top of page

Florida Discovery Must Be Relevant and Proportional Under New Rules of Civil Procedure

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280's provisions on the scope of discovery have been extensively amended to mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c)(1) now states: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim of defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . ." Rule 1.280(c)(1) sets forth six factors to consider in determining whether discovery is proportionate:

  1. The importance of the issues at stake in the action;

  2. The amount in controversy;

  3. The parties' relative access to relevant information;

  4. The parties' resources;

  5. The importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and

  6. Whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

The Florida Supreme Court's commentary to the amendments states: "The scope of discovery in [Rule 1.280(c)(1)] is amended to adopt almost all the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and is to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard."


The Federal proportionality standards have been in place in their current form since 2015. The Federal rules were amended to address concerns that civil litigation had become too expensive, time consuming, and contentious. Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Great Lakes Grain, LLC, 988 F.3d 260 (6th Cir. 2021). Courts should apply a "common-sense concept of proportionality" to avoid costly and delay-inducing efforts to look under every stone in a digital world populated by many stones. Id. (citing John G. Roberts, Jr., 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary at 6). 


Federal cases applying the proportionality standards have set forth the following guidelines for interpreting the scope of discovery:


Burden of Proof: The party seeking discovery has the burden to prove that requested discovery is relevant. The party objecting to discovery has the burden of proving that a discovery request is disproportionate to the needs of a case. In re Bard, 317 F.R.D. 562 (D. Az. 2016).


"Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discoverable Evidence" Standard Eliminated: This phrase was eliminated from the Federal rules as "problematic," and is now eliminated from the Florida Rules. Thus, the boilerplate objection based on this language is no longer appropriate. In re Bard, 317 F.R.D. 562 (D. Az. 2016).


Scope of Discovery is Determined on a Case-By-Case Basis: A trial court should resolve a discovery dispute by using all the information provided by the parties to reach a case-specific determination of the appropriate scope of discovery. In re Bard, 317 F.R.D. 562 (D. Az. 2016).


Actual Need: A court should make a careful and realistic assessment of the actual need for discovery when ruling on proportionality. United States ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. Victaulic Co., 839 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016).


Diminishing Returns: In conducting a proportionality analysis, a court should review whether discovery has reached a point of diminishing returns, which outweigh the expense and delay caused by ongoing discovery. Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74501; 2017 WL 2115381 (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017).


These amendments do not change Florida's appellate standard of review that grants wide discretion to trial courts in dealing with discovery matters, allowing reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Alvarez v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 75 So. 3d 789, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Therefore, trial courts retain broad discretion to manage discovery on a case-by-case basis. 

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.

Call Us Today: 561-609-0760

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

©2022 by Scott J. Edwards, P.A.

bottom of page