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 AllAfter Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
5 minute readDOT Moves to Roll Back Emissions Rules, Eliminate DEI Programs
Trending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
- 4Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 5Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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