In Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-00201-WHO (LJC) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025), California Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros, finding no abuse of the custodian designation process by Plaintiffs in their request for four document custodians from defendant DeviantArt (DA), granted the Plaintiffs’ request.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In the early stages of this multi-defendant litigation, the parties negotiated many of the terms for the discovery of ESI. Where terms were disputed, the parties submitted their disputes to the Court, and they were resolved. The parties then incorporated the Court’s rulings and entered a stipulation regarding the discovery of ESI, which the Court approved.

Plaintiffs contended that under the Stipulated ESI Order, they were entitled as a matter of right to twelve custodians, with proportionality requirements applying only with respect to additional custodians sought beyond the twelfth custodian. The parties had previously disputed the number of custodians that should be allowed under the ESI protocol (Plaintiffs wanted twenty-five and each defendant sought a limit of five custodians), and Judge Cisneros ruled that Plaintiffs could designate up to twelve custodians per defendant. When Defendants sought relief from the undersigned’s ruling, Judge Orrick denied the request, stating that a “defendant may seek a protective order from Judge Cisneros” if “a particular defendant believes plaintiffs are abusing the designation process.”

Judge Cisneros stated: “Considering the applicable rules of federal procedure, the intended purpose of ESI orders, the parties’ prior dispute regarding the number of custodians in this multi-defendant litigation, and Judge Orrick’s order, the undersigned holds that Plaintiffs’ selections of up to twelve custodians are not immune from challenge and a responding defendant may seek a protective order under the standard set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, DA must establish good cause for a protective order on grounds such as ‘unreasonably cumulative or duplicative’ discovery, or based on ‘annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.’…The Stipulated ESI Order, however, would not advance efficiency if Defendants were allowed to easily sidestep their general obligation to produce document discovery for up to twelve designated custodians by requiring Plaintiffs to seek an order to compel and demonstrate that the custodian will have relevant information that is proportionate to the needs of the case. As Judge Orrick has made clear, the appropriate balance requires an objecting defendant to seek a protective order by demonstrating that Plaintiffs are abusing the designation process.”

Continuing, she said: “Here, DA has not made such a showing. DA has conceded that Woolfson and Lerner worked on DreamUp, albeit tangentially, and they concede that Lamay was involved with DreamUp as well, though in a ‘non-technical role’ under custodians Karpel and Nell…The Court also declines to overrule Plaintiffs’ designation of DA Nickolay Surovenko as a custodian. Although DA contends that Surovenko ‘did not work on DreamUp’ and is ‘thus unlikely to possession documents relevant to the claim against DA,’ the Court credits Plaintiffs’ explanation that Surovenko’s technical work ‘shaped DreamUp[ ]’ such that his custodial files may contain documents on how DreamUp operates…Moreover, the fact that Surovenko’s supervisor, Gorniak, is already a custodian and thus there may be some overlap between Gorniak and Surovenko’s custodial files does not establish that it is improper to designate Surovenko as well. ‘The idea that responsive documents will necessarily be found in other custodians’ records is not sufficient to defeat a search of his files.’ Rather, it is ‘possible that one custodian will have a document or document that other custodians have not retained’ or do not possess, particularly where custodians are on different rungs of the corporate ladder… Although there may be overlap between Survenko and Gorniak’s custodial files, it is likewise reasonable to expect that Surovenko was privy to communications and documents that his supervisor or other high-level employees did not possess. Moreover, DA has not demonstrated that Plaintiffs seek to include Surovenko as a custodian for abusive or oppressive purposes.”

So, Judge Cisneros granted the Plaintiffs request for the four document custodians.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the Court granted the request for the four document custodians? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.