It has become a matter of course in e-discovery to target for collection the electronically stored information (ESI) of individuals or groups likely to have potentially relevant information. And even though requesting and responding parties generally work to balance discovery obligations and protections through the meet-and-confer process, which “custodians” to include in the scope of discovery is often a point of contention.

While such disputes may be common, published decisions on motions to compel designation of additional custodians are not. Bucking this trend, two recent cases provide helpful authority on this topic, with both demonstrating that courts will defer to the custodian designations made by the responding party unless the requesting party can show them to be manifestly unreasonable.

‘SF v. AIC’—Motion Denied

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]