Opinion ID: 4573020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: R.C.P. 26(b)(1)(A).

Text: 23 Plaintiffs are correct to point out that “[t]he scope of discovery encompasses far more than what will be considered admissible under the Idaho Rules of Evidence.” Phillips v. E. Idaho Health Servs., Inc., 166 Idaho 731, 743, 463 P.3d 365, 377 (2020) (citing I.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)(A)) (“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). However, the Rules also detail the district court’s authority to define that universe of “relevant information”: (C) Limits on Frequency and Extent of Discovery. Unless limited by these rules or the court orders otherwise, the frequency of use of discovery is not limited. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.