Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New Proportionality Language for Florida Rules

By Susanna Moldoveanu & Adaeze Ashiedu on January 3, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

For our friends practicing in the Sunshine State, we want to highlight new rules amendments which took effect on January 1, 2025.  Most notably, Florida joins states around the country adopting the proportionality language from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).  See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c).

In 2015 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to add, among other things, that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.”  Since that time states around the country have been slowly amending their state counterpart rules to bring them into alignment.  Florida has now joined in with an amendment to track the federal rule.

In its opinion amending the rules, the Florida Supreme Court left no doubt that it fully intends for the state’s courts to follow the federal standard.  See In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 2024 WL 4983566 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024).  Not only did the court adopt the federal language, but it also added in its Court Commentary that the rule is “to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard.”  Id. at *1.  The court explained that this commentary “should be sufficient to lead practitioners and judges to look to federal history and precedents when applying proportionality.”  Id.

This brings the number of states adding proportionality to their rules to at least 17, plus the District of Columbia.  These include:

  • Alabama, Ala. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Arizona, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Colorado, Colo. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Delaware, Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(b)(1), Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • District of Columbia, D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Florida, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)
  • Indiana (commercial court), Ind. Commercial Ct. R. 6(A)
  • Kansas, Kan. Stat. § 60-226(b)(1)
  • Michigan, Mich. Ct. R. 2.302(B)(1)
  • Minnesota, Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b)
  • Missouri, Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 56.01
  • Nevada, Nev. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Ohio, Ohio R. Civ. P. 26(B)(1)
  • Oklahoma, Okla. Sta. tit. 12 § 3226(B)(1)
  • Utah, Utah R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Vermont, Vt. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
  • Wisconsin, Wis. Code § 804.01(2)(a)
  • Wyoming, Wyo. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)

Of course, this doesn’t mean that states not listed eschew proportionality principles.  But it’s good to see more states memorializing it in their rules.

Photo of Susanna Moldoveanu Susanna Moldoveanu
Read more about Susanna MoldoveanuEmail
  • Posted in:
    Other
  • Blog:
    Drug & Device Law
  • Organization:
    Drug & Device Law Blogging Team
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo