With the explosive growth of electronically stored information, courts have been forced to issue guidelines on how to deal with it in the context of litigation and impose reasonable discovery limits. Jill Crawley Griset and Chelli Robinson of McGuireWoods review a trio of examples of e-discovery court actions from around the country:

• Washington: The Western District of Washington has issued a model ESI agreement that orders proportional and cooperative discovery. It “requires the parties to exchange the names of the five custodians most likely to have discoverable ESI,” explain Griset and Robinson, and also clarifies procedures around archiving and search terms.
• California: The Northern District of California has published guidelines that focus on “reasonableness and proportionality” in the e-discovery process. It also provides lawyers with a checklist for ESI discussions that “requires a discussion of proportionality and costs.”
• Texas: The Eastern District of Texas has implemented what the authors say is a “helpful model ESI order specific to patent litigation.” It limits parties to eight email custodians and restricts the search terms. “Although agreement of the parties can modify these model terms, the endorsement by the district court of this more limited discovery gives leverage to parties seeking reasonable discovery limits,” they say.