Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy Burden that Production would be Unduly Burdensome

In Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. v. Premium Beef Feeders, LLC, No. 13-cv-1168-EFM-TJJ, 2015 WL 3937410 (D. Kan. June 26, 2015), Defendants sought to compel production of relevant information related to Plaintiff’s “hedging and/or risk management strategies and/or policies for all cattle purchased” pursuant to the agreement at issue in the case. Plaintiff objected, arguing that “the discovery sought [was] not proportional and should not be compelled.” Specifically, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), Plaintiff argued that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweigh[ed] its likely benefit.”
Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the discovery would be minimally important, cumulative and duplicative as “unsubstantiated”. Plaintiff provided no evidentiary support for its claim that searching additional custodians would cost $4,000-$5,000 per custodian and Plaintiff’s failure to explain “what or how many custodians would be involved.”
Bottom line, proportionality requires facts to back it up!