[brief] *Total Safety U.S., Inc. v. Rowland*, No:13-6109, 2014 WL 1691551 (E.D. La April 29, 2014).  In response, [...] states that it ran the searches as requested, but that the search terms turned up over 20,000 non-privileged but also non-responsive documents.  Dkt. No. 62 at 4.  It then de-duplicated the search results against previous production, performed various searches to exclude irrelevant documents, such as spam or newsletters, and then independently reviewed the remaining 3,489 documents for responsiveness and privilege, ultimately producing 34 documents captured by the agreed search terms that were both responsive to [...]’s discovery requests and were non-privileged.  Dkt. No. 62-4 at 2-4.  [...] states that it believed that its email exchanges with [...] did not amount to a binding agreement.  Rather it understood the parties’ agreement to produce “all non-privileged documents responsive to the additional searches” to mean the parties would use the search terms “to capture a universe of potentially responsive documents, and then, subject to stated relevancy objection, the parties would produce non-privileged documents that were responsive to actual discovery requests. ”  Dkt. No. 62-1 at 4.  [...] argues that this interpretation is “consistent with our previous negotiations and the general industry practice of using e-discovery each terms. ”  *Id.*  It notes that courts have held that “costs can be saved by allowing [the producing party] to produce the e-mail generated by the agreed upon search terms without screening out irrelevant e-mail,” as [...] did, or, if a producing party “wishes to review the data [captured by the agreed search terms] to produce only responsive and un-privileged emails, Defendant will bear the cost of the search and the needed software,” which is what [...] claims to have done.  *Stambler v. Amazon*, No. 2:09-CV-310, 2011 WL 10538668 at *10 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011); *Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs.*, No. 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224, at *2 (D. Kan. April 13, 2011).  Finally, it argues that *Total Safety* is not applicable to this case because it never conceded on the record that the parties’ agreed protocol “limited the [exclusion of] production of documents to only those which are based on privilege. ”  *Total Safety*, 2014 WL 1691551 at *8.  If the Court were to construe the parties’ email correspondence on this topic to constitute a contract, it is likely that [...]’s actions would amount to a breach.  The Court’s reading of the e-mail chain is that the parties agreed to produce all of the results of the searches save privileged documents.  But the parties’ e-mail exchange is not a contract.  Rather, it was a means to simplify and limit the scope of production responsive to [...]’s requests for production 6, 11, 29, 38, 39, and 45.  Having reviewed the attached affidavits detailing [...]’s search and review process there is no reason to believe that [...] has withheld documents it was obligated to produce.  Nor is it clear that additional searches with the identified search terms would produce more documents responsive to [...]’s requests for production.  Accordingly, as to the search terms, [...]’s motion is denied.