Judicial Limits, Search Terms, and eDiscovery: Lessons from Tremblay v. OpenAI

Doug Austin of eDiscovery Today recently recapped Tremblay v. OpenAI, a recent ruling by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the Northern District of California, which offers critical insights for law firm leaders navigating discovery methods, including search terms, in high-stakes litigation. 

The case, centered on copyright claims brought by authors and publishers against OpenAI, highlights judicial resistance to repeated attempts to revisit prior discovery rulings, the limits of party input on search methodologies, and the importance of proportionality and efficiency in eDiscovery disputes.

Judge Illman denied the plaintiffs’ third request to influence the search term formulation process, reiterating his earlier findings that plaintiffs had failed to show deficiencies in OpenAI’s productions. Despite the plaintiffs’ claims that OpenAI’s search terms were overly narrow and failed to capture internal jargon, 

Judge Illman found their proposed search strings to be excessively broad and burdensome, projecting that they would generate 345,000 additional documents and over 9,000 hours of attorney review time. The court sided with OpenAI, emphasizing the need to avoid delays and reiterating that plaintiffs had not demonstrated prejudice or insufficiency in the existing production.

On other discovery matters, Judge Illman ordered the parties to better coordinate on requests involving plaintiffs’ agents, criticized their inadequate meet-and-confer efforts, and granted OpenAI limited discovery from publishers within the scope of the plaintiffs’ contractual rights. However, he rejected requests for privilege log file names and cross-case discovery from a separate suit against Meta, characterizing both as unnecessary disputes that should have been resolved without court intervention.

For managing partners, this ruling highlights the importance of a disciplined discovery strategy, cooperative meet-and-confer efforts, and the risks of overreaching in search requests. Courts increasingly favor efficiency and proportionality, and persistence alone, without evidence of prejudice, will not justify relitigating settled procedural matters.