Requests for Production of Documents
(RFPs) (Plaintiff to Defendant) (Federal)

Summary

This template is document requests that may be used by a plaintiff in a federal district court case. It includes drafting notes and optional and alternate clauses. Document requests, also called requests for production (RFPs), are written requests served between parties in civil litigation seeking production of relevant documents and electronically stored information (ESI). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. These requests provide broad access to other parties' information but can quickly become expensive and yield an overwhelming amount of material. Carefully drafting the requests to ask only for the information needed to advance your case is critical to stave off objections and ensure you receive a manageable volume of documents and data. Document Request Requirements Rule 34 requests may be served "[m]ore than 21 days after the summons and complaint are served on a party[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2). Any party may serve requests for production/inspection on any other party to the action, including third-party plaintiffs and defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). There is no limit on the number of requests for production/inspection that may be propounded. Responses, including any objections, must be served within 30 days of the date the requests were served, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A); an additional three days are added to the response time if the requests were served by mail or other means specified in Rule 6(d). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Note that Rule 6(d) was amended effective December 1, 2016, eliminating electronic service as a means of service subject to the three-day extension of time. No time limit to bring a motion to compel, but any such motion should be filed within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). Proportionality Like other written discovery methods, the scope of a Rule 34 request is informed by Rule 26(b), which provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) now makes proportionality considerations part of the definition of the scope of discovery and reinforces parties' obligations to consider proportionality in making discovery requests, responses, and objections. A proportionality analysis requires the court to balance the value of the requested discovery against the cost of its production. See Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 279 F.R.D. 245, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Rule 26(b)(1) specifies that a proportionality analysis requires consideration of: "the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The court must limit the frequency or extent of the proposed discovery if it is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). For further discussion of proportionality, see Scope of Discovery (Federal). Related Content For a full listing of key content covering fundamental civil litigation tasks throughout a federal court litigation lifecycle, see Civil Litigation Fundamentals Resource Kit (Federal). For a full listing of key content covering fundamental written and document discovery tasks throughout a federal court litigation lifecycle, see Written and Document Discovery Resource Kit (Federal). For more on document request, see Document Requests: Drafting and Serving RFPs (Federal) and Document Requests: Responding to RFPs (Federal).