Ferenbach, Cam, United States Magistrate Judge
This is the last of four opinions addressing eDiscovery. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court’s order in Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 2011 WL 5598306 where the court limited the plaintiff to 10 search terms and 20 custodial email accounts in discovery after trying, unsuccessfully, to get the parties to agree on the number of search terms to be allowed. Ultimately, the court turned the matter over to a special master to resolve.
Plaintiff requested that the court amend its initial order because: (1) Rule 26 necessitates an initial determination of burden before email discovery can be substantially limited; (2) using search term protocols from the patent context is a mistake; and (3) recent factual discoveries require the order to be amended. Further, plaintiff proposed that it should initially be allowed to use 100 search terms and search 50 custodial accounts. After which, the defendant would supply the plaintiff with a list identifying how many documents were searched and the amount of “unique” documents. Both plaintiff and defendant agreed that this “iterative process” could make discovery more efficient and less burdensome on the defendant.
However, defendant objected to the plaintiff’s plan to use certain terms during the iterative process. Defendant argued that this iterative process would be better carried out if it was overseen by a special master. Considering the parties prior discovery track record, the court agreed. The court appointed a special master to oversee the electronic discovery process and gave the special master authority to approve search terms, determine the number of search terms, refine any search terms, and allocate the costs of ESI discovery between the parties.
v.
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendant
Counsel
Edward Chapin, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan LLP, San Diego, CA, Stefanie Roemer, Felicia Medina, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, DC, Jill Sullivan, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP, San Diego, CA, Vincent J. Aiello, The Law Office of Vincent J. Aiello Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs.Deborah L. Westbrook, Bruce C. Young, Patrick H. Hicks, Wendy M. Krincek, Jeanine Olivares Navarro, Kristina N. Escamilla, Littler Mendelson, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant.