Why the Fuss to Change Rule 37(e)?

, The Legal Intelligencer


The comment period on the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure closed Feb. 15. As that date approached, many parties weighed in, not all of them agreeing on everything, but all pretty much approving of the changes to Rule 26(b)(1), which repositions the requirement that the discovery demand be proportional to the value of the matter, and Rule 37(e), which appears to make it harder to prove a producing party liable for spoliation and which restricts the sanctions and other restorative measures a court can impose or require upon a finding of spoliation.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202644954117

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.