*1 The Magistrate Judge has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to “Defendant The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests” (“the Motion”), filed April 7, 2023. The previously noticed May 5, 2023 hearing is vacated. The Magistrate Judge has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument.

The Motion principally concerns the reasonableness of Plaintiff's prior searches for electronically stored information (“ESI”) responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5, 19, 22 and 23 and Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 13 (“the subject discovery requests”). On the present record, the Magistrate Judge has concluded that Plaintiff's prior searches of her own “electronic accounts such as [her] email and electronic calendar” (see Doc. 103-6, p. 2) were not reasonable. Plaintiff evidently ran some word searches, but identified at her deposition as the specific terms she used during those searches only “Zach's name, Northwestern Mutual [and] Robert Keehn's name” (Doc. 100-2, p. 65). These terms plainly could not comprise a reasonable search to locate ESI responsive to Request for Production No. 19 or Interrogatory No. 13 (which pertain to communications with Citibank) or Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 23 (which pertain to the whereabouts of Plaintiff and Scott Poe). The terms Plaintiff reportedly used are also unduly restrictive with respect to searching for ESI responsive to the other subject discovery requests. Plaintiff also vaguely testified at deposition that she performed word searches using “whatever came to mind” (Doc. 100-2, p. 65). One can only speculate what may have come into Plaintiff's mind at the time of her prior searches. The declaration Plaintiff filed in opposition to the Motion fails to state anything regarding the specific terms used during Plaintiff's prior searches for ESI (Doc. 103-6). Further, the record is uncertain regarding what, if anything, Plaintiff did to search for responsive text messages she may have sent or received. In her declaration, Plaintiff vaguely claims she “conducted [her] search for responsive documents in coordination with my then-counsel in this matter” (Doc. 103-6, p. 2). What any such alleged “coordination” entailed is unknown. Perhaps Plaintiff's “then-counsel” did nothing other than send Plaintiff copies of the subject discovery requests and ask Plaintiff to search for documents responsive thereto. In the circumstances presented, a reasonable search for responsive ESI requires more than what Plaintiff evidently did here. See United Artists Corp. v. United Artists Studios LLC, 2019 WL 9049050, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019); Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc., 2014 WL 12577130, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2014); see also Zhulinska v. Niyazov Law Group, P.C., 2021 WL 5281115, at *3 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2021) (“Self collection by ESI custodians is strongly disfavored.... A party that opts not to have an expert conduct the ESI search does so at its peril.... Attorneys must take responsibility for insuring that their clients conduct a comprehensive and appropriate document search”) (citations and quotations omitted); Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., 2021 WL 411349, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (“A client-led search like the one here, where [the plaintiff] had no experience with electronic discovery, was not reasonable”); Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008), vacated in part on other grounds, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008) (“Attorneys must take responsibility for insuring that their clients conduct a comprehensive and appropriate document search”).

*2 The Motion seeks not only ESI possibly reposing in Plaintiff's own accounts, but also ESI possibly reposing in the former accounts of the decedent, Scott Poe. To the extent the Motion seeks ESI from the former accounts of the decedent, the Motion is denied. As pertinent here, Plaintiff's obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure end with the information “available” to her and the documents within her “possession, custody, or control.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34. On the present record, the Magistrate Judge is unable to conclude that ESI possibly reposing in the former accounts of the decedent is “available” to Plaintiff or within Plaintiff's “possession, custody, or control.” See United States v. International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand”); Clymore v. Federal Railroad Administration, 2015 WL 7760086 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (denying motion to compel decedent's parents to produce ESI from the decedent's former Facebook account).

Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiff promptly conduct a reasonable, diligent and good faith search of all parts of all of her electronic accounts (including accounts containing text messages) for ESI responsive to the subject discovery requests. This search shall involve word searches using, inter alia, the search terms suggested by Defendant at Doc. 100-1, p. 14, lines 9-10 and Doc. 104, p. 4, lines 5-10. It is further ordered that, on or before May 10, 2023, Plaintiff shall: (1) produce to Defendant all as yet unproduced, nonprivileged documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5, 19 (limited to communications with Citibank regarding Scott Poe's Citibank account), 22 and 23; (2) serve on Defendant further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 13; and (3) serve on Defendant a privilege log identifying with particularity any responsive documents withheld under claim of privilege. At Plaintiff's option, in lieu of requirement (2) above, Plaintiff may produce to Defendant all as yet unproduced, nonprivileged documents described in Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 13. (Depending on the volume of the documents in question, an interrogatory demanding a document by document identification often will not be proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b)).

Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied.