The shark image can only mean one thing – it’s time for Shark Week on the Discovery Channel!  Which also means it’s time for eDiscovery Case Week on eDiscovery Today, where we’ll cover five cases in the next five days!  In Schulte v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 22-cv-00237 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2026), California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied plaintiffs request to prohibit LinkedIn from applying search strings or keywords to pre-cull the custodial documents reviewed by Relativity aiR and denied plaintiffs request to compel LinkedIn to disclose various metrics about its use of Relativity aiR, finding “the number of documents in the target population alone does not warrant the requested discovery on discovery”.

Case Background and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, the plaintiffs requested that the court (1) prohibit LinkedIn from using search strings to pre-cull documents reviewed by Relativity aiR, (2) compel LinkedIn to use Relativity aiR across all custodial files, and (3) compel LinkedIn to disclose additional metrics related to its use of the platform.

They argued that LinkedIn’s use of search strings before beginning the Relativity aiR process was unnecessary, contending that LinkedIn’s use of search strings “artificially reduce[s]” the target population ingested by Relativity aiR, potentially removing responsive documents from the target population.

LinkedIn responded that its use of search strings was proper, contending that it satisfied its obligations under the Interim ESI Order by disclosing its use of Relativity aiR to the plaintiffs and that it went beyond the Order’s requirements by providing additional information about its use of the platform. LinkedIn also argued that it would be disproportionate and unduly burdensome to apply Relativity aiR to all custodial files without applying search strings first.

Judge Beeler stated: “The plaintiffs’ request is denied. Although the plaintiffs assert that LinkedIn’s use of search strings ‘artificially reduce[s]’ the amount of documents ingested by Relativity aiR, the plaintiffs do not argue or otherwise show that LinkedIn’s twenty-five search strings are deficient…If, for example, the plaintiffs had shown that LinkedIn’s search strings were too narrow, their concern about pre-culling the document population might be warranted. But they have not made that argument, and they do not contend that they raised any concerns with LinkedIn’s search strings when they were disclosed on May 15, 2026.”

Continuing, she said: “Also, prohibiting LinkedIn from using search strings to pre-cull the target document population would impose a substantial burden on LinkedIn. The files of two LinkedIn custodians alone total approximately 800 gigabytes of data…With nineteen designated custodians, LinkedIn would be required to feed multiple terabytes of documents into Relativity aiR, resulting in significant costs related to processing, hosting, and human review.” She did order the parties to “meet and confer regarding the search strings LinkedIn is using to create the target document population for Relativity aiR” and stated: “The plaintiffs may seek relief with the court if they believe adjustments to the search strings are warranted and the parties are unable to reach agreement.”

The plaintiffs separately moved to compel LinkedIn to disclose various metrics about its use of Relativity aiR, including elusion estimates, the document error rate, and the number of human reviewers being used to validate Relativity aiR’s predictions, which LinkedIn opposed.

Judge Beeler stated: “’As a general matter, discovery of another party’s evidence preservation and collection efforts — or ‘discovery on discovery’ — is disfavored, as such discovery is typically not relevant to the merits of a claim or defense, and is rarely proportional to the needs of a case.’…Such discovery may be warranted ‘if the party requesting it demonstrates that there is a specific deficiency in the other party’s production of documents or other information,’ but ‘mere speculation’ is insufficient.”

Continuing, she said: “The plaintiffs’ request is denied for two reasons. First, LinkedIn has satisfied its obligations under the Interim ESI Order. Paragraph 5(a) of the Order requires the producing party to ‘disclose to the receiving party if they intend to use Technology Assisted Review (‘TAR’) to filter out non-responsive documents.’…On May 15, 2026, LinkedIn disclosed to the plaintiffs that it would use Relativity aiR — a form of Technology Assisted Review — to filter out non-responsive documents…And LinkedIn provided the plaintiffs with additional information upon request….These disclosures more than satisfy the demands of the Interim ESI Order.”

Concluding, in denying the request, Judge Beeler stated: “Second, the plaintiffs have not shown that a further ‘audit’ of LinkedIn’s use of Relativity aiR is warranted…The only deficiency they identify is that LinkedIn’s target document population amounts to 204,444 documents…Without a more specific showing of why LinkedIn’s production is deficient, the number of documents in the target population alone does not warrant the requested discovery on discovery.”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised the Court found that provision of metrics regarding Relativity aiR was “discovery on discovery”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today. Hat tip to Zviad Guruli of Wilmer Hale for the initial heads up on this case, followed by Judge Andrew Peck (ret.) & Relativity (more on that this afternoon).

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.