Opinion ID: 2363701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Weighing of Factors

Text: In its discussion, the Berst court advised district courts to exert general supervisory power over discovery and apply K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-226(c) by making any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. See Berst, 232 Kan. at 188, 653 P.2d 107. Other statutory provisions not discussed in Berst also grant district courts discretion to limit the scope and burden of discovery. For example, K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-245(c)(1) provides that reasonable steps should be taken to avoid undue burden and expense on a person subject to a subpoena, and K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-245(c)(3) explicitly authorizes the quashing or modification of a subpoena as a means of protecting a witness from misuse of the subpoena power. More specifically subsection (c)(3) provides that the district court shall quash or modify the subpoena if it requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies if it subjects a person to undue burden. K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-245(c)(3)(A)(iii), (iv). This court in Jones also concluded that the district court should consider whether the information could be obtained without burdening a nonparty who claimed privileges. Specifically, the Jones court stated: Questions may be directed to the [expert witness] doctor through interrogatories or by deposition which would elicit the evidence plaintiffs seek to show prejudice or bias. Jones, 243 Kan. at 455, 759 P.2d 953. Each of these considerations arise from KaMMCO's general arguments that the discovery and even the preparation of a privilege log may be burdensome. Yet, all we have in the record to support this argument is KaMMCO's general claim. The decisions of this court have never demanded more. This low threshold creates the apparent problem of leaving the district court (and now this court) with no effective mechanism for conducting the balancing called for in Berst. While this court has never adopted a specific standard for arguments related to burden, the federal courts have established requirements. For example, the federal courts in the District of Kansas require a factual basis for a claim that discovery is unduly burdensome. More specifically, the objecting party must provide an affidavit or other evidentiary proof of the time and expense involved in responding to the discovery request. E.g., Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hosp. Authority, 220 F.R.D. 633, 653 (D.Kan.2004). Consistent with the weighing of factors discussed in Berst, the federal courts require the objecting party to meet the burden of showing not only undue burden or expense, but that the burden or expense is unreasonable in light of the benefits to be secured from the discovery. Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 377, 380 (D.Kan.2005). We adopt these federal standards and on remand direct compliance if an objection is made that either a discovery demand or a request to create a privilege log is unduly burdensome. Additionally we direct the district court to consider the other factors discussed in Berst and Jones.