eDiscovery Consulting
Independent Guidance for Complex eDiscovery Disputes
Electronic discovery can become one of the most expensive, time-consuming, and contentious parts of litigation.
Parties may disagree about where electronically stored information (ESI) resides, what must be preserved, how data should be collected, which search methods are appropriate, whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case, and how privileged, confidential, or irrelevant information should be protected.
An eDiscovery neutral or eDiscovery Special Master provides independent technical and procedural guidance to help the court and the parties address these issues through a structured, impartial, and defensible process.
The objective is straightforward: reduce unnecessary discovery conflict, protect important information, control cost and burden, and provide the court and parties with a reliable process for resolving eDiscovery issues.
When an eDiscovery Neutral can help
eDiscovery Neutral assistance may be appropriate when the parties disagree about:
- Preservation of electronically stored information
- Identification of relevant custodians, devices, accounts, systems, or data sources
- The scope of discovery and proportionality
- Collection methodology
- Search terms, Boolean searches, filtering, or other search techniques
- Technology-assisted review or other advanced artificial intelligence review methodologies
- Date ranges and other limiting criteria
- Deduplication, threading, de-NISTing, or processing methods
- Production formats and metadata fields
- Native-file productions
- Privilege review and privilege protection procedures
- Clawback procedures and inadvertent production
- Protection of confidential, proprietary, personal, or sensitive information
- Discovery involving cloud platforms, collaboration tools, messaging applications, databases, or mobile devices
- Whether relevant information is reasonably accessible
- Alleged deficiencies in preservation, collection, search, review, or production
- Competing positions taken by party-retained eDiscovery or forensic experts
- Compliance with an eDiscovery protocol, discovery order, or ESI agreement
An eDiscovery Neutral can be particularly valuable when repeated meet-and-confer efforts have not resolved ESI or discovery disagreements, the parties are using different discovery methodologies, discovery costs are escalating, or the court needs an independent explanation of complex ESI issues.
eDiscovery requires both technical expertise and restraint
Modern organizations can possess enormous quantities of electronically stored information.
The technical ability to collect or search that information does not determine whether doing so is necessary, proportional, or appropriate.
Effective eDiscovery requires careful attention to:
- Relevance
- Scope
- Proportionality
- Cost
- Burden
- Accessibility
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Confidentiality
- Transparency
- Reproducibility
- The authority granted by the court
An effective eDiscovery neutral combines technical knowledge with the discipline to keep the process focused on the questions before the court. The neutral does not advocate for either party or replace judicial decision-making.
The neutral’s role is to carry out the defined assignment impartially, help the parties implement a reliable discovery process, and provide information or recommendations as authorized by the court.
Experience with eDiscovery, digital evidence, and complex information systems
Scott A. Bailey’s experience includes information technology, digital forensics, electronically stored information, investigative matters, expert work involving complex digital evidence, and software development of enterprise applications.
That experience provides a practical understanding of how electronic information is created, stored, preserved, collected, processed, searched, analyzed, challenged, and presented in litigation.
His technical background can be particularly useful in matters involving the intersection of traditional eDiscovery and digital forensics—where determining what information exists, where it resides, how it can be obtained, or whether it has been altered or deleted may require both disciplines.
Discuss a potential appointment
If a matter involves contested eDiscovery, escalating discovery costs, competing technical positions, complex ESI sources, or a need for independent oversight, Scott is available to discuss a possible appointment with judges, court staff, or counsel.
Contact CourtNeutral.com to discuss the discovery issues, proposed scope, availability, conflicts, and requirements of a potential appointment.