In Viteri-Butler v. University of California, No. 12-cv-02651 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014), the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to broaden its search for electronically stored information in two respects. First, the defendant had limited its search for ESI to its centralized e-mail server, which the court rejected as inadequate. The court explained that its own ESI checklist requires parties to discuss the “systems in which potentially discoverable information is stored.” The court held that limiting a search to the centralized email server without consideration of other electronic sources was inconsistent with the checklist because “documents may be stored on a number of different devices or media” such as “an employee’s laptop” or on a “shared drive.” The court thus held that the defendant would be required to “provide Plaintiff with a list of the various computer systems and electronic devices the decision-makers use for business purposes,” including “tablets, smart phones, shared drives, etc.” Second, the court held that the defendant would be required to search electronic sources using search terms proposed by the plaintiff. The defendant had previously searched some electronic sources using its own search terms, but before the plaintiff had submitted its proposed terms. The court held that although the plaintiff had failed to provide search terms at that time, “the court disagrees that [defendant] should have construed that as permission to conduct a search on its own terms,” especially in light of the court’s ESI checklist that requires cooperation on search methodology. The court ordered the defendant to perform a new search of its electronic systems with “20 individual strings of combined search terms” submitted by plaintiff.