The Raine Group LLC v. Reign Capital, LLC

Background

The parties were directed to finalize a protocol for searching electronically stored information, or ESI, by February 9, 2022. They could not agree on all provisions and submitted their dispute to the court. The disputes concerned the parties’ general search obligations and particular search terms.

The opinion states that Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a reasonable search for documents relevant to claims and defenses. Rule 26(g) also requires a party to sign its document disclosures and certify that they are complete and correct after a reasonable search. The court explained that an ESI protocol helps locate responsive documents but does not replace a party’s independent obligation to search reasonably accessible, relevant, nonprivileged, and responsive documents.

Search obligations and custodians

Reign Capital proposed language stating that each party had to search all company files and all files of employees who might have responsive documents. The court found that language unnecessary because the discovery rules already required a reasonable search, and overbroad to the extent it required searches of “all company files” or “all files from all employees.”

The court stated that counsel should consult with their clients to identify custodians and locations likely to contain relevant information. A reasonable search could account for redundant custodians or locations, inaccessible sources, and date limits. Raine Group had identified six employees whose emails and personal files were likely to contain relevant information. Reign Capital had not identified additional custodians or explained why other Raine Group employees’ files were likely to contain relevant information. The court therefore did not require the proposed broad-search language.

The court nevertheless advised that Raine Group’s search should include likely relevant non-custodian sources, such as shared drives. The court also directed Reign Capital to change its statement from “is prepared to search” to “will search,” so that both parties would represent that they would search relevant locations.

Search terms

The parties disputed terms including “law suit,” “trademark,” “sophisticated,” “real estate,” “hedge fund,” “private equity,” and “venture capital,” along with proposed proximity modifiers. The court explained that broad search terms can produce large numbers of irrelevant documents, while modifiers can focus searches on relevant material.

The court ruled that “real estate” was overbroad and unlikely to produce a unique set of relevant documents, particularly because Raine Group was also searching for “Reign.” The court therefore did not require Raine Group to search for “real estate,” even with the proposed modifiers. The court also agreed that Raine Group did not need to include its own name as a modifier for “law suit.”

The court approved the proposed modifiers for “sophisticated” and “trademark” because they were more focused on issues relevant to the case. For the terms “hedge fund,” “private equity,” and “venture capital,” the court found the terms themselves very broad and potentially irrelevant but required Raine Group to accept the proposed modifiers because they could narrow the search results.

Disposition

The court denied the motion at ECF 48. It ordered the parties to submit a revised ESI protocol consistent with the ruling.