Getting ready for the High Beam: Proportionality and the new Balancing act in Florida Discovery
On January 1, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court’s broad civil procedure rule changes went into effect and along with that, the new application of “proportionality” in civil discovery. While those who frequently practice in federal court may be familiar with proportionality, it is a newer concept for litigators who have practiced primarily in Florida state court. The principle of proportionality can play a crucial role in the discovery process, helping to balance the need for information with the burdens of obtaining it. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c)(1) now incorporates the concept of proportionality, emphasizing that discovery should be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.[1] Further, on January 23, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court issued an additional opinion that provided specific direction that Rule 1.280 is “to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard.”[2] This will be helpful to litigators in Florida as they seek to find the guidelines and definition of what proportionality truly means.
In federal practice, the principle of proportionality in discovery is primarily governed by 28 U.S.C. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[3] The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) re-emphasized the importance of proportionality by restoring the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of discovery. These factors include the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.[4] The rule essentially allows courts to limit discovery requests that are deemed excessive, costly, or irrelevant to the dispute.
As proportionality has been in practice in federal court for several years, there is a broad body of case law on the topic. Numerous cases have interpreted and applied the principle of proportionality in discovery under Rule 26(b). For instance, in Carr v. State Farm[5], the court outlined the factors that determine proportionality, such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, and the balance between the burden or expense of discovery and its likely benefit. Other cases, such as Fleury v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., discuss unique issues such as application of the APEX doctrine and when discovery might be allowed, while ensuring that it is not overly burdensome or excessive relative to the case’s requirements.[6] These cases collectively underscore the importance of proportionality as a guiding principle in federal civil litigation.
In practice, this means that while litigants are certainly entitled to broad discovery, they cannot demand information that is overly expansive or irrelevant without demonstrating its importance to the case. For Florida litigation, specifically, we can anticipate some challenges to long held discovery concepts in expert discovery, such as whether the expert discovery rubric of what is appropriate to request or produce under the Boecher and Worley cases will continue to hold.[7] Also, discovery into electronic mediums, whether it be a multitude of electronic files, black boxes in vehicles, or social media and metadata on cell phones, will now have to be proportional to the needs of the case.[8] Another area where we may see proportionality debates will be in the area of prior claims and/or medical history in personal injury, premises liability, and product liability cases, to name a few. It will be interesting to see if these new rule changes will either expand or abrogate case law that has been in use for years in Florida trial courts as to some of these issues.
Ultimately, the application of proportionality works to ensure fairness in the discovery process, enabling parties to gather necessary information while avoiding undue burdens or expenses. It could also conceivably make for a clearer path as to whether it is a matter that needs to go to trial or not. Both attorneys and clients must stay mindful of this balance to avoid unnecessary legal battles over discovery disputes. As Florida lawyers adjust to the new rules in place, we can expect there to be a few shuffles as we learn what “balance” in discovery will mean while litigating in the Sunshine State.
[1]Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)(1) (2025)
[2]In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, No. SC2023-0962, (Fla. Jan. 23, 2025)
[3]Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
[4]Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
[5] William Oran Carr v. State Farm, 312 F.R.D. 459 (N.D. Tex. 2015)(application of new Rule 26(b)(1) changes appropriate in pending case and discovery sought was proportional to the needs of the case; involvement of Court in managing discovery);
[6] Fluery v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 20 C 390, US Dist. Ct. ND Illinois, Eastern Div., 2023 (APEX doctrine does not exclude all discovery when needs of the case are evaluated as to proportionality); Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 93 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 987 (W.D. Va. 2016)(analysis of relevance and proportionality of discovery requests).
[7] Worley v. Cent. Fla. YMCA, Inc., 228 So.3d 18 (Fla. 2017); Allstate v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999).
[8] Roque v Swezy, 390 So.3d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)(Production of entire cell phone not reasonable without showing of requirement for discovery purposes); Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 893 F.3d 648, 899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018)(motion to compel must include statement as to why the discovery is needed). United States ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, Llc. v. Victaulic Co., 839 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016) (discussing intent of changes to 26(b)(1) and in matter with significant discovery, an initial representative sample may be best for determining additional discovery needs); Gondola v. USMD PPM, LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 575 (N.D. Tex. 2016)(party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel, may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to the resisting party’s showing).
