Rodriguez v. Target Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-02982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. Target Corporation, Judge Schofield ordered further discussions and a joint letter about electronic-document searches.
The order affects the plaintiffs and defendants in Rodriguez et al. v. Target et al. by setting standards and next steps for searching and producing electronically stored information.
What happened
In Rodriguez et al. v. Target et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to address disagreements about how defendants were searching for and producing electronic documents during discovery.
The plaintiffs argued that defendants had to conduct a reasonable search for responsive, non-privileged documents, including documents that could be found without keyword searches. They also raised disputes about custodians, document locations, search terms, remote devices, and the discovery deadline.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield said some responsive documents must be produced even if keyword searches do not find them, although keyword searches may be the only practical method for very large databases. Judge Schofield ordered the parties to meet and confer further and file a joint letter by November 18, 2022, describing their remaining positions and supporting authority.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Target Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-02982
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs asked for a conference concerning unresolved electronic discovery disputes. The parties had met and conferred twice and exchanged letters and emails, but they remained unable to resolve the issues.
Discovery Disputes
The first dispute concerned whether defendants had to search for and produce readily accessible electronically stored information independently of keyword searches. The plaintiffs relied on the court’s electronic-information order and protocol, which states that agreeing on a search method does not eliminate the parties’ duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct a reasonable search, consult relevant witnesses and custodians, and produce known responsive documents.
The plaintiffs identified documents concerning the development and revision of product labels and labeling claims, as well as surveys or similar work concerning consumer perceptions. They argued that such documents might be accessible in ordinary files and might not be found through the proposed keyword searches.
The second dispute involved the details of the keyword searches, including which custodians and locations should be searched, whether business-related remote computers and cell phones should be included, and which search terms should be used. The plaintiffs also stated that defendants had produced very little discovery and had requested another extension of their production deadline.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated that defendants generally must produce responsive, non-privileged documents located through a reasonable and diligent search. The court explained that no fixed set of keywords necessarily defines the limits of a reasonable search, and that some documents may be readily located without keyword searches and must be produced independently of them. At the same time, the court recognized that keyword searches may be the only practical way to search some very large databases without creating an undue burden.
The court directed the parties to cooperate in agreeing on appropriate custodians, locations, and search terms. The court allowed initial productions to inform those parameters as part of an ongoing process, while avoiding undue burdens on defendants. Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the parties to meet and confer further, then file a joint letter by November 18, 2022, with each side’s portion limited to three pages and setting out its position and supporting authority.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.