Early Data Assessment: Setting the standard in e-discovery readiness
Think tanks, judicial members and practicing attorneys have all acknowledged the integral role early data assessment (EDA) plays in preparation for document production in civil litigation. EDA is an essential discovery readiness tool for any entity that seeks to reduce labor costs tied to document review, heighten search protocol defensibility...
February 16, 2012 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Think tanks, judicial members and practicing attorneys have all acknowledged the integral role early data assessment (EDA) plays in preparation for document production in civil litigation. EDA is an essential discovery readiness tool for any entity that seeks to reduce labor costs tied to document review, heighten search protocol defensibility or save time in the period prior to review and production.
By using EDA, organizations tasked with the production of documents (not limited to production within discovery) are able to drastically narrow immense sets of potentially relevant information into smaller, refined clusters of pertinent data. That data can then be feasibly analyzed with test search terms and other input parameters. Comprehensive EDA platforms are becoming a staple in efficient data management toolsets because of the wide array of associated benefits appreciated by many proactive corporations and their counsel.
The difference between EDA and ECA (early case assessment) is important. Whereas ECA involves the entire case—before discovery and beyond data analysis—EDA is a smaller, albeit important, subset.
For example, ECA encompasses broad notions of legal representation—fact finding, venue research, liability analysis, damage assessment, adversary investigation and litigation budget forecasting. EDA, on the other hand, aids in fact-finding and narrows the scope of important discovery data early on. During the process of EDA, data is separated between critical and non-critical groupings, the number of key players is narrowed, key search terms are tested and critical case arguments are identified. In addition, EDA is utilized in settings other than litigation. First, in regulatory matters, EDA is used to identify data quickly for responding to inquiries. Second, in policy audits, it enables parties to confirm their compliance with internal policies. Third, EDA is used to assist with internal investigations to answer questions regarding who, what, when, why and how.
Faced with discovery issues of all shapes, sizes and interests, many attorneys wonder which matters are best suited for EDA. While the answer depends on the circumstances of the particular matter, it is helpful to consider the following criteria:
- The data volume and type
- Timeline
- Maturation of case strategy
- Value or liability of the case
- Projected costs of processing and review
- Type of key players or fact witnesses identified
Additionally, EDA technologies can be most helpful when you are:
- Unsure of your case strategy
- Unfamiliar with your document set content
- Lacking internal technical resources to evaluate the data before processing
- Anticipating that traditional document review and native file export may not be sufficient
- Able to devote ample time to the discovery process prior to production
The cost of e-discovery continues to be one of the highest-ticket items on litigation receipts. Law firms and corporations, therefore, have an enormous stake in taking action to reduce the costs and time spent on legal discovery matters. EDA technology has proven vital in the management and reduction of costs associated with discovery, particularly with regard to document review and production. EDA also is useful to enable companies to make sound and defensible decisions, and it has proven to reduce data stores and provide key insight into settlement negotiations prior to discovery deadlines. There are several benefits associated with the use of EDA. Most critically, it provides an early window into liability and damage assessment, as well as the likely scope and expense of discovery. The information and analysis available through EDA allows a party to reduce its costs and increase defensibility by prioritizing and focusing on data most likely to be responsive in the further stages of processing and review. In addition, the use of EDA promotes collaboration and cooperation between opposing parties and counsel.
When used in litigation, EDA is most useful at the forefront of the pre-discovery landscape. It should be used as a tool that prepares litigants for the scope of discovery with which they will deal, and as a source of knowledge that imparts insight about the data that will be sought. The results of EDA are: dataset and custodian reduction, search term development, search defensibility, and litigation readiness. These results benefit parties from the earliest stages of litigation to the latter stages of trial after the EDA process is over.
Not only can EDA facilitate the entire production process, it also provides an invaluable early window into document review, which allows counsel to furnish “substantial human input on the front end [of automated search technology]” as suggested by the Best Practice Guidelines of the Sedona Conference. EDA is more than a technology- it is a methodology that involves people, processes and the right technology.
To experience the widespread benefits described herein, all types of entities that seek to proactively manage document review should consider the implementation of a comprehensive EDA solution.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
'Toot Your Own Horn': Our Top-Performing WIPL Stories of 2024
Crypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
Trending Stories
- 1New York State's 37th Veterans Treatment Court Opens With New Program in Cattaraugus County
- 2Defense Counsel for Ex-U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez Urges Sentence of Less Than Two Years
- 3Sirius XM GC Signing Off After 27 Years in Role
- 4Nathan Hecht: Texas' Longest Serving Justice Retires
- 5Longtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250