Beeler, Laurel, United States Magistrate Judge
In this misappropriation of trade secrets litigation and breach of contract case, the parties have disputes about the sufficiency of the responses of their discovery requests to each other, including sufficiency of search terms for e-discovery. The court only briefly discussed the e-discovery dispute, stating that Plaintiff argued that Defendant left out "obvious custodians and search words," and Defendant responded "that its searches are too broad with a hit rate of 8% and that it had to do work to narrow its terms to produce the 200,000 responsive pages it has produced so far." The court indicated that the parties knew their discovery better than the court did, and that the parties agreed to meet and confer to "try to work things out."
The court memorialized the parties agreement on the record to confer further about the e-discovery issues.
v.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC., et al., Defendants
Counsel
Aengus Hartley Carr, Matthew F. Miller, Robert John Nolan, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.Richard C. Darwin, Peter H. Bales, Buchalter Nemer A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.