Which factor is a basis for the court to limit discovery under Rule 26(b)(2)?

Which factor is a basis for the court to limit discovery under Rule 26(b)(2)?

• A. Unreasonable, duplicative, or cumulative
• B. It is highly relevant and proportional
• C. It is fully public
• D. It is routine and inexpensive

Answer: (A)

Rule 26(b)(2) lets the court limit discovery when the request is unreasonably burdensome or expensive, or duplicative or cumulative. This is the precise way to avoid needless, repetitive, or overly costly digging for information that doesn’t add new value to the case. So the option describing discovery as unreasonably burdensome, duplicative, or cumulative matches the basis for limiting. The other statements describe why discovery might be appropriate to obtain—high relevance and proportionality, being fully public, or being routine and inexpensive—none of which are grounds to restrict discovery. In short, only the unreasonably burdensome, duplicative, or cumulative aspect justifies limiting discovery.

Rule 26(b)(2) lets the court limit discovery when the request is unreasonably burdensome or expensive, or duplicative or cumulative. This is the precise way to avoid needless, repetitive, or overly costly digging for information that doesn’t add new value to the case. So the option describing discovery as unreasonably burdensome, duplicative, or cumulative matches the basis for limiting.

The other statements describe why discovery might be appropriate to obtain—high relevance and proportionality, being fully public, or being routine and inexpensive—none of which are grounds to restrict discovery. In short, only the unreasonably burdensome, duplicative, or cumulative aspect justifies limiting discovery.