Example of Stipulated Search Methodology

The following is a stipulated search methodology in an ESI Protocol from James v. Cerebras Systems Inc., 2026 WL 1962840 (N.D. Cal. Lul. 7, 2026):

1. The Parties agree that each Responding Party is best situated to determine the most appropriate method or methods for that Responding Party to search, collect, cull, and produce documents responsive to discovery, consistent with Sedona Conference Principle 6 which instructs that “[r]esponding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.” Nothing in this ESI Protocol alters a Responding Party’s obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry or use a reasonable process in searching for and producing relevant information, nor does it alter a Requesting Party’s right to challenge a deficient production.
2. The Parties will meet and confer to discuss the use of search terms, filters and date ranges or the use of advanced search and retrieval technologies. Within a reasonable time period, Responding Party shall specify the technique or techniques (e.g., search terms, technology assisted review (“TAR”), artificial intelligence or machine-learning technology (collectively, “AI”)) it will use to search for and cull material it reasonably anticipates will be responsive to Requests for Production. If the Requesting Party objects to the particular technique or techniques, the Parties will timely meet and confer regarding the matter and submit any unresolved disputes to the Court for resolution.
3. A Party who intends to use search terms will describe a Search Protocol that will include: (a) the criteria to be used to identify the universe of Documents to which search terms will be applied (e.g., date range), and (b) proposed search terms to be applied to that universe of Documents, subject to revision based on, for example, meet and confer of the Parties and the number of hits returned by each term. A Requesting Party may also suggest search terms to be applied. Each Requesting Party shall limit its ESI production requests to a total of twenty search terms per custodian per party, for the avoidance of doubt a custodian can include either Party itself for searches of Party-wide electronic repositories. The Parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional search terms per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. The Parties acknowledge that “indiscriminate terms” would not include names of various publicly available training datasets such as, “Books3.” A conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) broadens the search, and thus each word or phrase shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word or identify alternative names, examples, or members of the same discrete set of datasets, websites, or repositories. Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production.
4. Any Search Protocol will include a requirement for the Responding Party to provide hit reports for proposed search terms prior to utilizing the search terms to narrow the universe of Documents to be reviewed. Search term hit reports will include, for each term, the number of documents with one or more search term hits, that number plus any attachments to those documents, and the number of documents hitting uniquely on that term and not on any other term in the same list. The report will also include total number of documents hitting on one or more terms and that number plus any attachments to those documents (presumptive review population). Any Search Protocol shall include a requirement to review one random statistical sample of distinct Documents, determined by a sampling of a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 2%, that do not hit on the search terms that are agreed upon by the Parties (the “Null Set”). The Null Set of distinct Documents shall be generated after all document processing is substantially complete. These Null Set Documents should come from each custodian and include Documents throughout the entire date range. The Responding Party should then review the Null Set Documents and include in future productions any responsive Documents located therein. If more than 10% of the Null Set are responsive, then the Parties shall revisit the agreed-upon search terms by analyzing the Documents produced and determining which additional terms are necessary. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the Search Protocol and to raise any disputes regarding the Search Protocol for resolution by the Court.
5. Nothing in this order or any other document relating to discovery in this matter shall be construed or interpreted as precluding a Responding Party from performing a responsiveness review to determine if documents captured by search terms are in fact responsive to the requesting party’s request. Further, nothing in this order or any other document relating to discovery in this matter shall be construed or interpreted as requiring the production of all documents captured by any search term if that document is – in good faith – deemed not responsive to the requesting party’s request for production by the Responding Party.
6. If a Responding Party elects to use search terms in combination with TAR on the same set of Documents (“layering”), it shall disclose that intent to the Requesting Party before doing so, and the Parties shall meet and confer on a protocol governing the use of layering. The protocol shall include a method to compare the number of hits when there is and is not layering for the set of Documents at issue, and permit the Requesting Party to make a reasonable request that the Responding Party review a reasonable sample of Documents excluded from review through the layering process to assess whether responsive Documents have been excluded. In the event that the Parties cannot reach an agreement on a protocol after meeting and conferring, the Parties shall submit competing protocols to the Court.
7. A Party who intends to use TAR to reduce the population of documents to be reviewed shall disclose a TAR Protocol that includes, at a minimum, the information listed in Appendix 3.
8. A Responding Party that elects to use AI to assist in responsiveness or privilege determinations (“AI Responsiveness Review”) shall disclose that election to the Requesting Party. AI Responsiveness Review constitutes workflows utilizing large-language models (LLMs), deep-learning classifiers, embedding-based similarity analysis, semantic clustering, predictive redaction systems, or generative summarization models used to determine whether a Document will be produced, withheld, or redacted.
9. The Responding Party shall provide an AI Review Protocol, which shall include, at a minimum, the information listed in Appendix 4.

Nothing in this Section shall be construed to diminish the Responding Party’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Order, or applicable law. Legal counsel remains responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of all productions.

Documents or ESI known to be responsive to a discovery request or relevant to the subject matter of this action shall be produced without regard to whether it was responsive to any search methodology described herein or developed in accordance with this Order, unless Counsel specifically identifies the documents being withheld and provides a specific objection for withholding each withheld document.

Documents which are reasonably believed to be responsive and for which text-based search technologies are fundamentally ineffective, such as images, video, certain spreadsheets, certain hard copy documents, certain documents from noncustodial sources, or certain foreign language documents where the Parties do not have suitable search terms in such language, must be reviewed without culling by search terms, predictive coding, or other technologies that rely primarily on text within the document. Prior to the production of such unsearchable items, the Responding Party may conduct a page-by-page review for responsiveness, confidentiality, privilege, and other protections.