Wilson Aerospace LLC v. Boeing Co., No. C23-847 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2026)

‍

Why This Case Is Important

This ruling highlights the importance of common sense and good faith in e-discovery. It reminds legal professionals that technical agreements like ESI protocols cannot be used to circumvent the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or shield relevant custodians from reasonable discovery.

Overview Text

In Wilson Aerospace LLC v. Boeing Co., an intellectual property case centering on alleged trade secret misappropriation, a discovery dispute arose over the scope of electronically stored information (ESI) collection. The plaintiff requested to add ten more ESI custodians to the collection process, which would have brought the total number of custodians to thirty.During this dispute, it was revealed that the defendant had failed to search the documents of a plainly relevant employee, Patrick Murphy. The defendant admitted that it had not searched Murphy’s documents because he was not a disclosed custodian in the ESI protocol.

Relying on the parties' ESI protocol, the defendant sought to avoid producing these documents. Plaintiff’s motion to compel sought the court’s assistance to resolve whether the procedural boundaries set by an ESI protocol could excuse a party from collecting and producing obviously relevant information from employees under its control, especially regarding crucial financial and NASA-related issues in this case. The court’s ruling aligned with other recent cases that emphasize that strict adherence to rigid procedural limitations or uncooperative tactics cannot override the fundamental requirement to conduct discovery reasonably and in good faith.

Ruling Summary

• Protocols Do Not Supplant Rules
  The court rejected the notion that discovery parameters override foundational obligations. Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson stated that, while parties can utilize custodian-based collections, "these tools do not narrow or override the Federal Rules." She clarified that an ESI protocol "is a mechanism to implement the Rules, not a device to contract around them," meaning parties cannot use agreements to dodge responsibilities under FRCP 34.
• Targeted Custodian Expansion Granted
  Rather than granting the plaintiff’s broad request for ten new custodians, the court ordered a proportional compromise. Finding that a "50% increase to thirty custodians is not justified," Judge Peterson ruled that "targeted expansion is warranted given the importance of financial and NASA-related issues and Defendant’s control over that information." The court ordered the defendant to designate three new ESI custodians and to meet and confer regarding two others.
• No Excuse for Ignoring Relevance
  Addressing the failure to search Murphy’s records, the court emphasized good faith. Judge Peterson ruled that "a party therefore cannot justify failing to collect obviously relevant documents on the ground that the relevant employee was not designated as an 'ESI custodian'." The court found defendant's position "inconsistent both with Defendant's obligations under Rule 34 and with the plain language of the ESI Protocol."

Expert Analysis

Patricia Antezana, Counsel, ReedSmith

This opinion underscores that parties must carefully consider the terms of their ESI protocols and abide by them.  Although Rule 34 requires parties to produce requested documents in their possession, custody, or control, the court also cited to language from the parties’ ESI protocol to support its decision.  The parties’ ESI protocol explicitly confirmed that search terms did not supplant the scope of ESI to be produced under the Federal Rules and the parties’ discovery requests.

‍

Tip Text

Ensure your data collection workflows prioritize actual relevance over rigid technical limitations, applying common sense to your Rule 34 obligations. ESI protocols are guideposts, not loopholes. If you need a refresher on how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern your preservation and production duties, download our FRCP Guide [1.1]to ensure your strategies align with court expectations.

‍