In City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., No. 12-cv-05275 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2015), a securities class action, the district court issued a compromise order in response to the plaintiffs’ demand that the defendant search additional custodians for electronic documents.  The parties had agreed that 66 custodians would be searched, but the plaintiffs asked the court to order that an additional 22 to 45 custodians be added to the search.  The court held that amendments to Rule 26 were added to allow the court to order discovery proportionate to the case, even if additional discovery might be relevant.  The court further observed that “the emergence of e-discovery only has intensified the need for judicial scrutiny of the scope of discovery.”  The court nonetheless ordered that the defendants search the files of 10 additional custodians selected by plaintiff (for a total of 76 custodians) because “more than 66 [of defendants’] employees may have been heavily involved in the issues relating to this case and may have noncumulative information.”  The court further held that “allowing plaintiffs a moderate number of additional custodians does not seem disproportionate to the size and scale of this action.”  The court also referred to “de-duping tools that may be utilized to limit defendants’ review and production of duplicative documents, reducing some of the burden.”