Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brings claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging Defendant subjected a class of female employees to sexual harassment, and retaliated against such employees when they complained about the harassment. Docket # 6 at 1. On November 20, 2011, this Court granted Wendy Cabrera leave to intervene in this action. Docket # 9. Defendant responded to both the Amended Complaint and the Intervenor Complaint by filing Answers on January 6, 2012. Discovery commenced with the Scheduling Order issued December 20, 2011 and concluded on November 31, 2012.

In the present Motion for Resolution of Discovery Dispute, the EEOC and Defendant could not agree on a protocol or search terms for the search of electronically stored information including social networking data, text messages, blog postings, and email accounts as ordered by the Court on November 7, 2012. [Docket # 241.] The EEOC recommended use of 57 search terms,[1] while Defendant recommended approximately 475 terms. Based on the lowest bid it obtained, the EEOC also requested that the Court appoint Jeremy Shaper of BlueStar Case Solutions, Inc. as the Special Master in this case.

At the oral argument on February 12, 2013, I entertained the parties' respective positions on each of the search terms proposed by Defendant (having accepted all of the EEOC's less-inclusive search terms, all of which had been stipulated by the Defendant). I am now prepared to enter an order reflecting my rulings on appropriate search terms and related issues.

I adopt the EEOC's proposed search terms and protocol (with certain additions proposed by Defendant) and amend my Order from November 7, 2012 as follows: First, the EEOC will bear the initial costs of the Special Master and discovery of the aggrieved individuals' ESI, and will seek reimbursement through this Court from the Defendant. At the appropriate time, I will entertain a motion and argument on the proper apportionment of such costs between the parties in the case. Although I initially ordered that such costs be shared equally, I am prepared to consider a different apportionment. Second, appended to this Order is my decision concerning what additional search terms will be included.

The Special Master is to bates stamp all of the results of his search. The EEOC will then have the opportunity to conduct a privilege review prior to the Court's in camera inspection of the records. The Special Master shall provide the EEOC with the results of its search, and the EEOC shall create a privilege log to provide to the Court and Defendant describing any records that it withholds due to privilege prior to the Court's relevance review. These are the only records the EEOC may withhold. At this time, the EEOC shall also provide the Court with a list of any of its other objections to the discovery.

*2 I. The Special Master shall download and preserve all content from any social networking website owned by an aggrieved individual, including wall posts, pictures, and videos, with the exception of direct messaging, and produce this content to the Court for an in camera review for relevance.

I. The aggrieved individual is required to disclose to the Special Master her own personal email accounts, usernames, and passwords. She is not required to disclose any email accounts provided to her by any employer.

I. If an aggrieved individual owns and hosts her own web-blog, she shall disclose the username and password to the Special Master. The Special Master shall download and preserve all public content, including posts, pictures, and videos, and produce this content to the Court for an in camera review for relevance.

I. The aggrieved individual is required to provide to the Special Master with all cell phones in her custody or control, which she personally owned or had in her possession during the relevant time period specified in Part A, with the exception of phones provided to her by her employer.

I. The search term list below applies only to those electronic communications that are not otherwise addressed above. Specifically, electronic communications between the aggrieved individuals and key actors as identified in Paragraphs C.II and E.II are subject to full disclosure to the Court for in camera review, as is public social networking media captured under Part B.I, blogs and similar forums owned and controlled by an aggrieved individual as captured under Part D.I, and relevant blog public content captured under Part D.II.

Since that time, the District Court ruled on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [docket # 42] and, thus, searches relating to Long Armstrong and any aggrieved individuals who alleged sexual harassment only against him have been eliminated by agreement of the parties.