The discovery process is meant to shed light on the issues in a case and provide information relevant and necessary to arguing the case before the Court. Relevance and proportionality define the scope of discovery. In the event of dispute, the burden falls on the objecting party to demonstrate that a request falls outside the bound of relevance and proportionality. However, as the Court noted in this case, “considerations of subject matter, time, and space are important to confine the scope of discovery to those matters that are truly relevant and to prevent discovery from . . . furthering purposes ulterior to the litigation.”
Here, the Court found that defendant Kroger met this burden when arguing that requests pertaining to its former CEO’s personal conduct, leading to his resignation after a failed merger, were not relevant to the question of whether Kroger had satisfied obligations to move forward with the transaction under the parties’ merger agreement. Kroger asserted that the resignation stemmed from conduct unrelated to the business, and that details of the conduct were not relevant to the case at hand.
The Court noted that the CEO’s conduct was unrelated to any alleged breach of contractual obligations, and that allowing discovery into sensitive and personal details was an unnecessary diversion from the case inquiry. The Court also took note of the fact that Kroger’s counsel provided Albertson’s counsel with a confidential proffer of the subject matter of the personal issues, showing they were unrelated to the dispute.
The Court reasoned that, while any lack of time or attention to the deal on the part of the CEO could conceivably be relevant, that would be shown in the uncontested productions, where Kroger had produced documents regarding the CEO’s job performance as it related to the merger. It was not necessary, therefore, to perform discovery on the details of any distraction derived from the CEO’s personal life, as such intimate requests were not proportional to the needs of the case.
[View source.]