E-Discovery
Incomplete Email Searches Spark Court-Ordered Do-Over
Why Sterling Computers Corp. v. IBM Matters
This decision underscores the obligation of parties in civil litigation to conduct comprehensive and good faith searches of custodial email when responding to discovery. It also affirms the ongoing duty under Rule 26(e) to supplement disclosures that are materially incomplete and reinforces that the threshold for establishing discovery relevance remains low—particularly when custodians contribute to formal discovery responses.
Case Overview of Sterling Computers Corp. v. IBM
In Sterling Computers Corp. v. IBM, the court addressed competing discovery practices in a trademark dispute over the use of the name “Sterling” in connection with IT and computer services. Early in the case, IBM successfully compelled Sterling to search additional email custodians, based on concerns that Sterling’s initial collection efforts were incomplete and failed to include less formal communications. The court found that email may offer candid insight not reflected in structured records and should be part of a thorough ESI review.
Later, Sterling filed its own motion to compel IBM to produce additional custodial emails, claiming IBM had likewise failed to conduct a comprehensive search across eight named custodians. IBM opposed the motion, arguing both untimeliness and that several custodians were irrelevant. The court disagreed, holding that Rule 26(e) obligated IBM to supplement its production where relevant documents may have been omitted, particularly if individuals contributed to interrogatory responses. The court found Sterling met its burden and ordered IBM to search and produce emails from all eight custodians.
Key Rulings
Emails Were Within the Scope of Discovery Requests
The court rejected defendant’s claim that email was not properly requested. Plaintiff had defined “documents” to include “electronic mail or email,” and used this definition consistently in its requests for production. Parties have an obligation to update their productions “if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,” and therefore these emails were fair game for discovery.
Specificity Trumps Speculation as Standard of Relevance
The judge reaffirmed that discovery relevance under Rule 26 is broad, requiring only that the information sought may bear on any issue in the case. However, there is a standard of evidence required, as “[m]ere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice; litigants seeking to compel discovery must describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.” The court found that Sterling described with sufficient specificity how the additional custodians’ emails could contain information relevant to its claims and defenses—particularly in a case where both parties had previously emphasized the importance of internal email communications.
Minimal Threshold for Relevance Met
Defendant argued that two custodians were not appropriate targets, because they were unlikely to have knowledge of the issues. The ruling found while “the threshold for relevance is minimal,” the fact that they both had contributed information IBM used in its interrogatory responses meant that the request for their inclusion “cleared this low bar.” Therefore, defendant was ordered to search their emails for responsive documents.
Almost twenty years after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were significantly updated as it relates to discovery, debates as to the scope and relevance of discovery during the pendency of a lawsuit continue to be brought forth to the courts and judges. In this discovery dispute, there are three highlights to observe. Discovery is ongoing, whereby the parties must continue to disclose information if determined to be relevant to the discovery request even after production(s) have occurred. Second, custodians who become involved in other facets of the lawsuit such as interrogatories are likely to be deemed relevant in terms of their data. Third, the bar is low when arguing a custodian’s data is not relevant to a discovery request which speaks to using caution when scoping and involving custodians. Begin narrow and expand only as necessary.
Case Law Tip
Use good faith and specificity in RFPs to avoid production disputes and ensure proportionality, while engaging in productive meet-and-confer sessions to resolve discovery issues effectively. Refresh your understanding of these concepts (and more) in Exterro's Layman's Guide to the FRCP.