In United States v. Hernandez, No. 14-cr-499 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2014), nine individuals were indicted by a grand jury for their alleged participation in a narcotics conspiracy. The defense attorneys for eight of the defendants were appointed counsel; they moved to have the court appoint a Coordinating Discovery Attorney (“CDA”) to act on behalf of all nine defendants. CDAs are attorneys designated by multiple defendants to accept all ESI discovery produced by the government. Although the court noted that “[o]ver the past three years, an increasing number of courts have appointed attorneys to perform a variety of substantial discovery tasks as CDAs,” the court ultimately denied the defendants’ request. The court found that not all of the defendants shared the same legal interests and that appointing one CDA to represent all defendants could violate the principle that attorneys owe a duty of undivided loyalty to their clients. The court suggested that hiring a technology vendor, instead of appointing a CDA, was a better alternative.