Legal Updates

We Hold These Rules to Be Self-Evident: Document Review, Relevance, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

James J. Hefferan, Jr. May 6th, 2024
Man in a suit holding a book titled "Civil Procedure Rules"

Sometimes, an argument or position may seem so self-evident or apparent that parties proceed on the assumption that it is correct without ever actually litigating the issue. Should a party decide to contest the issue, however, it can be difficult to find authority in support of the proposition. Such was the case in a recent decision involving an ESI protocol issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States ex rel. M. Frank Higgins & Co. v. Dobco, Inc., No. 22-cv-9599, 2023 WL 5302371 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2023).

The parties there disagreed as to how searches for ESI should be conducted. Plaintiffs argued that search terms should be crafted to locate relevant documents, and the parties should then be required to produce all non-privileged documents hitting on one or more search terms. Id. at *4. Defendant countered that Plaintiffs’ request to “produce every single electronic communication that includes at least one of the to-be-determined search words, without considering relevance or proportionality to the needs of the case, is tantamount to engaging in an impermissible fishing expedition that is well beyond the scope of permissible discovery.” Id.

ESI Obligations Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34

The Court agreed with Defendant. While “there is nothing improper about parties agreeing to produce all documents generated from an ESI search protocol,” as proposed by Plaintiffs, “the Court will not order an unwilling party to do so.” Id. ESI, like other forms of discovery, is subject to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “which only obligate a party to produce information that is relevant and responsive.” Id. The court recognized the reality that “[s]earch terms, even when narrowly tailored, may still produce some amount of non-responsive documents.” Id. Thus, Defendant was “entitled to review its documents to ensure that they are responsive to the discovery demands even if they hit on one or more of the parties’ agreed-upon search terms. Id. That said, the Court still expected Defendant “to promptly produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the parties’ document demands, except for those that it properly withholds based on an objection.” Id.

The parties had not yet discussed any proposed search terms, custodians, and date ranges to be applied to searches for ESI. Id. at *5. Negotiation of such search protocols should be “an iterative process that allows parties to narrowly tailor search terms, custodians, and date ranges to locate responsive and non-privileged documents for production. Id. A search protocol narrowly tailored and tested by both parties “can minimize concerns about fishing expeditions and the production of large quantities of non-responsive documents.” Id. However, in the absence of such discussions and negotiations, “arguments about relevance and burden are speculative at best.” Id. Based on these observations, the Court directed the parties to “meet and confer to negotiate search terms, custodians, and date ranges that are (1) narrowly tailored to achieve responsive search results, (2) proportional to the needs of the case, and (3) not unduly burdensome, costly, or voluminous.” Id.

Conclusion

The Court’s holding appears to be a straightforward and common sense solution to this issue. Typical practice has always been to review all documents hitting on agreed-upon search terms for relevance and responsiveness prior to production. Perhaps such an approach appeared so self-evident that it had never been litigated, as this Southern District of New York decision appears to be one of the first issued on the subject. Now, however, the issue has been clarified, and parties can streamline their negotiations over ESI protocols accordingly.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this blog is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this blog or your existing LitSmart contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

Topics: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 Rule 34 KT LitSmart Litigation Best Practices E-Discovery Best Practices

Subscribe to the E-Discovery Newsletter

Related Posts

  • Planting the Seeds of Accountability for Spoliation Sanctions

    When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

Newest Posts

  • Planting the Seeds of Accountability for Spoliation Sanctions

    When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

  • Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: Ephemeral Messaging Challenges

    The emergence of ephemeral messaging applications to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers quickly, securely, and effortlessly has boomed over the past decade. In that time, users of ephemeral messaging apps have risen significantly, from millions to billions of active users! Ephemeral messaging is an integral and evolving part of both individual and company communications with advantages and challenges impacting companies and the legal industry. Companies must consider the ramifications of their employees' use of ephemeral messaging and adopt policies and procedures to best protect themselves and comply with requirements relating to litigation and regulation. Courts have already begun addressing the failure to preserve relevant ephemeral messages and have been issuing sanctions in a myriad of legal challenges. Ephemeral messaging is here to stay, and companies, courts, and attorneys must understand and adapt to evolve with this emerging technology.