In HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. Technologies, Inc., No. 12 cv 2884-BAS (JLB) (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2014), the plaintiff moved to sanction the defendant for failing to comply with an order entered by a Magistrate Judge, requiring the defendant to produce certain categories of documents.  After the Magistrate’s order was entered, the parties agreed that the defendant would conduct “broad-based ESI searches using twenty-two agreed upon search terms.”  Although the district court agreed that the defendant violated the Magistrate’s order by failing to produce many of the documents, and granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in part, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions arising from the defendant’s failure to search its ESI using the agreed upon terms.  The court held that “[w]hile the parties may have agreed that this was the best way to put the outstanding document production to rest, the Court is not persuaded on the record before it that its failure to perform the agreed upon searches would violate the [Magistrate’s] order.”  The court reasoned that the order did not explicitly require the defendant to use the search terms, and also noted that the parties had not worked out all of the details regarding the defendant’s ESI search.  For example, the parties had not agreed on “details such as cost sharing, the custodians to be searched, or whether a third party vendor should be utilized.”