In re Class Action Settlement Administration Litigation

‍

Why This Case Is Important

This ruling clarifies a producing party’s obligation to validate discovery under Rule 26(g). While statistical testing of the null set is standard, courts will not mandate expensive, multi-layered validation efforts that seek to root out false-positive overproductions or duplicate prior collection validations.

Overview Text

In In re Class Action Settlement Administration Litigation, parties clashed over how a producing party must validate that its productions are substantially complete. Plaintiffs requested a three-strata validation approach: testing documents coded non-responsive, documents coded responsive, and documents excluded from the discovery review universe.While both sides agreed to review a random sample of non-responsive documents to ensure responsive materials were not omitted, defendants objected to the second and third strata. Defendants argued that re-reviewing responsive documents was unnecessary because overproducing does not violate discovery obligations. They also contended that validating the excluded set of documents after the merits review was complete would be duplicative.The court agreed with defendants. It ordered a revised protocol that removes the requirement to re-review responsive documents and eliminates post-review validation of the excluded set, provided pre-review statistical validation occurs.

Ruling Summary

• Obligation Limited to Completeness
  The court reaffirmed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires responses to be "complete and correct as of the time it is made." The primary concern is completeness, ensuring litigants "implement quality control measures sufficient to validate that they have not excluded responsive documents." The court noted both parties embraced their obligation to confirm responsive materials were not erroneously omitted by testing a statistically significant random sample of documents coded as non-responsive.
• Overproduction is Not Prohibited
  The court rejected the request to validate documents coded as responsive, explaining that this review only reveals the "false-positive rate." Since the Federal Rules do not forbid overproducing documents, the court held it would "not require defendants to incur additional costs re-reviewing documents" they intend to produce, barring privilege claims, as it falls outside Rule 26(g) boundaries.
• Duplicative Excluded Review Denied
  The court denied the request to re-validate documents entirely excluded from the review universe after the merits review concluded. Because the agreed protocol already required producing parties to statistically validate that their search terms and collections did not omit responsive material before review, a second check was "duplicative and unnecessary". These excluded documents are "not subject to downstream coding decisions".

Expert Analysis

Erin Corken, Esq., CEDS, FIP, AIGP, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM, Senior Solutions Engineer, Exterro

This ruling shouldn't be mistaken for a green light to treat initial collection as untouchable once merits review begins. In practice, it's common to learn things during merits review that require recollecting additional data outside the original protocol, and that obligation is not addressed here. What the court rejected was something narrower: a second, redundant validation of the Excluded Set after the collection was already validated up front. That's consistent with the ruling's broader cost-control logic, proportionality favors demanding proof of a complete collection once, not twice, while leaving room for genuine gaps discovered mid-review to be addressed as they arise.  

‍

Tip Text

This decision is a victory for cost control, showing that early collection validation shields organizations from late-stage do-over reviews. The ruling emphasizes aligning ESI protocols with proportionality, confirming courts will demand proof of a complete collection but will not penalize harmless overproduction. Understand how the Federal Rules apply to your ESI protocols by downloading Exterro’s Layman’s Guide to the FRCP.