eDiscovery FAQ
- HOME
- F. A. Q
Advising and consulting are two distinct terms that are often grouped together while thinking about business improvement and processes. It is not difficult to understand why -both consultants and advisers have knowledge of the respective disciplines. They go ahead with solving problems in quite similar ways. However, there are some critical differences to know about.
eDiscovery is usually quoted per gigabyte, but the per-GB figure alone rarely tells the whole story. Costs are typically split across collection, processing, hosting (a recurring monthly charge per GB) and review — and review is almost always the largest line item. Data volume, file types, how much can be culled before review, and the review timeline all move the number significantly. Aggressive early culling and targeted collection usually reduce total spend far more than shopping for a lower per-GB rate. We scope each matter individually and provide a written estimate before work begins.
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is the industry-standard framework describing the stages of eDiscovery: information governance, identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, analysis, production and presentation. It is a reference model rather than a strict sequence — matters frequently move back and forth between stages. Our eDiscovery workflow follows the core of this model: Collection, Assessment, Processing, Review and Production.
Yes. Much of the eDiscovery market is built around large firms and enterprise-scale matters, which often means smaller firms get enterprise pricing and no direct contact with the people actually handling their data. We take smaller matters, scope them transparently, and give you direct access to the team working on your case rather than routing you through an account manager.
Technology-assisted review (TAR) and, more recently, generative AI tools are used to prioritize and classify documents so attorney review time is spent where it matters. Courts have accepted TAR workflows for over a decade, but defensibility depends on process rather than the tool: a documented protocol, sampling and validation, and the ability to explain and reproduce your results. AI reduces review volume; it does not remove the need for attorney judgment or a defensible, documented workflow.
At minimum: issue and document a litigation hold; identify custodians and data sources including email, file shares, collaboration tools and mobile devices; confirm what is being preserved and by whom; agree scope, date ranges and search terms with opposing counsel where possible; decide production format early; and keep a written record of every decision. Most discovery disputes arise from gaps in preservation and documentation, not from the review itself.