Thompson v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
199 F.R.D. 168, 2001 WL 258390 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the scope of discovery is limited to information relevant to any party's claims or defenses, and both parties and courts must apply the proportionality factors of Rule 26(b)(2) to resolve disputes by balancing the likely benefit of the discovery against its burden or expense.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are class representatives for African American residents of public housing in Baltimore.
- They alleged that since 1933, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC), and other city officials perpetuated de jure racial segregation in public housing.
- The lawsuit claimed these actions violated the U.S. Constitution and various federal civil rights and housing laws.
- In 1996, the parties entered into a partial consent decree that settled some of the claims in the lawsuit, but other claims remained unresolved.
- In mid-2000, plaintiffs sought to obtain information and documents (discovery) from the local defendants related to the remaining, unsettled claims.
- The local defendants objected to these discovery requests, arguing they were overly broad and burdensome.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, as class representatives, filed a lawsuit against federal and local housing authorities in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The parties entered a partial consent decree in 1996, which settled a portion of the claims.
- In mid-2000, plaintiffs initiated discovery on the remaining claims by serving interrogatories (Rule 33) and requests for production of documents (Rule 34) on the local defendants.
- The local defendants objected to the discovery requests, leading to a dispute.
- The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for resolution of discovery matters.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the local defendants to provide responses to the discovery requests.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, must parties and courts resolve discovery disputes by focusing on the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(2) rather than engaging in abstract debates over whether the requested information is relevant to the 'claims or defenses' versus the 'subject matter' of the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Grimm
Yes. The practical and proper method for resolving discovery disputes under the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is for parties to confer and for courts to rule based on the proportionality factors outlined in Rule 26(b)(2), rather than attempting to define a precise line between discovery relevant to 'claims and defenses' and discovery relevant to the broader 'subject matter.' The court explained that the December 1, 2000 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) were intended to narrow the scope of discovery from the broad 'subject matter' of the action to matters relevant to 'the claim or defense of any party,' unless a court finds good cause for broader discovery. However, the court warned against an overly rigid interpretation of this new standard, noting it could lead to unnecessarily detailed pleadings. The court concluded that the most productive approach is to focus on the Rule 26(b)(2) cost-benefit factors, which require balancing the needs of the case, the resources of the parties, and the importance of the issues against the burden or expense of the proposed discovery. The court criticized both parties for failing to engage in this analysis, with the plaintiffs making sweeping demands and the defendants making unparticularized claims of burden. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice and ordered the parties to meet and confer again, using the Rule 26(b)(2) factors as their guide to reach a reasonable compromise.
Analysis:
This memorandum and order is a seminal decision in the field of civil procedure, providing one of the first influential interpretations of the significant 2000 amendments to FRCP 26. It pivots the focus of discovery disputes away from abstract definitional arguments ('claims and defenses' vs. 'subject matter') and toward a pragmatic, hands-on analysis of proportionality. By championing the Rule 26(b)(2) factors as the primary tool for managing discovery, the court established a framework that encourages judicial activism in curbing excessive discovery while promoting cooperation and incrementalism between litigants. The opinion's practical guidance on phased discovery and cost-shifting has been widely cited and has shaped how courts and attorneys approach discovery management in complex litigation.
