Proportionality's Cultural Foundation
Jordan M. Singer
New England Law | Boston
April 15, 2011
Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 52, p. 145, 2012
Since the 1980s, a variety of provisions designed to prevent excessive pretrial discovery have been incorporated into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By almost all accounts, however, these “proportionality” rules have not met their stated goals. The percentage of cases with high levels of discovery has not changed in decades, and concerns about disproportionate discovery are as pronounced as ever. I argue that the failure of the proportionality rules stems from a disconnect between the rules and the prevailing litigation culture. The rules incorrectly assume that excessive discovery is caused by attorneys abusing their discretion during the discovery process, and accordingly seek to limit that discretion. But attorney discretion is not the problem, and in fact attorneys and judges rely on the broad exercise of attorney discretion to create efficient, predictable, and fair resolutions to civil cases. Because the rules directly conflict with cultural norms, they are largely ignored in practice. I therefore propose a radically different approach to combating excessive discovery, by removing the existing restrictions on attorney discretion and implementing new procedures designed to emphasize the cultural values of civil litigation that naturally promote controlled discovery.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 57
Keywords: discovery, proportionality, legal culture, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery abuse, excessive discovery, discretion, disclosures, presumptive limits, 26(b)(2)(C), core values
JEL Classification: K40, K41Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 17, 2011 ; Last revised: November 7, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.781 seconds