E-Discovery Advisory: Courts Seek Sanity in the Development and Implementation of Search Terms

Mintz
Contact

Practitioners have long recognized that search term culling of electronic document databases consisting of millions of pages is often the only way to make production from these sources cost-effective and time-feasible.1 Increasingly, courts also recognize the utility of search terms to retrieve responsive electronically stored information. However, with recognition comes scrutiny‚ and with scrutiny comes frustration.

One recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights this budding judicial scrutiny of the use of search term culling as well as a commensurate level of frustration with litigants who allow e-discovery disputes to escalate to motion practice. See William A. Gross Constr. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfg. Mutual Ins. Co., Docket No. 07 Civ. 10639 (LAK)(AJP), 2009 WL 724954 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2009) (Peck, M.J.).

Please see full advisory for more information.

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Mintz

Written by:

Mintz
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Mintz on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide