[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS BEING APPEALED ........................................................................................................ iii  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................  iv  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................  1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................  4  STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................  6  A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations .................................................................................. 6  B. Related Litigation .......................................................................................  7  C. ESI Negotiations in this Case .....................................................................  7  D. July 6, 2023 Case Management Conference ..............................................  8  E. Rule 4:105-4 Pre-Motion Conference And The ESI Order ......................... 9  LEGAL ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................  11  I.  THE ESI ORDER MISCONSTRUES  THE APPLICATION OF RULE 4:10-2(a) TO ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (RAISED BELOW: DA166-68; T3-38)  .........................................................  13  A.  Under Rule 4:10-2(a), A Court Has No Authority To Compel The Production Of Irrelevant Documents, Including ESI (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38)  .........................................................  13  B.  To Ensure Compliance With Rule 4:10-(2)(a)  In The ESI Context, A Producing Party Must Be Permitted To Conduct A Physical Relevance Review After The Initial Screening Search (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38)  .........................................................................................  18 C.  The Trial Court’s Justifications For The ESI Order  Lack Merit (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38)  ...........................................  24  1.  Rule 4:10-2(a)’s Text And History Preclude Treating ESI Discovery Differently For Relevancy Purposes Based On Its “Voluminous” Nature (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38)  ..................................................24  2.  There Is No Basis For Applying A Different Relevancy “Gatekeeping” Rule To ESI (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38)  ..........................26  D.  Plaintiffs’ Distinct Justifications For The ESI Order Also Lack Merit (Not Raised Below)  ...........................................30  1.  The ESI Order Is Not Premised On Any Understanding That Search Terms Alone Would Determine Relevancy (Not Raised Below)  ..............................................................................31  2.  Plaintiffs’ Focus On Admissibility Is Misplaced (Not Raised Below)  .........................................................33  II.  THE TRIAL COURT ALSO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ORDERING PRODUCTION THAT WAS UNDULY INVASIVE AND BURDENSOME WITH NO COUNTERVAILING JUSTIFICATION (RAISED BELOW: DA166-68; T3-38) .................................................................34  A. The ESI Order Imposes Significant Burdens On Defendants (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38) .......................36  B. No Countervailing Benefits Justify The Sweeping ESI Order (Raised Below: DA166-68; T3-38) .........................39 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................................................43