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

Relevancy and Proportionality Go Hand in Hand

In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
D. Ariz. September 16, 2016
Why This Case is Important

Relevancy alone is no longer sufficient – discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case.

Overview

In this case, the parties disagreed on the discoverability of certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) generated by foreign entities (subsidiaries or divisions of defendant C.R. Bard) that sell IVC filters abroad. The plaintiffs sought discovery of communications between the foreign entities and foreign regulatory bodies regarding the IVC filters at issue in this case.

Ruling

RELEVENCY BROADER IN DISCOVERY
Courts generally recognize that relevancy for purposes of discovery is broader than relevancy for purposes of trial.

MARGINALLY RELEVANT
After in-depth analysis by the court for relevancy and proportionality factors, they found the requested discovery only “marginally relevant,” resulting in the court finding that the burden outweighed the expense of discovery.

Download Case Law Analysis PDF

Download the PDF version of the In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation case analysis here.

Legal Analysis
On In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Hon. Frank Maas United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York
BY
Hon. Frank Maas United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York

Because proportionality is now a part of the scope formulation, judges will have to take a more activist role.”

return to case law library
Proportionality room