In Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Co., No. 3:24-cv-190 (N.D. Ind. July 15, 2026), Indiana Magistrate Judge Scott J. Frankel, stating “Keyword searches alone, without more advanced and thoughtful search techniques, will be inadequate for Teams data”, granted Plaintiff’s motion in part for Defendant to produce threaded Teams conversations.

Case Background and Judge’s Ruling

In this “primarily trademark and trade-dress dispute”, Plaintiff sought additional messages sourced from Defendant’s Teams chats. After copies of individual Teams messages were “peppered” throughout volumes 1-10 of Defendant’s document production and Plaintiff once again requested Teams messages, Defendant produced additional Teams chats in volume 11 in a new format that combined previously disparate messages into conversations that were organized chronologically into single conversational threads. This led to Plaintiff’s Third Requests for Production requested the entirety of the Teams conversations that were previously produced in volumes 1-10 and unredacted Teams conversations found in volume 11 of Defendant’s production.

The parties had corresponded numerous times regarding Plaintiff’s requests for production related to these Teams messages, ranging from January 7, 2025 to Defendant’s final document production on March 23, 2026.

While Judge Frankel noted: “To date, Plaintiff has not followed the predicate requirement of filling a separate certification of conferral in conjunction with its discovery motion”, he also stated: “the court has discretion to excuse procedural shortcomings if the movant somewhat complied with the purpose of Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-1 or if there is little doubt that the mandating compliance would simply delay the resolution of the parties’ dispute.”

He added: “Here, Plaintiff has detailed the efforts the parties have taken in order to resolve their dispute concerning document production. Further, Defendant’s refusal to provide any supplemental documents based on the current deadlines found in the amended Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order indicates that the parties’ dispute is unlikely to be resolved without Court intervention. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to file a separate Local Rule 37-1 Certification regarding its motion to compel as to Defendant’s current document production is excused.”

Judge Frankel also rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s motion was untimely, stating: “Defendant’s argument improperly shifts the burden onto Plaintiff for requesting supplemental discovery material while ignoring its own duty to supplement discovery production. Rule 26(e) imposes a duty to supplement on a responding party in a timely manner once the party learns of additional responsive material… Defendant did not cease providing responsive document production until March 23, 2026, less than a month before Plaintiff’s motion was filed on April 14, 2026… Here, the amended close of fact discovery was April 30, 2026, the non-dispositive motion deadline of August 31, 2026, has not yet passed, and the close of all discovery is set for September 28, 2026…In this context, Plaintiff’s delay in bringing its motion to compel on April 14, 2026, is excused.”

Regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce the entirety of the Teams messages it had so far partially withheld, Judge Frankel stated: “Here, Defendant has satisfied its burden by describing the way Microsoft stores individual Teams messages with the inbox belonging to each specific custodian engaging in a Teams conversation, instead of storing them in separate threads.”

But he added this: “Defendant also argues that the original production of the Teams correspondence that was produced so far is sufficient. However, Defendant fails to recognize that the nature of Teams conversations renders its rigid adherence to producing only those messages that are responsive to its search terms unpractical. ‘Keyword searches alone, without more advanced and thoughtful search techniques, will be inadequate for Teams data—a medium where conversations are shorter, more informal, and less likely to include full names than email.’… However, Plaintiff’s proposed remedy of having Defendant produce all Teams correspondence is too broad. Here, it is proper to order Defendant to produce Teams messages exchanged on the same communication string on the day the communications at issue took place three days before and after the single communications already produced in order to provide context to those communications… Such a remedy provides the context that Plaintiff seeks while maintaining the bounds of relevant discovery so that it will not be unduly burdensome for Defendant to produce this additional correspondence.”

Judge Frankel also ruled on redactions of Teams messages, stating: “Defendant argues that its redactions of the conversations found in in these specific threaded Teams conversations are proper based on them being: overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and seeking information not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant does not elaborate further on its objections, and so they are deemed waived… Accordingly, the threaded Teams conversations must be produced in their entirety.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree that keyword searches alone are inadequate for Teams data? 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. Catch Kelly Twigger’s discussion of this case here!

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.