Resources

{ Banner Image } Print PDF
Share
Subscribe to Publications

Self Collecting Search Strategy May Be Discoverable

September 11, 2012

In S2 Automation v Micron Technology, Mircron served S2 with interrogatories and document requests that became the subject of Micron's motion to compel. The motion to compel covered several issues, including Micron's request that S2 divulge its "search strategy" for identifying responsive documents.

Micron contended that during discovery conferences it became apparent that S2's counsel had allowed his client to self-collect responsive documents with insufficient oversight. S2's counsel was unfamiliar with the content of the documents produced and was not aware that email attachments were produced separate from the source email. Although S2's counsel denied that it had been lax in overseeing discovery, the Court granted Micron's request and ordered S2 to provide "its search strategy for identifying pertinent documents, including the procedures it used and how it interacted with its counsel to facilitate the production process."

Rule 26(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires every discovery response to be signed by at least one attorney of record and provides that the signature operates as a certification of the correctness and completeness of the discovery response. Finding that S2's counsel's compliance with Rule 26(g) was at issue, the Court held "[i]t can become necessary to evaluate whether an attorney complied with his rule 26(g) obligations and to evaluate the strategy an attorney used to provide responsive discovery" and that "[w]ithout some information about the search strategy S2 Automation used to provide responsive documents to requests for production, neither the Court nor Micron Technology can have a full understanding of the adequacy of S2 Automation's search strategy."

The S2 decision is the latest example of negative consequences from a company’s self-collection of electronic records. While there may be times when self-collection is justifiable, counsel should exercise sufficient oversight to understand and explain the process used to opposing counsel.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek