eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy
End-to-end eDiscovery consulting and strategy for companies and law firms navigating electronic discovery, from early case assessment through collection, review, and production — guided by our proprietary eDiscovery Playbook™.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy, in plain terms
eDiscovery consulting is the design and defense of a discovery plan before the money is spent: what data exists and where, what should be preserved, what the ESI protocol should say, which search method fits the volume, what the burden actually is, and how the whole process will be explained if it is challenged. Law & Forensics provides that consulting from a bench that has served as court-appointed special master, testified to discovery methodology and run the collections themselves. The deliverables are a data map that reflects the systems rather than the org chart, an early case assessment with measured volumes and costs, a negotiated ESI protocol and Rule 26(f) position, a validated search or technology-assisted-review plan, and — where the method is disputed — a declaration or expert report and testimony from the person who designed it.
The service is for litigators and in-house counsel at companies and law firms facing discovery they cannot yet size: a matter spanning migrated platforms and acquired companies, a proportionality argument that needs numbers behind it, a protocol drafted by the other side that nobody technical has read, or an organization that re-solves preservation and vendor selection from scratch on every new case. It is engaged before the Rule 26(f) conference where possible and at the point of dispute where not.
The consulting is forensics-first because the plan has to be executable in the parties' actual systems. Provisions agreed on paper and discovered to be impossible at production are the recurring failure, and the fix is having the people who will run the collection — who preserve with a documented chain of custody and verify with hash values — read the draft before it is signed.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy capabilities
Early Case Assessment
In-depth analysis of a matter at the outset to clarify the nature and scope of the data, identify potential sources of relevant information, and surface the risks and challenges that should shape discovery strategy. This enables clients to focus their efforts and reduce exposure to sanctions.
Data Mapping and Identification
We map the data landscape, identify potential sources of relevant information, and develop a plan for collecting and processing data in a defensible, cost-effective manner so review can be prioritized efficiently.
eDiscovery Project Management
End-to-end management of an eDiscovery project, from collection and processing through review and production, using a project management methodology that emphasizes communication, transparency, and efficiency to keep matters on time and within budget.
Litigation Readiness and Response Planning
We help organizations prepare for electronic discovery by developing comprehensive plans addressing data preservation, collection and processing, review and production, and data security, so they can respond quickly and effectively to any discovery request.
Technology and Workflow Optimization
We apply proprietary technology and proven workflows to process and review large volumes of data efficiently and cost-effectively, tailoring the approach to each matter's goals and budget.
The eDiscovery Playbook™
Our proprietary eDiscovery Playbook™ gives organizations the frameworks and strategies to build or strengthen an eDiscovery program, integrating legal, business, and technology best practices into a single actionable guide that lowers cost, speeds clarity, and reduces overall eDiscovery liability.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy — what the engagement looks like
Early case assessment
We size the matter before scope is agreed: the custodians and systems likely to hold relevant material, sampled volumes by source, an estimate of processing, review and production cost, and the risks that should shape the plan — a source on a short retention clock, a chat platform the template protocol does not mention, a custodian who administers his own tenancy. The output is a written assessment counsel can budget from and argue proportionality with.
Data mapping and preservation
The data map records where each category of information actually lives, who controls it, what it retains by default, and how it can be collected — including the sources both sides should agree are not reasonably accessible so that question is closed early. Legal holds go in through each platform's native mechanism and are documented, because the duty to preserve attaches when litigation is reasonably anticipated and the record of what was held is what answers a later spoliation motion.
ESI protocol and the Rule 26(f) conference
We draft or review the protocol against the map: scope, form of production per format, an enumerated metadata field list rather than the phrase 'standard metadata', the search methodology and its validation, de-duplication and threading, a clawback provision entered as a Rule 502(d) order, treatment of chat, mobile and ephemeral data, and an amendment mechanism. Counsel goes into the conference with hit counts and volumes rather than estimates.
Execution and validation
As collection, processing and review proceed we manage the vendors and the workflow against the protocol, and where technology-assisted review is used we design the validation — the sampling protocol, the measures reported, the acceptance threshold and the treatment of the null set — and preserve the statistics so the process can be defended months later without reconstructing it from memory.
Defending the method
When a search methodology, a production or a preservation decision is challenged, the consultant who designed it writes the declaration or Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report and testifies to it. Where the parties are sophisticated and hostile or the environment is genuinely complex, we recommend and can serve as the technical special master who resolves protocol disputes in days rather than through months of motion practice.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy — matters we are engaged for
Nobody knows where the data actually lives
The organisation has migrated platforms, acquired companies and accumulated shadow systems. A data map that reflects reality rather than the org chart is the precondition for any defensible collection.
Cost has to be estimated before scope is known
Counsel needs a number for a budget or a proportionality argument while the scope is still moving. Early case assessment on a sample gives a defensible estimate rather than a guess.
A proportionality argument needs evidence
Rule 26(b)(1) weighs burden against likely benefit, and a burden asserted without measurement rarely persuades. Quantifying the actual volume, cost and time is what makes the argument.
The same organisation keeps relitigating the same issues
Each new matter re-solves preservation, mapping and vendor selection from scratch. A standing readiness plan converts that recurring cost into a one-time one.
How the plan holds up
Discovery obligations run to outcomes and process, not to tooling. Rule 26(b)(1) measures discovery by relevance and proportionality, and a burden asserted without measurement rarely persuades — which is why early case assessment produces numbers rather than adjectives, a point the firm's work on revisiting proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) develops. Rule 26(g) is the provision with teeth: counsel certifies that a response is complete and correct after a reasonable inquiry, so a methodology that cannot be explained is a problem whether or not it was disclosed, and the answer to whether technology-assisted review must be disclosed is that validation matters more than the label. The duty to preserve is the other pillar: Zubulake IV fixed when the duty attaches and what it covers, and Zubulake V placed on counsel the duty to monitor compliance with it, which is the standard a data map and a documented hold are built to meet. The search-methodology decision itself is compared in predictive coding versus search terms, and the production-format decision in native versus image production.
When the method is disputed, the consultant becomes a witness and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 applies. Daubert v. Merrell Dow makes the court the gatekeeper of the reliability of that testimony, and a declaration about a search protocol or a collection is tested on the same Daubert factors as any other technical opinion: a documented method, known validation measures, and conclusions that stay inside what the sampling supports. We design every plan on the assumption that it will be defended that way, and where the other side's expert asserts burden or completeness without measurement our Daubert challenge defense work supplies the technical basis for the motion or the cross-examination.
The record is public where the matters are. A federal agency's eDiscovery backlog was cleared on a technology-assisted-review workflow that withstood opposing-counsel challenge in two matters through judicial validation of the methodology. The firm served as eDiscovery expert in the Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, as special master and mediator in In re: Facebook where the discovery disputes were resolved through published decisions and a structured ESI protocol, and as special master in an aerospace MDL where the court adopted its recommendations in full and the trial date held. The James v. Cerebras Systems ESI protocol order is the kind of order those protocols are drafted to anticipate.
The bench behind the strategy
Law & Forensics is a bench of seven named experts, and eDiscovery consulting draws on the ones who have sat on every side of a discovery dispute. Daniel B. Garrie, the firm's founder, serves as an e-discovery special master, forensic neutral and arbitrator at JAMS, has been appointed in matters from In re: Facebook to the Amplify Energy litigation, testifies as an e-discovery expert in state and federal court, and co-authored guidebooks for the Federal Judicial Center with federal judges. J-Michael Roberts, a Senior Director and Certified Computer Examiner, runs the collections the protocols describe and has testified to them in federal court and international arbitration. George Pierce built and led a multinational's legal department over twenty-nine years as its first general counsel and chief legal officer, and brings the in-house perspective on what a litigation-readiness plan has to survive inside a company. David Cass, a former Federal Reserve Bank of New York supervisor and enterprise chief information security officer, speaks to how the systems in a data map are actually governed and retained. See the full expert panel and the special master and neutral services the consulting frequently leads to.
Before litigation: the fixed-fee front door
Where a matter is anticipated but not filed, the Evidence Readiness Assessment is the fixed-fee, fixed-scope engagement that maps what data exists, ranks what is at risk of loss, and states candidly whether it can be preserved and authenticated — the first draft of the data map, produced at the point where preservation decisions are still reversible and before an ESI protocol binds a party to produce from systems it cannot defensibly collect from. It is prepared by the same people who negotiate the protocol and, if it comes to that, testify to it. The stages that follow are ESI preservation and collection, processing and hosting, document review and production and expert testimony and reporting; the difference between the first two is set out in preservation versus collection.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy — frequently asked questions
What does an Early Case Assessment provide?
It delivers an in-depth analysis of a matter early on, including the nature and scope of the data, potential sources of relevant information, and the associated risks and challenges, so clients can make informed decisions about how to proceed and focus their discovery efforts.
How do you help control discovery costs?
Through early case assessment, targeted data mapping, defensible collection planning, and proprietary technology and workflows that let us process and review large volumes of data efficiently, we help clients prioritize review and minimize unnecessary cost and risk.
Can you manage an entire eDiscovery project end to end?
Yes. We provide full project management from data collection and processing through review and production, applying a methodology built on communication, transparency, and efficiency to keep the project on time and within budget.
How do you help an organization prepare before litigation arises?
Our Litigation Readiness and Response Planning service develops a comprehensive plan covering data preservation, collection and processing, review and production, and data security, including litigation hold implementation, so the organization can respond quickly and effectively when a discovery request arrives.
Do you tailor your approach to each matter?
Yes. Every case is unique, so we work closely with each client to understand their goals and develop customized solutions suited to their specific needs and budget, with regular updates and clear reporting throughout the project lifecycle.
What is the eDiscovery Playbook™?
The eDiscovery Playbook™ is our proprietary, integrated framework of legal, business, and technology best practices for establishing or strengthening an eDiscovery program — helping organizations manage eDiscovery, lower costs, gain faster clarity on the issues, respond to litigation requests, and reduce overall eDiscovery liability.
eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy — questions, terms and comparisons
Questions answered
Case law
eDiscovery experts who testify to this work
Full expert panel →
Daniel B. Garrie
Founder
Expert Witness Testimony · eDiscovery Strategy
Roland Cloutier
Expert Consultant
Expert Witness Testimony
Gary Corn
Director, Technology, Law & Security, American University
Expert Witness Testimony
Our experts serve as court-appointed special masters, forensic neutrals, and arbitrators — 39 appointments are listed by matter and citation.