ALLISON H. GODDARD, Magistrate Judge.
The Court held a Telephonic Discovery Status Conference in this matter on January 7, 2020 regarding the parties' ongoing discovery dispute. In essence, the dispute concerns whether Defendant is entitled to conduct an additional relevancy review and withhold from Plaintiff certain documents as irrelevant notwithstanding that the parties' agreed-upon search terms hit on said documents. The Court has set a series of status conferences to monitor the parties' meet-and-conferral process and to offer guidance regarding the dispute. To that end, the Court previously instructed Defendant to produce to Plaintiff samples of those documents it has deemed non-responsive as part of its additional relevancy review. Defendant complied by identifying seven categories of documents it considers to be non-responsive and providing sample documents from each category to Plaintiff. Prior to the call, the parties met and conferred and agreed without the Court's assistance regarding the scope of production for four of those categories.
After conferring with the parties, the Court
1. With respect to the remaining three categories in dispute (data and marketing information on unrelated products, marketing emails from third parties regarding unrelated products, and conversations unrelated to the product at issue), Defendant will produce all non-privileged documents in those categories that refer to or reflect weight management or appetite control by
2. As discussed during the conference, Defendant's production of emails responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests is smaller than Plaintiff expected. Therefore, Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff a list of custodians whose emails have been searched for responsive documents by
3. In light of the parties' progress on class certification discovery, the Court