Search Terms – Page 4

The Plumbing of a Motion to Compel

June 15, 2009 Josh Gilliland Culling, Deposition, Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, Litigation Hold, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production

In a product defect case about brass plumbing fittings, the Defendants fought a motion to compel electronically stored information relevant to class certification, because of undue burden and cost. They lost…in large part. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636, 1 (D. Minn. June[…]

Is ONE Keyword Adequate for a Search?

May 21, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, Motion to Compel, Request for Production, Search Terms

Magistrate Judge Facciola’s Asarco, Inc. v. United States EPA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37182 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2009) dealt with a very brief issue: Was one keyword adequate for the search of electronically stored information? Short answer: No In Asarco, the Plaintiff opposed a summary judgment motion and sought leave[…]

Know Your Client’s ESI: You Really Don’t Want a Judge Saying, “This is Unacceptable”

May 1, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Duty of Care, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, Litigation Hold, Request for Production

This may surprise a few people: There is another magistrate judge besides Judge Waxse writing ESI opinions in Kansas. Magistrate Judge Donald Bostwick issued an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to compel ESI in Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS[…]

Magistrate Judge Peck’s Search Term Wake-Up Call

March 31, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Email, Request for Production, Search Terms

This Opinion should serve as a wake-up call to the Bar in this District about the need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or “keywords” to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information (“ESI”). Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck,[…]

Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

February 23, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production, Search Terms, Uncategorized

In Spieker v. Cherokee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008), the parties became entangled in a dispute over who created search terms for a set of specific discovery requests. The Plaintiff had served the Defendant with specifically defined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 requests[…]

Ethics of e-Discovery (or, Teaching Lawyers Ballet)

February 11, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, ethics, Form of Production

“Watching an incompetent lawyer is like watching a clumsy ballerina.” Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, February 4, 2009 Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola’s keynote at Legal Tech 2009 had a call to action for lawyers to have certifications and standards of competence regarding technology. In light of how everyday life[…]

Be Careful What You Ask For, Because Someone Just Might Produce It

January 6, 2009 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production, Search Terms

There were three big “search term” cases in 2008 by Magistrate Judges John Facciola and Paul Grimm (both of whom also wear bow ties).[1] In United States v. O’Keefe, Judge Facciola wrote, “…for lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely[…]