This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our privacy policy to learn more.

E-Discovery Search Terms: What Are Reasonable E-Discovery Search Parameters?

Created on December 28, 2011


Senior Manager, Marketing Programs

Can you guess what is wrong with the following keyword search parameters listed below for an e-discovery request?

  • 58 predefined keywords with different searching variations (Boolean, etc.)
  • No specific time periods or employees
  • Inclusive of non-active and active files
  • Inclusive of all unallocated computer space

If you guessed that they create an overly broad and burdensome production request, then you are right. Amazingly, these were the search terms agreed upon between the parties in I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011). Here is what the search turned up:

Total Number of Keyword Hits: 64,382,929 (more than 95 million pages of data)

In this case, the judge modified the discovery order between the Plaintiff, I-Med, and Defendant, Biomatrix, to exclude a review of the unallocated space files based on Plaintiff's contention that a privilege review would be too expensive and burdensome. The Defendant appealed the ruling, stating that the judge “abused his discretion" by overturning the search parameters that both parties agreed to at the outset of the case.

The U.S. District Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the benefit of the privilege review would not justify the burdens of completing the review. Under the proportionality rule FRCP 26(b)(2)(C), the court is granted authority to “limit a party's pursuit of otherwise discoverable information where the burden if a discovery request is likely to outweigh the benefits," based on these factors:

  1. Needs of the case
  2. Amount in controversy
  3. Each parties' resources
  4. Importance of the issues in the action
  5. Importance of the discovery in resolving the issues

The court ruled that the Defendant's expenses to complete the search and collection for Plaintiff would be insignificant compared to the millions of dollars spent by Plaintiff to review the material. When evaluating the reasonableness of search terms, the court will consider a variety of factors, including:

  • Scope of documents to be searched and whether the search is restricted to specific custodians or data sources
  • If date restrictions are imposed for the search
  • “Whether the search terms contain proper names, uncommon abbreviations, or other terms unlikely to occur in irrelevant documents"
  • “Whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue"

I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc. offers guidance when it comes to formulating search terms for collection and review. Creating search terms with reasonable parameters will lead to a more targeted collection, thus reducing costs for the most expensive part of discovery, review.

To learn more about how to conduct a targeted collection and formulate reasonable search terms click here.

Mike Hamilton, J.D. is a Sr. E-Discovery Analyst at Exterro, Inc., focusing on educating Exterro customers, prospects and industry experts on how to solve e-discovery issues proactively with technology. His e-discovery knowledge, legal acumen and practical experience give him a valuable perspective on bridging the gap between IT and legal teams. You can find him on Google+, Twitter and Linkedin.

Comments

~ Select Clients ~

Allstate
Statoil
AOL
JP Morgan Chase
Nike
Citgo
Target
United Health
Microsoft
Metlife
Marathon
Starbucks
AstraZeneca
Visa
Oracle
DOJ
Kroger
American Express
Lockheed Martin
Allergan
New York Life
Intel
Golden Living
Hanover Insurance
Consolidated Edison Company (Con-Ed)
Supervalu
Los Alamos National Lab
Washingon AGO
Juniper Networks
Boeing
Corvel
Trinity
American Airlines
Lifepoint Hospitals
Fidelity
Columbia Pipeline Group
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
State Compensation Insurance Fund
The AES Corporation
Stryker Corporation
South Carolina Ports Authority