AMEC Env't & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., 2013 WL 3923459 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013)
In this discovery dispute, the plaintiff, AMEC, claims that the defendants’ ediscovery search terms were not sufficient. Specifically, AMEC alleged that Geosyntec left out key custodians and keywords. Geosyntec argued that the searches were “too broad” with a hit rate of only 8% and even with narrower searches, they have produced 200,000 responsive pages. United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler declined to rule on the dispute, instead holding that “the parties of course know their discovery better.” The court did note that searches that are overly broad are “relatively useless ways of getting at the smoking gun emails” but did not make any ruling regarding the search protocols, preferring to wait until the parties meet and discuss their ediscovery disputes.