Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRAND LITTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 662
Plaintiffs and Pacific Seafood negotiated a list of keywords to be used by Defendants
to search for ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. As contemplated by Plain-
tiffs and Pacific Seafood, the list is a starting point. Defendants will run the searches, and
then if “particular keywords or particular keyword combinations . . . yield[] an unreasonably
large number of non-responsive documents,” Defendants will flag those words and Plaintiffs
will consider adjusting or removing them. Dkt. 662-3 at 4.
The Southwind Defendants have refused to use the keyword list, not even to generate
hit reports that could be used to test the list’s effectiveness. They assert that the list includes
several thousand keywords, and to run the searches and generate hit reports they “would
need to retain an outside vendor (rather than relying on counsel’s litigation support staff).”
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 720 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Dkt. 662 at 5. They also insist that they never agreed to the keyword list, “cannot discern the
topics to which many of these searches pertain,” and “should have the ability to select their
own search terms.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that the Southwind Defendants didn’t object to the
framework under which Pacific Seafood agreed to negotiate keywords on behalf of all De-
fendants, and that the Southwind Defendants should be bound by the keyword list unless
they can demonstrate with hit reports that certain keywords are overbroad. Id. at 1–3.
Even if the Southwind Defendants aren’t technically bound by the negotiated frame-
work that resulted in the keyword list—the framework is memorialized in an email chain in
which counsel referred to the framework as “a voluntary process,” dkt. 662-3 at 3—the Court
agrees with Plaintiffs that the list provides a helpful starting point for ESI searches. The list’s
length and detail indicate that Plaintiffs expended considerable effort creating it, and using
the negotiated list will be more efficient than having each Defendant family create its own.
Concerning the burden objection, the Court doesn’t have enough information to eval-
uate it. For a small company, retaining an outside vendor to run hit reports could be unduly
burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (noting that courts consider “the parties’ resources”
in determining the scope of discovery). But the Southwind Defendants’ size and resources
are unknown to the Court. To establish undue burden, the Southwind Defendants must pro-
vide more information, preferably financial statements documenting their assets, liabilities,
owners’ equity, revenues, and profits. They must file this information by June 3, 2026, or
their burden objection will be deemed overruled. Financial details may be filed under seal.
As for relevance, it seems unlikely that the chosen keywords are irrelevant given
Pacific Seafood’s involvement in negotiating them. But if the Southwind Defendants doubt
that certain keywords or keyword categories are relevant or tied to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, they
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 720 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
may flag those keywords and Plaintiffs should provide more detail concerning them.
Lastly, regarding the negotiated framework more generally, if the parties intend to
rely on it going forward, the Court encourages them to file a stipulation and proposed order
to memorialize the framework and clarify its requirements and limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 720 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 3