The recently amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize the “information explosion” of the electronic age by providing that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case” rather than “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) & advisory comm. note. Among other factors, this Court may consider the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources and access to information, and whether the discovery burden outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Swinerton's Request Nos. 95–107 purport to target documents addressing whether third-party defendant NextEra is Zuni's alter ego. Zuni argues that these requests are not only burdensome, but “irrelevant” because Swinerton contractually waived alter ego liability. That argument is premature. See, e.g., In re Bayou Hedge Fund Investment Litig., 472 F. Supp. 2d 534, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (concluding that veil-piercing issue should be addressed on summary judgment); Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 640 F. Supp. 737, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (same). But several of the requests—seeking, inter alia, all of Zuni's bank statements, loan applications, and financial statements without time limitations—are disproportionate to Swinerton's needs at this time. Zuni need not respond to Request Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, and 106. Zuni is directed to provide responses to Request Nos. 95, 96, 101, 104, and 107. Swinerton may serve amended document requests relating to veil piercing if they are significantly narrowed in scope and time.

Zuni also argues that it should be permitted to search for responsive documents using the terms “Zuni, Swinerton, and SWCA” rather than Swinerton's proposed terms—which include terms like “lakebed,” “financial closing,” and certain employee names. Zuni argues that its initial searches suggest that all responsive documents contain these terms, and that Swinerton's proposal would retrieve significant numbers of irrelevant documents from its affiliate NextEra, the largest renewable energy developer in North America. This Court agrees with Zuni that Swinerton's proposed search terms are overbroad. And there is no need to search for strings like “Swinerton + (permit OR liquidated damages)” if Zuni is already searching for all documents containing “Swinerton.” Accordingly, the parties may make initial searches using Zuni's proposed terms and agree to additional search terms as the need arises during discovery.

Dated: March 4, 2016.

SO ORDERED.