Several recent U.S. federal cases indicate the courts are becoming increasingly engaged in assessing the details of e-discovery, such as whether the correct search terms or custodians have been identified, according to Daniel J. Weiss, a partner at Jenner & Block, who recently composed an article for Lexology. Weiss says this trend is evidenced in the following cases:
- American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co.: The court ordered a party that had produced very few e-mails to “disclose the sources it has searched or intends to search and, for each source, the search terms used.”
- Swanson v. ALZA Corp.: The court ordered a party to apply several search terms (including Boolean operators) to a database of collected electronic information and produce the results to the requesting party. The court also reviewed the requested search terms in detail and determined that about half of the terms should be applied even though more than 600,000 pages of electronic documents had already been produced.
- Banas v. Volcano Corp.: The court reviewed a party’s e-discovery effort and faulted the party for not searching the e-mail of several custodians.