Federal Court Applies Common Sense To “eDiscovery”; Sets Standard for Search Term Reasonableness

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

The pitfalls of discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) have become all too common — overbroad or inaccurate search term lists result in too much data for a meaningful privilege analysis, and massive productions can make review by the receiving party equally daunting.   A recent federal court decision out of the District of New Jersey, I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc. et al., No. 03-3677 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011) (Debevoise, J.) provides a set of common-sense standards for proceeding with ESI discovery searches and review, and clarifies that “exceptional circumstances” are not required to modify a discovery order, even one based on stipulation, where search terms turn out to be overbroad.

I-Med’s suit alleged a refusal to honor an exclusive distribution agreement following a merger between Biomatrix and Genzyme.  During discovery, the parties stipulated to a set of search terms that would be used to look for responsive documents on I-Med’s computer systems.   However, the stipulated search parameters were quite broad. The stipulated search “was not limited to targeted document custodians or relevant time period … [and] was not even limited to active files.   The expert was instructed to run the search terms across all data on the computer system, including .... areas of computer memory … in which deleted and partially files and other temporary data may be found.”   Slip Op. at 5.

Moreover, the search terms themselves, although containing some proper names, contained common key words like “contract,” “credit,” “discount,” “refund,” and “minimum.”   Id. at 4-5. In a result that the district court said “should come as no surprise,” the stipulated search terms produced approximately 64 million hits, representing approximately 95 million pages.

I-Med, despite having stipulated to the search protocol, refused to conduct a privilege review of the material, and sought relief from the Magistrate Judge, who found “good cause” to modify the previous discovery order, and released I-Med from the burden of reviewing 95 million pages.   Id. at 6.   Defendants appealed to the District Judge, who concluded that relief from a stipulated discovery order could be granted without a need to show “manifest injustice.”

In analyzing the matter, Judge Debevoise evidenced the increasing sophistication that judges have towards ESI discovery matters. Looking at the effect on the party seeking to withdraw the stipulation, the District Court rightly concluded that a review of millions of documents would represent a major expenditure of attorney time and cost millions of dollars.   More importantly, the Court rejected an argument that the burden of this review could be reduced by merely searching for the word “privileged.” I-Med at 10-11. Though the stipulation called for searching unallocated space files—areas of computer memory in which deleted and partial files might theoretically exist, the Court found “the Defendants had failed to demonstrate a likelihood that relevant, non-duplicative information would be found” in such areas.   Id. at 11.  While noting that the “precise number of hits produced was not known in advance,” the Court admonished I-Med for agreeing to the list of search terms because “it should have exercised more diligence before stipulating to such broad search terms, particularly given the scope of the search.” Id. The Court also recognized the distinction between search term “hits” and unique documents, expressing dismay that the parties seemed to have confused the two concepts.    Id. at 5 n. 4.   Noting that the search term list contained terms that would likely have significant overlap, the Court reluctantly “t[ook] the parties at their word” concerning the number of hits per search term versus the number of total documents.

To provide future guidance, the Court announced a new standard for parties to consider when determining if a set of search terms are reasonable: (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; (5) whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue.”   Id.  at 11-12.

The I-Med factors provide a common-sense approach to search term lists, and a basic roadmap for parties to dispute (or justify) search term requests.   Highlighting the use of proper names, uncommon abbreviations or other highly targeted terms and the use of search restrictions (and/not/near) provide good examples of concrete ways that search term lists can be made more reasonable. I-Med provides parties with a “reality check” on ESI discovery — before demanding a more comprehensive set of search terms, a party can weigh the I-Med factors to anticipate how a court may view the matter.   And I-Med provides further reassurances that ESI discovery issues are not too technically complex to be resolved in a courtroom.

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.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.