Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Limits Burden for Defendant to Search Loan Numbers, Splits Costs Between Parties: eDiscovery Case Law

In Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 14cv10103 (JGK)(DF) (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to search for 16,000 loan numbers proposed by the plaintiffs’ and ordered the parties to split the costs for performing the searches.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached contractual and fiduciary obligations owed to the plaintiffs in connection with trusts for which the defendant served as trustee, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendant to run a search using approximately 245,000 individual loan numbers as discrete search terms or, at least run a sample search, using 16,000 selected loan numbers as search terms and produce documents responsive to the searched loan numbers.

To date, the defendant had only searched for only relevant trust names and the defendant’s own “trust identifiers”, explaining that its “routine” internal practice was to use these trust identifiers – not individual loan numbers – in communicating by email, both internally and externally, about loans within the trusts.  However, the plaintiffs provided the Court with four examples of email strings that were produced in discovery by the defendant, each of which included emails referencing individual loan numbers and not the trust names or identifiers on which the defendant had relied.

In arguing that the additional burden imposed by the search terms requested by the plaintiffs would be disproportionate to its likely yield, the defendant pointed to another case where a search of 72,000 individual loan numbers identified by the plaintiff returned 733,000 documents not previously produced, of which – based on its review of a sample of those documents – the defendant deemed 1.38 percent, at most, to be responsive to the plaintiffs discovery demands.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s claim that its “routine” practice was to use trust identifiers for communication, Judge Freeman stated: “Plaintiffs have fairly demonstrated that, but for the happenstance that particular emails or attachments in each string included the trust name or identifier, the remainder of the relevant emails would not have been located by Defendant’s prior searches, and therefore would not have been produced. Further, Plaintiffs’ submitted evidence shows that Defendant’s assertion that it was not its practice to reference individual loan numbers in emails, without also referencing a trust name or identifier, is incorrect — or, at least, that Defendant’s employees did not utilize that practice consistently.”

As for the additional burden argument by the defendant, Judge Freeman observed that, in the other case, “the plaintiff apparently did not concur with Defendant that the responsiveness rate for the search performed was as low as Defendant represented” and that “this Court has no way to gauge the potential importance of the non-duplicative documents that were located through that search.”  As a result, Judge Freeman stated: “Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to review at least the additional documents that a sample loan-number search would uncover and that Defendant would produce as responsive to document requests, and then to return to this Court if, in their view, the volume and/or significance of any newly produced documents warrants a further, more extensive search.”

Judge Freeman therefore ordered the defendant to perform a search for the 16,000 loan numbers, and to “produce to Plaintiff all responsive, non-privileged documents discovered through that search, unless already produced in discovery in identical form.”  Judge Freeman also noted that “counsel should confer in good faith” regarding the use of qualifiers to avoid “false hits”, and found it “reasonable” for the plaintiffs to share half of vendor costs to perform the searches, in the approximate amount of $11,000.

So, what do you think?  Does this level of burden dictate splitting of costs?  Or does it depend on the case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, if you’re going to be in Houston on July 20, Women in eDiscovery (WiE) Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law, will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  I will be participating as a panelist on the “State of the Industry” panel and my colleague, Karen, will be moderating the “Legal Operations and Litigation Support” panel.  Click here for more information about the conference, including how to register!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Sure, No Keyword Before TAR, But What About Keyword Instead of TAR?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Last month, we discussed whether to perform keyword search culling before performing Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and, like many have concluded before (even a judge in FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc.), we agree that you shouldn’t perform keyword search culling before TAR.  But, should TAR be performed instead of keyword search – in all cases?  Is TAR always preferable to keyword search?

I was asked that question earlier this week by a colleague, so I thought I would relay what I essentially told him.

Many attorneys that I have observed over the years have typically tried to approach keyword search this way: 1) Identify a bunch of potentially responsive terms, 2) string them together with OR operators in between (i.e., {term 1} OR {term 2}, etc.), 3) run the search, 4) add family members (emails and attachments linked to the files with hits) to the results, and 5) begin review.

If that’s the keyword search methodology you plan to use, then, yes, a sound TAR approach is preferable to that approach pretty much every time.  Sure, proportionality concerns can affect the decision, but I would recommend a sound approach over an unsound approach every time.  Unfortunately, that’s the approach a lot of attorneys still use when it comes to keyword search.

However, it’s important to remember that the “A” in TAR stands for “Assisted” and that TAR is not just about the technology, it’s as much about the process that accompanies the technology.  A bad approach to using TAR will generally lead to bad results with the technology, or at least inefficient results.  “Good TAR” includes a sound process for identifying training candidates for the software, reviewing those candidates and repeating the process iteratively until the collection has been classified at a level that’s appropriate to meet the needs of the case.

What about keyword search?  “Good keyword search” also includes a sound process for identifying potentially responsive terms, using various mechanisms to refine those terms (which can include variations, at an appropriate level, that can also be responsive), performing a search for each term, testing the result set (to determine if the term is precise enough and not overbroad) and testing what was not retrieved (to determine what, if anything, might have been missed).  We covered some useful resources for testing and sampling earlier this week here.

Speaking of this week, apparently, this is my week for the “wayback machine” on this blog.  In early 2011, I described a defensible search approach for keyword search for which I created an acronym – “STARR”.  Not Ringo or Bart, but Search, Test, Analyze, Revise (if necessary), Repeat (the first four steps until precision and recall is properly balanced).  While you might think that “STARR” sounds a lot like “TAR”, I coined my acronym for the keyword search approach well before the TAR acronym became popular (just sayin’).

Regardless whether you use STARR or TAR, the key is a sound approach.  Keyword search, if you’re using a sound approach in performing it, can still be an appropriate choice for many cases and document collections.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that keyword search still has a place in eDiscovery?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

In a Second Case, Judge Specifies Search Terms for Parties to Use: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 15-CV-531W (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant’s cross-motion in part, ordering the defendant to perform additional production over a disputed time period, based on a list of search terms ordered by Judge Scott.

Case Background

In this case concerning allegations that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of promotions and work shifts or assignments that she was otherwise eligible to receive, for no reason other than her medical condition of epilepsy, the plaintiff (in February 2016) requested all emails sent and received by three key custodians “from September 2009 through the present, in native, electronic format, subject to an agreement of the parties regarding search terms.”  The defendant responded in September 2016, producing approximately 1,004 pages of responsive email messages and a privilege log containing 369 separate entries.

That request appeared to be fulfilled until the plaintiff’s deposition in February 2017, during which the plaintiff described discrimination and retaliation occurring through the present time. The description of ongoing improper conduct prompted the suspension of her deposition and different protests from each side. The defendant protested that the plaintiff did not describe ongoing conduct in her responses to its interrogatories, while the plaintiff protested that the defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s request did not include any email messages dated after February 2016. The pending cross-motions soon followed.

Judge’s Ruling

In looking at the complaint and the plaintiff’s second supplemental response, prepared after the start of the plaintiff’s deposition, Judge Scott noted that the plaintiff “mentions only two specific events that occurred after any produced email messages dated from February 2016”: “a denial of transport duties that occurred as recently as February 9, 2017; and an inability to apply for a sergeant’s position in July 2016”, along with a few written warnings.

Observing that the request “does not have to be revisited for any other topics”, Judge Scott stated that “[o]n at least one prior occasion, the Court has crafted discovery production based on specific search terms” – Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), which we covered here.  As a result, Judge Scott ordered the defendant to “supplement its response to Request 15 by searching for email messages dated between March 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017 that contain Abbott’s name, or any name mentioned in her second supplemental response, plus any of the following search terms:

  • sergeant
  • cell phone
  • control room
  • booking
  • transport
  • court hours
  • late OR lateness
  • surveillance OR camera”

Judge Scott denied the plaintiff’s motion “to the extent that it seeks any other relief”, observing that “[e]ven with allegations of ongoing retaliation, defendants at some point need to have some finality about what they are facing.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts craft search terms for parties to use in litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Despite Parties’ “Significant Animosity”, Court Orders Them to Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Elhannon LLC v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., No. 2:14-cv-262 (D. Vermont, Apr. 18, 2017), Vermont District Judge William K. Sessions, III granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel, denied motions for sanction by each party against the other, and ordered the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts to narrow their differences on the appropriate scope of discovery.

Case Background

In a breach of contract and consumer fraud dispute over pest infestation in the plaintiff’s tree nursery, the parties had numerous disputes over whether the defendant had met its discovery obligations.  In February 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel several categories of documents, including printouts of all screens from the defendant’s Electronic Landscape Manager (“ELM”) program, internal correspondence and emails pertaining to the plaintiff, internal financial and other analysis documents pertaining to the plaintiff, compensation and personnel file materials for the two key defendant employees on the plaintiff’s contracts, and documents from the defendant’s other electronic systems.

In most categories, the defendant’s arguments primarily related to either a contention that all responsive documents had already been produced, the documents requested were either irrelevant or not specific to the plaintiff or were already produced via another electronic system.  As for the internal correspondence and emails, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s email searches were “haphazard, overly narrow, devoid of proper guidance by counsel, and unreliable to say the least”, noting that several custodians were either not provided with search terms, or the terms were too limited or may have not performed any searches at all.  The defendant did acknowledge that it “recently recovered a number of emails previously not produced due to a gap in the technology used to perform its earlier email searches” and did supplement the production with those.

The plaintiff renewed its motion on the ground that recent deposition testimony demonstrates that Defendant’s prior representations to this Court asserting complete discovery responses were false.  In addition, both parties cross-moved for discovery sanctions, the plaintiff’s request was against the defendant failing to satisfy their discovery obligations and the defendant’s request was against the plaintiff for failing to meet and confer.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Sessions noted that “the parties’ filings indicate that counsel have approached each other with significant animosity, and that substantial challenges exist to narrowing discovery disputes.”  Taking several of the document categories in consideration, Judge Sessions ordered the defendant to produce additional relevant, responsive data and documents from those sources.

With regard to the email search terms, Judge Sessions stated:

“Given the parties’ failure to engage in a comprehensive meet and confer or to reach agreement on the scope of email search terms, the Court will require the parties to do so now, rather than grant Elhannon’s motion on this ground. If necessary, the parties may request the Court to approve a list of appropriate email search terms after their meet-and-confer.”

Judge Sessions did not find that the plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion warranted the imposition of sanctions, nor did he find that “either party has provided sufficient reasons to justify sanctions against the other for failing to produce documents.”

So, what do you think?  Should parties face sanctions for failing to meet and confer?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

To Keyword Cull or Not to Keyword Cull? That is the Question: eDiscovery Trends

We’re seeing a lot of discussion about whether to perform keyword searching before predictive coding.  We’ve even seen a recent case where a judge weighed in as to whether TAR with or without keyword searching is preferable.  Now, we have a new article published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology that weighs in as well.

In Calling an End to Culling: Predictive Coding and the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (PDF version here), Stephanie Serhan, a law student, looks at the 2015 Federal Rules amendments (particularly Rules 1 and 26(b)(1)) as justification for applying predictive coding “at the outset on the entire universe of documents in a case.”  Serhan concludes that doing so is “far more accurate, and is not more costly or time-consuming, especially when the parties collaborate at the outset.”

Serhan discusses the importance of timing to predictive coding and explains the technical difference between predictive coding at the outset of a case vs. predictive coding after performing keyword searches.  One issue of keyword culling that Serhan notes is that it “is not as accurate because the party may lose many relevant documents if the documents do not contain the specified search terms, have typographical errors, or use alternative phraseologies”.  Serhan assumes that those “relevant documents removed by keyword culling would likely have been identified using predictive coding at the outset instead.”

Serhan also takes a look at the impact on efficiency and cost between the two methods and concludes that the “actual cost of predictive coding will likely be substantially equal in both methods since the majority of the costs will be incurred in both methods.”  She also looks at TAR related cases, both before and after the 2015 Rules changes.

More and more people have concluded that predictive coding should be done without keyword culling and with good reason.  Applying predictive coding to a set unaltered by keywords would not only likely be more accurate, but also be more efficient as keyword searching requires its own methodology that includes testing of results (and documents not retrieved) before moving on.  Unless there’s a need to limit the volume of collected data because of cost considerations, there is no need to apply keyword culling before predictive coding.

Culling that does make sense is Hash based deduplication, elimination of clearly non-responsive domains and other activities where clearly redundant or non-responsive ESI can be removed from the collection.  That’s a different type of culling that does make sense.

So, what do you think?  To keyword cull or not to keyword cull?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et. al. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission, et. al., No. 15-00134 (W.D. Texas, Apr. 10, 2017), Texas Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin (no relation) denied the defendant’s motion to overrule the plaintiff’s objections to the defendant’s discovery requests, due to the fact that the plaintiff stated it was withholding documents based on each of the objections.

Case Background

In this dispute over the restriction of public companies to sell liquor in Texas, Judge Austin, after conducting a hearing to discuss the parties’ discovery dispute, noted “There was quite a bit of confusion at the hearing about precisely what relief TPSA is requesting in this motion.”  Ultimately, it was determined that the defendant was requesting the Court to overrule objections made by the plaintiff to each of the requests for production, which it assumed would mean that the plaintiff would be under “compulsion” to produce responsive documents, and any disagreements about the actual production could be addressed at that time.

Judge Austin also noted that the “cause of the confusion is not one-sided”, in that much of the confusion stemmed from the plaintiff’s “overabundance of caution” in responding under the new discovery rules, which now require that when a party makes an objection, it also state whether it is withholding any documents subject to that objection. In every one of its responses to the defendant’s requests, the plaintiff leveled one or more objection, and in each instance it stated that it is withholding documents pursuant to that objection.  As a result, the defendant was concerned that there were identified, responsive documents sitting on plaintiff’s counsel’s desk that had not been produced, any of which could be a “bombshell.”

In an exchange with plaintiff’s counsel for clarification, Judge Austin determined that the plaintiff had indicated it was withholding documents pursuant to each objection even if the plaintiff determined that the request was too broad and of such marginal relevance to even merit a search to find responsive documents and that the plaintiff expected it was likely that there were some responsive documents in its many offices and on its computer networks and that some of these documents would likely be privileged attorney client communications or work product.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s statement that it was “withholding documents based on these objections”, Judge Austin noted that while it “may technically be accurate, it is not what the new rules were after in adding the requirement in Rule 34(b)(2)(C) that ‘an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the objection.’”   Judge Austin indicated that “A more helpful response would have been something along the lines of ‘Based on these objections, Wal-Mart has not conducted a search for responsive documents, and while it is likely that some responsive documents may exist, Wal-Mart has not identified any such document, and is not withholding any identified document as a result of these objections.’”

Judge Austin also stated: “For most of the RFPs, Wal-Mart responded that it had already collected and produced documents in response to similar requests from the TABC, based on agreed upon search parameters, and would produce the same documents to TPSA. Further, Wal-Mart stated that it would conduct an additional limited search of additional document sources, but would otherwise not search further. TPSA failed to state in its briefs, or at the hearing, what it believed was deficient with this response. In fact, when asked at the hearing, TPSA was unable to point to a single additional document that would be responsive to its requests it believed had not already been produced. Despite this, TPSA continued to maintain that overruling Plaintiffs’ objections would solve this discovery dispute.”  Disagreeing, Judge Austin denied the defendant’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge’s suggestion for handling objections in this case helpful?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Determines TAR Without Keyword Search Culling First is Preferable: eDiscovery Case Law

In FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc., No. 16-12883 (E.D.  Mich., Mar. 28, 2017), Michigan District Judge Avern Cohn “rather reluctantly” decided a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on whether the universe of electronic material subject to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) review should first be culled by the use of search terms by agreeing with the plaintiff that “[a]pplying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method.”

Case Background

In this dispute over the allocation of the cost incurred for an auto part that became the subject of a recall, the parties agreed on many issues relating to discovery and particularly electronic discovery.  However, one issue that they couldn’t agree on was whether the universe of electronic material subject to TAR review should first be culled by the use of search terms. The plaintiff took the position that the electronic material subject to TAR review should not first be culled by the use of search terms, while the defendant took the position that a pre-TAR culling is appropriate.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the Court decides “rather reluctantly” to rule on the issue, Judge Cohn stated:

“Given the magnitude of the dispute and the substantial matters upon which they agree, the parties should have been able to resolve the discovery issue without the Court as decision maker. Be that as it may, having reviewed the letters and proposed orders together with some technical in-house assistance including a read of The Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer, 18 Sedona Con. J. ___ (forthcoming 2017), the Court is satisfied that FCA has the better postion (sic). Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method. The TAR results can then be culled by the use of search terms or other methods.”

As a result, Judge Cohn agreed to enter the plaintiff’s proposed order regarding the TAR approach.

So, what do you think?  Should TAR be performed with no pre-search culling beforehand?  Should courts rule on a preferred TAR approach?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Approves Defendant’s Proposed Random Sampling Production Plan: eDiscovery Case Law

In Duffy v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, No. 14-2256 (D. Kansas, Mar. 31, 2017), Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James granted the Motion to Modify Discovery Order from the defendant (and counterclaimant), where it asked the Court to enter a protective order directing it to produce a random sampling of 252 patient records, along with five spares, in order to respond to the plaintiff/relator’s document requests.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant submitted false information to the government to maximize reimbursement for federal medical care programs; in turn, the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud.  In a February 2017 order, the Court ordered the defendant to produce documents responsive to certain plaintiff requests in her Second Request for Production of Documents within 14 days.  Defendant produced the most of the requested documents, except for those associated with four requests that were the subject of an instant motion.

As the defendant conducted searches for documents responsive to these requests, it determined that 15,574 unique patient records would have to be located and gathered.  In an effort to calculate the time necessary to locate and produce the relevant patient records, the defendant’s Medical Records department obtained a sample of ten patient records and determined that it would take 30 minutes per record to process and review the records to respond to the four RFP requests.  As a result, the defendant estimated that it would take 7,787 worker hours to locate and produce responsive information for 15,574 patient records, at a cost of $196,933.23.  Redaction of patients’ personal confidential information would take another ten reviewers and one quality control attorney fourteen days at a cost of $37,259.50.  So, the total cost to produce information relevant to the RFPs was estimated to be over $230,000.

Given these costs, the defendant asked the Court to modify its order by limiting the required production to a random sampling of 252 patient records plus five spares, using a statistical tool known at RAT-STATS used by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to randomly select the patient records.  The plaintiff objected, claiming that the defendant did not attempt to meet and confer and also because the Court had already rejected the defendant’s previous contention of undue burden.  The plaintiff also argued that redaction was unnecessary because a protective order was in place to designate the patient info as confidential information.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the previous rejection of undue burden, Judge James stated: “Had Defendant presented such evidence in response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the Court may have found the requests at issue unduly burdensome and disproportional to the needs of the case. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant did not waive its right to seek protection once the enormity of the task became apparent.”  As for the plaintiff’s objection that the defendant did not meet and confer beforehand, Judge James noted that the “parties conferred following Defendant’s objections to the discovery requests, and that was the point at which some meeting of the minds could have produced a different response by Defendant or an alteration of the discovery request by Plaintiff. At this point, however, Defendant is seeking relief from this Court’s order rather than from a party’s discovery request.”

As a result, Judge James stated: “The Court will modify its order (ECF No. 133) to direct Defendant to utilize RAT-STATS and produce a random sampling of 252 patient records, along with five spares, to respond to RFP Nos. 40, 41, 43 and 58.”  She also directed the defendant to use RAT-STATS (as requested) to randomly select the patient records to be produced and sided with the defendant to redact personal confidential information from the patient records that “Defendant has a legal duty to safeguard.”

So, what do you think?  Is random sampling an appropriate option for cases where production of a larger set may be an undue burden?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Failing to Test Search Terms Before Agreeing to Them Can Be Costly: eDiscovery Best Practices

Here’s a big “pothole” that can derail your eDiscovery project.  On Thursday, I’ll discuss how you can learn about several more “pitfalls” and “potholes” and how to avoid them.

As soon as litigation is anticipated, it’s a good idea to begin collecting potentially responsive data and assessing it by performing searches and testing the results.  Because, if you wait until after the meet and confer with opposing counsel to do so, it can be expensive.

On the very first day we introduced eDiscovery Daily over 6 1/2 years ago, we published a post where we discussed the danger of using wildcards in your searches (and how they can retrieve vastly different results than you intended).  I was providing search strategy assistance to a client that had already agreed upon over 200 search terms with opposing counsel.  The attorneys had prepared these terms without assistance from a technology consultant (or “geek” if you prefer) – I was brought into the project after the terms were negotiated and agreed upon – and without testing any of the terms.

One of those searches related to mining activities, so the attorney decided to use a wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining”.  As you know by now if you’ve been a reader of the blog since the beginning (or if you clicked on the link to that original post above), that one search retrieved over 300,000 files with hits because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with the letters “min”.  We ultimately had to go back to opposing counsel and attempt to negotiate a revised search that was more appropriate.

Since the terms had been agreed upon, opposing counsel was understandably resistant to modifying any of them.  It wasn’t their problem that my client faced having to review all of these files – it was my client’s proposed term that they now wanted to modify.  However, because we were able to demonstrate a clear indication that many of the retrieved documents in this search were non-responsive, we were able to get opposing counsel to agree to a modified list of variations of “mine” that included “minable”, “minefield”, “minefields”, “miner” and “minings” (among other variations).  That modified search reduced the result set to less than 12,000 files with hits, saving our client a “mint”, which they certainly didn’t “mind” (because we were able to drop “mint” and “mind” and over 200 other words from the responsive hit list).

However, there were several other inefficient terms that opposing counsel refused to renegotiate and my client was forced to review tens of thousands of additional files (costing tens of thousands of dollars) that they wouldn’t have had to review if they had included a technical member on the team at the beginning and had they tested each of these searches before negotiating terms with opposing counsel.  Doing so would have identified which terms were overbroad and would have led to determining more efficient search terms to propose, saving tens of thousands of dollars in review costs.

So, what do you think?  Do you test your search terms before proposing them to opposing counsel?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Requesting 72 Spelling Variations on Five Search Terms Spells Trouble for Plaintiffs: eDiscovery Case Law

In Diesel Power Source et. al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et. al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah, Feb. 23, 2017), Utah Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for the failure of the defendant to produce ESI, finding that the plaintiff had failed to sufficiently narrow its search terms by introducing 72 spelling variations on the five terms it proposed.  Judge Wells also denied the defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions, finding that the defendants had failed to provide any “certification that the parties made reasonable efforts to reach agreement on the disputed matters.”

Case Background

In this case regarding defamatory comments and photographs allegedly posted on the internet by the defendants about the plaintiffs (who were business competitors), Judge Wells led off her order by stating: “To state that the parties in this matter are not cooperating with each other is an understatement.”  Throughout the case, each of the parties had taken turns filing motions for sanctions and each of the parties had complained to the court about the other side failing to provide requested discovery, causing Judge Wells to note that the case “has sat stuck in the quagmire of discovery despair” since it was filed in November 2014.

The plaintiffs sought sanctions against the defendants for their alleged failure to comply with a May 2016 court order compelling them to produce certain items. Following a hearing held in December 2016, it became apparent that some items were still outstanding. The court took the Motion for Sanctions under advisement before finding in January 2017 that the email search terms submitted by the plaintiffs were “overly generic and result in an undue burden placed upon Defendants”. The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide “five detailed search terms that must be more detailed than those previously submitted”.

Following the court’s order, the plaintiff provided the defendants with five search terms, but also provided 72 “spelling variations” on these search terms for a total of 77 search terms.  Due to the number of search terms, the defendants filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions, again asserting that the plaintiff was on a fishing expedition and also arguing that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the court’s May 2016 order, asking for sanctions citing to the Ehrenhaus factors.  In response, the plaintiff argued it is easy to search using the 72 “spelling variations” if quotations are used.

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the motions, Judge Wells stated: “After considering all that has happened during discovery the court finds both parties to be at fault. First, the court finds Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently narrow its search terms. Previously the court found Plaintiff’s search terms to be overly generic placing an undue burden upon Defendants. Now, Plaintiff has taken the court’s instruction to provide five search terms to an extreme by supplementing it with 72 additional ‘spelling variations.’ Such an expansion is not within the spirit and intent of the court’s prior orders, its comments during hearings or within the principles of proportionality found in the discovery rules.”  As a result, Judge Wells ruled that “Plaintiff is permitted to use the five search terms it has provided along with three listed spelling variations, three for each of the five search terms, for a total of twenty terms.”

As for the defendants’ motion, Judge Wells stated that “Defendants Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions not only misstates the record before the court, it also fails to comply with the Short Form Discovery Rules as set forth by Judge Nuffer and as set forth in Local Rule 37-1. Defendants have failed to provide any ‘certification that the parties made reasonable efforts to reach agreement on the disputed matters’ and that provides an additional basis to deny Defendants motion.”  Judge Wells also noted that “[m]uch of Defendants motion is an attempt to draw the court’s attention away from Defendants own malfeasance. There is no excuse for Defendants failure to provide the federal tax returns and bank statements.”

Judge Wells also issued a warning to “both parties that going forward there needs to be a renewed spirit of cooperation otherwise the court will use its inherent powers to sanction the attorneys in this case for the continued stonewalling that has been a reoccurring theme in this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts rule on limiting spelling variations of search terms?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.