Thompson v. HUD - 199 F.R.D. 168 (D. Md. 2001)

Rule:

Following the 1993 changes, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), facts were discoverable if: (1) relevant to the subject matter of the litigation; and (2) not privileged; and (3) if not themselves admissible, then reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, unless the court, sua sponte, or at the request of a party, determined that the discovery sought was: (a) unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or obtainable from another more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive source; or (b) the party seeking the discovery had had sufficient opportunity by discovery in the pending action to obtain it; or, (c) following a costs-benefits analysis that balanced (i) the burden or expense associated with the requested discovery; (ii) the likely benefit to the requesting party of the challenged discovery; (iii) taking into account several factors, the court determined that the requested discovery should not be allowed.

Facts:

Plaintiffs sued federal and local defendants alleging that defendants and their predecessors established and perpetuated de jure racial segregation in public housing, in violation of constitutional, civil rights, and housing laws. In this class action, plaintiffs moved to compel local defendants to provide responsive answers to discovery requests. Local defendants objected to certain requests, asserting overbreadth and burden.

Issue:

Did the court err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), facts were discoverable if: (1) relevant to the subject matter of the litigation; and (2) not privileged; and (3) if not themselves admissible, then reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, unless the court, sua sponte, or at the request of a party, determined that the discovery sought was: (a) unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or obtainable from another more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive source; or (b) the party seeking the discovery had had sufficient opportunity by discovery in the pending action to obtain it; or, (c) following a costs-benefits analysis that balanced (i) the burden or expense associated with the requested discovery; (ii) the likely benefit to the requesting party of the challenged discovery; (iii) taking into account several factors, the court determined that the requested discovery should not be allowed. The plaintiffs filed a sweeping lawsuit alleging discriminatory action by the defendants covering a quarter century and involving all aspects of the public housing programs in Baltimore. Within a year or so of suit being filed, the parties entered into a comprehensive partial consent decree, itself broad in scope, which settled many, but by no means all, of the claims originally filed. The parties provided the court with nothing to show whether they had attempted to apply the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) balancing factors to try to reach common ground. The parties were expected to focus their discussions on a particularized analysis of the burden/benefit factors of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), under the 1993 changes. However, the parties failed to focus their discussions on a particularized analysis of the burden/benefit factors for determining whether facts were discoverable. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery was denied, without prejudice. The challenged requests were too broad as and needed to be narrowed by a good faith analysis of which claims that survived the partial consent decree would be furthered by the discovery sought.