In Sun v. Geffen, No. 25 Civ. No. 995 (AT) (GS) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2026), New York Magistrate Judge Gary Stein ordered (among other rulings) that “Sun is hereby directed to provide the requested hit report for its counterproposal” of 57 search terms to Geffen’s proposal of 86 search terms.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, there were three primary disputes being addressed by the Court:

Steve Liu’s Cellphone

Geffen sought to compel Sun to search for and produce relevant records from the cellphone of Steven Liu, a director of a Sun-controlled company. After initially indicating it would search Liu’s cellphone, Sun claimed that was before it conferred with Liu, and that after doing so, Sun determined that Liu’s cellphone was “unlikely” to contain relevant documents “not covered by other custodians.” So, Sun notified Geffen that they would not be searching Liu’s cellphone.

Judge Stein stated: “There is no dispute that Liu is a relevant witness in the case… Geffen intends to depose Liu… While contending that Geffen is exaggerating Liu’s importance, Sun does not dispute that Liu is a relevant witness… In fact, Sun has agreed to search Liu’s emails on relevant company servers.”

Continuing, he said: “The burden is thus on Sun to justify curtailing discovery as to Liu’s cell phone. Sun has failed to meet that burden. Sun’s prediction that information on Liu’s cell phone may merely duplicate information to be produced from other custodians is not a good reason, under the circumstances of this case, to deny Geffen his requested discovery… Considering the Rule 26(b)(1) factors—including that Liu concededly is a relevant witness whose emails are being produced, that this dispute is about ownership of a sculpture allegedly worth $78 million in 2021…, and that both parties appear to have ample resources—the Court easily concludes that discovery as to Liu’s cell phone is relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses in this action.”

Judge Stein also rejected Sun’s request to have Geffen search the phones of two custodians, stating: “Because Sun stood silent on the issue of Lusk and Sherman’s phones for five months, and raises the issue now only in response to Geffen’s motion to compel, the Court will decline to order Geffen to search Lusk and Sherman’s phones at this time. Sun has not made an adequate showing as to why discovery material that he was previously prepared to forgo has now become relevant and proportional. Sun may renew his application at a later date if he is able to put forth a sufficient substantive justification for seeking discovery as to Lusk and Sherman’s phones. Being required to provide discovery as to Liu’s phone is not sufficient justification.”

Additional Hit Report

The Court had previously directed Sun to provide a hit report for Geffen’s 86 proposed search terms for electronic discovery. Sun did so, but also took the position that, based on the results, Geffen’s search terms were overly broad and made a counterproposal limited to 57 search terms. But Sun declined to provide a hit report corresponding to its proposed search terms, so Geffen sought an order requiring Sun to provide that hit report.

Judge Stein stated: “To facilitate intelligible comparison and informed negotiation over the search terms, Sun is hereby directed to provide the requested hit report for its counterproposal. Sun’s arguments as to why he should not perform this simple yet important task are entirely unconvincing. Principally he contends that it is unnecessary to generate ‘iterative hit reports for each and every change in the search terms.’…That may or may not be true, but there is absolutely no reason for Sun to refuse to provide a hit report for his counterproposal, which represents a material change from Geffen’s proposal, slashing the number of Geffen’s search terms by one-third.”

Documents Relied on In Preparing Sun’s Pleadings

Judge Stein also “decline[d] to to require Sun to produce” documents that were not in the United States, but were reviewed by counsel via videoconference on an accelerated timetable, stating: “To the extent this issue has not been mooted by the passage of time, the Court regards the documents reviewed via videoconference as outside the scope of Sun’s undertaking at the December 9 conference”.

So, what do you think? Was it the right call to require Sun to provide the requested hit report for its counterproposal? 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.