am. LLC (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021)
3
Lamaute v. Power (D.D.C. 2021)
4
Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association (W.D. Wash. 2020)

D’Agostin v. Fitness Int’l, LLC (D. Conn. May, 12, 2021)

Key Insight: The scope of discovery for Plaintiff is limited to requesting information regarding accidents involving falls in locker rooms with tile surfaces in Defendant’s facilities that occurred up to five years prior to the accident giving rise to litigation. Allowing Plaintiff to expand the scope to any tiled floor(s) within Defendant’s facilities would move discovery beyond the focal point of litigation.

Nature of Case: Premises Liability

Electronic Data Involved: N/A

Case Summary

Hurley v. BMW of N. Am. LLC (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021)

Key Insight: The three categories of documents sought by Plaintiff are relevant to the litigation. Further, production of the three categories of documents would not be disproportionate to the needs of the litigation. Production of the documents, which had already been digitized and indexed (and produced) for previous litigation, would be of little expense and/or burden to Defendant. The burden and/or expense of producing the documents do not outweigh the likely benefits of production.

Nature of Case: Product Defects

Electronic Data Involved: Digitized and indexed manuals and other documents

Case Summary

Lamaute v. Power (D.D.C. 2021)

Key Insight: In using the proportionality test, each factor should be examined to balance the needs and rights of both parties and determine an appropriate resolution. When requests are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case, the court may limit the scope of the documents a party is required to produce.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination, Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Key Insight: The requested business guidelines were relevant. The scope of discovery is very broad. A request for discovery is relevant “unless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the action.”

The court declined to find the guidelines so confidential that they cannot be produced. Defendants did not move for a protective order nor did they provide any evidence of harm that would result from producing the guidelines.

Attorney fees were awarded to Plaintiff because Defendant caused substantial delay in responding to discovery despite Plaintiff’s multiple good faith attempts to obtain the requested discovery.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Business Guidelines, Business Policies

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.