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.