The Simplified
E-⁠Discovery Case Law Library
A collection of simple, easy to understand analyses and resources on e-⁠discovery case law.
Case shelved under Proportionality

“Reasonably Calculated” from Rule 26 is Dead

Coles Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc.
W.D. Penn. September 20, 2016
Why This Case is Important

Discovery requests are not relevant because there is a possibility that the information may be relevant to the general subject matter of the action.

Overview

In this antitrust case, a special master was appointed to provide the court and parties assistance with discovery, including the resolution of discovery disputes. The defendant argued that the discovery would cost $190,000 in data fees, plus additional e-discovery costs.

Ruling

REASONABLE CALCULATED IS NO MORE
Judge Conti denied discovery and criticized post-amendment rulings that rely on the “reasonably calculated” phrase.

Download Case Law Analysis PDF

Download the PDF version of the Coles Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc. case analysis here.

Legal Analysis
On Coles Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc.
Hon. Frank Mass; United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York
BY
Hon. Frank Mass; United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York

As a rule of thumb, the greater the relevancy of documents, the less concerned the court will be with proportionality.

return to case law library
Proportionality room