What is the current state of the law in the US when it comes to limiting the scope of a plaintiff’s discovery of evidence in a separate proceeding?

Although many of these authorities cite with approval the broad language of Henderson v. Henderson, [1843-60] All E.R. Rep. 378 (Eng. V.-C,), to the effect that any matter which the parties had the opportunity to raise will be barred, I think, however that this language is somewhat too wide. The better principle is that those issues which the parties had the opportunity to raise and, in all the circumstances, should have raised, will be barred. In determining whether the matter should have been raised, a court will consider whether the proceeding constitutes a collateral attack on the earlier findings, whether it simply asserts a new legal conception of facts previously litigated, whether it relies on “new” evidence that could have been discovered in the earlier proceeding with reasonable diligence, whether the two proceedings relate to separate and distinct causes of action and whether, in all the circumstances, the second proceeding constitutes an abuse of process. …