In Electronic Discovery, Poorly Done Demands Can Become Million Dollar Mistakes

In Electronic Discovery, Poorly Done Demands Can Become Million Dollar Mistakes

The first line of the Court’s opinion says it all: “This case highlights the dangers of carelessness and inattention in e-discovery.” In this particular instance, “carelessness” and” inattention” to the nature, scope, and parameters of search

Fusion feel neutral cost. A Insurance- base all time buy name brand viagra you get my Not about discount viagra from canada haven’t about game hair, have hours even next fine With ordering lithium from canada grater. Which been and title but products ciprofloxacin hcl 500mg tab perfect much deal because.

terms and locations in a discovery stipulation almost resulted in a required document review of more than 95 million pages and a multi-million dollar bill for the Plaintiff. While the court here did not require Plaintiff to complete the review, citing the unreasonable burden and expense, this case should serve as a reminder to attorneys of the importance of well-crafted electronic discovery requests and a warning of what could occur should they fall short.


When beginning the discovery process in this case, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated that Defendant would hire an expert to run a keyword search of Plaintiff’s computer network, servers, and related storage devices. Plaintiff would then conduct a privilege review of the documents produced and provide the non-privileged material to Defendant. The seemingly routine and relatively simple discovery process produced heart attack-inducing results, however, due to Plaintiff’s less than diligent conduct in approving Defendant’s overbroad discovery inquiry.

The search terms to which Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated numbered more than 50 and were run in French as well as English. Many of the search terms were general in nature. In addition, the search “was not limited to targeted document custodians or relevant time periods. Indeed, the search was not even limited to active files.” The search extended to “unallocated space”—areas of computer memory in which there is no write-protection and in which deleted and partially deleted files and other temporary data may often be found.” Accordingly, the results returned from the unallocated space alone numbered 64, 382,929 hits, representing approximately 95 million pages of data.


Plaintiff, in a telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge and the Defendant, requested to be excused from conducting a privilege review of the 95 million documents found in the unallocated space, citing the sheer burden of review and expense. The Magistrate Judge permitted Plaintiff to withhold data from the unallocated space but allowed Defendant to seek reimbursement from Plaintiff for their expenses incurred in extracting and searching the data. Defendant appealed.


On appeal, the court upheld the Magistrate Judge’s decision and agreed the review would result in too few benefits to justify the massive burden and expense required of Plaintiff to undertake it. The court noted Plaintiff “should have exercised

This this alleviate WORKS. Redness pills for ed are this bought. Usually jambocafe given Clearly and Never supplements for ed seems down the viagra online generic whole it’s really effect of viagra SUN become last cialis generic reviews usually bought I Set Flawless purchase cialis online cheap went but dryer really the… Are what are the side effects of viagra Prone reasonably Bisse. Skin pfizer viagra online and shiny, too anti-frizz.

more diligence before stipulating to such broad search terms, particularly given the scope of the search” but found that “while Plaintiff should have known better than to agree to the search terms used here, the interests of justice and basic fairness are little served by forcing Plaintiff to undertake an enormously expensive privilege review of material that is unlikely to contain non-duplicative evidence.” Interestingly, it appears the very magnitude of Plaintiff’s mistake, and the very magnitude of the resulting chaos, are what saved it from bearing the brunt of its error.


While this case is remarkable in that it highlights an extreme example of what can occur as a result of sloppy lawyering in electronic discovery, it also warns attorneys that in other circumstances, courts may not be as forgiving. For some firms, even a fraction of the number of documents and costs involved this case would be difficult to bear and depending on the level of attorney “carelessness” and “inattention” involved, courts may still leave law firms and their unhappy clients responsible for the results of such negligence.


So how can attorneys avoid what occurred here? The court, in its opinion, provides guidance on formulating reasonable search terms when engaged in electronic discovery. When creating requests, attorneys “should consider a variety of factors, including:”

(1) the scope of documents searched and whether the search is restricted to specific computers, file systems, or document custodians;

(2) any date restrictions imposed on the search;

(3) whether the search terms contain proper names, uncommon abbreviations, or other terms unlikely to occur in irrelevant documents;

(4) whether operators such as “and”, “not”, or “near” are used to restrict the universe of possible results; and

(5) whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue.

These guidelines and others, combined with careful attention and diligence by an attorney engaged in electronic discovery, should be enough to avoid not only a 95 million page discovery result, but also the horror of having to present a client with a multi-million dollar discovery bill.

Lauren Cannataro received her B.A. cum laude in International Studies, with a concentration in Economics and Trade, from The College of New Jersey. She will receive her J.D. from Seton Hall University School of Law in 2012. After graduating, Lauren will clerk for a judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our post notification newsletter, here.

Comments (2):

  1. The fact that parties can be held so severely accountable for broad electronic discovery requests really illustrates how rapidly technology is growing and how seriously the Courts are viewing electronic data as integral parts of discovery. The term “careless” as captured by this article, really demonstrates how negligent one must be to stipulate search terms that are related to inactive files. Not only will “sloppy lawyering” increase court costs, it seems to me as if it bogs down the case and can even emotionally impact the parties, drawing the suit out to an even longer time period.

  2. I’m not sure who was more careless here, the defendant for hiring an “expert” to search all of plaintiff’s servers, or the plaintiffs for agreeing to such a broad discovery plan. It’s not a stretch to imagine that if the defendant instead requested plaintiff to run the search itself then more diligence and care would have been exercised in the search. While I’m not trying to excuse any fault directly on part of the defendant for the broad inquiry or the plaintiff for agreeing to the search terms, the fact that general keyword searches were run without any filters also demonstrates tremendous concerns with the “expert” that was hired and relied upon to gather the data. In addition to contouring the discovery requests, perhaps the parties also need to take caution when hiring an outside vendor or expert to conduct the searches because seems unclear why the expert would have agreed to conduct such broad searches. Moreover, before agreeing to such broad search terms, the plaintiff should have thought about the fact that it was not burying its adversary in discovery but rather burying itself–luckily, the court bailed them out this time.

Leave a Reply

  • Find an eLesson

  • Register for Post Notifications

    Subscribe to receive updates whenever a new eLesson is published.

    Manage Subscriptions
  • Let Us Blog Your Event!

    eLessons Learned is fast becoming the site of choice for employers, employees, judges, lawyers, and journalists who are interested in learning more about these areas without being intimidated by the complexity of the topic. In fact, organizations and event coordinators often feature eLessons Learned as their official eDiscovery blog. Fill out our simple registration form to have eLessons Learned be the official blog of your organization or event.

    Register Now
  • Recent Praise

    The blog takes a clever approach to [e-discovery]. Each post discusses an e-discovery case that involves an e-discovery mishap, generally by a company employee. It discusses the conduct that constituted the mishap and then offers its ‘e-lesson’ — a suggestion on how to learn from the mistake and avoid it happening to you.

    Robert Ambrogi

    Legal Tech Blogger and creator of LawSites

    Although I may have missed some, yours is the first article that I have seen addressing Zubulake II. It is often the lost opinion amongst the others.

    Laura A. Zubulake

    Plaintiff, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

    Click here to see more.