Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03580/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03580-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BARANCO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03580-EMC 

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER

Docket No. 91

The parties dispute the extent to which Ford must disclose its search methods and 

parameters. It is well-established that, when search terms are used in ESI discovery, the parties 

should cooperate to select reasonable search terms and custodians. See N.D. Cal. Guidelines for 

Discovery of ESI, 1.02, 2.02-2.03; De Abadia-Peixoto v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 11-cv04001, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120368, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2013) (ordering defendant to 

disclose search parameters and to meet and confer regarding their sufficiency); Burd v. Ford 

Motor Co., Case No. 13-cv-20976, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88518, at *36-37 (S.D. W. Va. Jul. 8, 

2015) (rejecting argument that disclosure of search methods and custodians would infringe on 

attorney work-product privilege). Here, Ford will not exclusively use ESI search terms, but also

other undisclosed collection methods it claims are more efficient. 

Plaintiffs only seek information about what methods Ford intends to utilize; they do not 

seek to compel Ford to utilize a particular method at this time. Compare In re Viagra (Sildenafil 

Citrate) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 16-md-02691, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144925 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 

2016). Ford claims its search methods are protected by the attorney-client or attorney work 

product privilege. That contention is at odds not only with case-law and this Court’s guidelines,

but it is also inconsistent with Ford’s insistence that Plaintiffs will have an opportunity later to ask 

Case 3:17-cv-03580-EMC Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deponents how they located responsive documents to assess search adequacy. If Plaintiffs can ask 

later, then they can ask now. 

Moreover, the purpose of meeting and conferring before documents are collected and 

produced is to minimize the risk of an inadequate search. Transparency and cooperation prior to

document collection promote efficiency by reducing the risk that after-the-fact disputes will 

necessitate a costly second or third iteration. It is true that a search’s adequacy cannot be finally

assessed until production is complete, but that does not mean that preliminary assessments are 

impossible or unhelpful. Plaintiffs are entitled to tell Ford that searching the kitchen pantry for 

spare tires will likely be inadequate. And Ford might counter that it will also search the garage. 

The point is that these discussions should occur before expensive searches and depositions.

The Court orders Ford to disclose its proposed search methodology, including the identity 

of its custodians, so that Plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity to provide their input, objections, 

or suggestions as part of the meet-and-confer. Ford should also disclose its basis for believing that 

its proposed search is proportional, adequate, and likely not to exclude responsive documents. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 91.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03580-EMC Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 2