This is a contract dispute in which the defendant manufacturer sought to limit having to produce millions of pages of documents during the discovery phase of the case. The company argued that its opponent demanded documents that were not relevant to the claims and defenses in the case, and the court should step in and impose reasonable restraints on an enormous discovery request.
The NAM filed an amicus brief asking the Colorado Supreme Court to instruct the lower courts to act as gatekeepers with early, hands-on case management and limit discovery to issues pled in the case. Discovery should be proportional to the case, taking into account the nature and scope of the case, relevance, importance, expense and burdens. We also asked the court to clarify that a defendant need not both object to overbroad discovery and also move for a protective order. Excessively burdensome discovery requirements can put substantial pressure on companies to give up on defenses that they would otherwise be able to make.
On 6/24/13, the court agreed, holding that trial courts must take an active role managing discovery and should, at a minimum, consider cost-benefit and proportionality factors in the Rules of Civil Procedure to control excessive discovery. It is unusual for an appeals court to say that the trial court abused its discretion in handling the discovery phase of this case, because judges have considerable discretion in these matters. In this case, however, the judge made no attempt to tailor discovery to the reasonable needs of the case. The ruling is an important victory in Colorado to rein in excessive discovery demands.