In a pair of decisions in the case Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-24356 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2014) (order granting motion for electronic media analysis) and No. 12-24356 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2014) (order on motion for adequate search terms), the district court granted motions compelling the plaintiff to undertake remedial efforts to locate and collect relevant ESI. In the first decision, the court faulted the plaintiff’s counsel for permitting “its client to self-collect ESI and documents” without the participation of counsel. Among other failures, the court held that plaintiff’s counsel permitted its client representatives to design their own search terms without the input of counsel and failed to advise its client as to what documents the defendant had requested. As a remedy, the court ordered a forensic examination of plaintiff’s computer systems by a court-appointed expert. In the second order, issued after plaintiff’s counsel began attempting to design a new ESI protocol, the court held that plaintiff’s lawyers could not develop the protocol on their own, but must take into consideration “input from the ESI custodians [themselves] as to the words and abbreviations they use.” The court further faulted plaintiff’s counsel for failing to communicate in a clear manner with defendant’s counsel, which the court suggested may have avoided the discovery motion. The court held: “[t]he ‘Sounds of Silence’ may be a catchy title for a Simon and Garfunkel song and album, but it is a problematic, risky, and usually unworkable approach when engaging in a conference designed to eliminate the need for a discovery motion.” In both decisions, the court ordered fee-shifting to the defendant pursuant to Rule 37 and required that plaintiff’s counsel pay a portion of the fee-shifting.