eDiscovery

A review that stands up to scrutiny

A corrupted attachment in a production set is a defensibility problem if it is silently dropped, and a credibility problem if it is silently kept. The skill does not guess. It logs the file, states the issue, and names the action.

What the skill does for you

Four stages, one run. From collection to production log.

1. 1

   Scope the data

   The collection, inventoried

   • Every document inventoried: file, kind, custodian or author, date, one line summary
   • Custodians and the date range are established
   • Unreadable or non matter files go to Exceptions, with the action required

   The outcome: A complete inventory of the collection, before review starts.

2. 2

   Classify and flag

   Every document, a home

   • A review category: responsive, non responsive, to verify, or privileged candidate
   • A privilege candidate reason where applicable: attorney client, work product, other
   • A production candidate flag, with a neutral reason and source citation

   The outcome: A document log where every entry is a candidate with a reason, not a determination.

3. 3

   Build the search and review plan

   Terms with a purpose

   • Proposed search terms, each with the issue it targets
   • The custodian list, the date range, the review order, and the QC steps
   • Proposed terms are marked pending attorney review

   The outcome: A review protocol that is defensible because each term has a stated purpose.

4. 4

   Build the log and protocol

   The production, accounted for

   • Document log, privilege log, production log, search terms, and custodians in one cited XLSX workbook
   • The review protocol is generated from the same fact base
   • When a new collection arrives, re run and the log stays current for the life of the review

   The outcome: A draft for attorney review where the protocol and the log never disagree.

A sample review, run end to end

Meridian Health Systems v. Brightline Analytics (fictional). A first pass review of a small custodian collection for a SaaS implementation dispute. Eight documents in; the output below is real.

document log entries, each with custodian and category

9document log entries, each with custodian and category

privilege candidate, logged with a reason, for attorney review

1privilege candidate, logged with a reason, for attorney review

proposed search terms, each with the issue it targets

8proposed search terms, each with the issue it targets

exception: a corrupted attachment, with the action required

1exception: a corrupted attachment, with the action required

From the log (real output)

Meridian v. Brightline · first pass review

The skill never classifies privilege. It flags the candidate, states the reason, and leaves the call to the attorney.

Built to be defensible

Go deeper