Opinion ID: 718191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Risks and Costs

Text: 26 A party seeking discovery under Rule 56(f) must articulate a plausible basis for the belief that discoverable materials exist which would raise a trial worthy issue. Price, 931 F.2d at 164 (emphasis added). In determining whether material is discoverable, the court should consider not only whether the material actually exists, but the burdens and expenses entailed in obtaining the material. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). 7 Discovery matters are for the informed discretion of the district court, and the breadth of that discretion in managing pre-trial mechanics and discovery is very great. Fusco v. General Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259, 267 (1st Cir.1993). In exercising this broad discretion, the district court in this case balanced the costs, burdens, and delays that the proposed discovery entailed, as well as the likelihood of discovering evidence of fabrication, against the obvious importance of the evidence sought. See Resolution Trust v. North Bridge Assoc., 22 F.3d 1198, 1203 (1st Cir.1994) (party seeking Rule 56(f) discovery should set forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist)(emphasis added). 27 The district court recognized First Step's concerns over Fennell's insufficiently detailed description of the proposed analysis of the hard drive, 8 as well as the confidentiality of information on the hard drive that was proprietary or subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege. The district court also recognized that resolving the discovery dispute, and the discovery process itself, would increase legal and expert fees. The protocols alerted the district court to genuine problems surrounding the proposed discovery of First Step's hard drive. In exercising its discretion, the district court reasonably concluded that the discovery process would involve substantial risks and costs. See id. 28