In Nachurs Alpine Solutions Corp. v. Banks, No. 15-CV-4015-LTS (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017), a trade secrets case, the defendants used court-ordered search terms to identify approximately 55,000 documents, which defendants then reviewed for privilege, duplication, and relevance. Based on that review, the defendants withheld approximately 44,000 documents that they determined were not relevant to the issues in the case notwithstanding a search term “hit.” The plaintiff subsequently argued that the defendants “culling” of the 55,000 documents was flawed because certain types of relevant documents had been excluded from the review. The plaintiff moved to require the defendants to re-do their review of the original batch of 55,000 documents or to produce all of those documents to plaintiff and allow plaintiff to “cull” the documents at defendants’ expense. The court found that there was “at least a colorable prima facie showing that the withheld documents fell within the broad scope of liberal discovery because they contained one of the terms to search for potentially relevant documents in defendants’ ESI.” While accepting that defense counsel acted in good faith in making its responsiveness determinations, the court acknowledged that there was “no way for the [c]ourt or plaintiff to double-check” the defendants’ work “without reviewing the documents themselves.” Ultimately, the court found that “it would be disproportional to require defendants to go back through the documents to identify those that fall within the four categories plaintiff believes are most likely to generate relevant documents.” Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to produce all of the documents under an Attorneys Eyes Only designation without admission that the documents are relevant, but that the plaintiff must bear its own costs to review these documents for the categories it believed held relevant documents.