In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion about standards in electronic discovery, most of which has focused on the big-picture issues of scope, cost and cost shifting.  These are important questions eloquently argued in the courts.  Teams of attorneys and e-discovery support organizations are also making headway against the most pressing e-discovery concerns, such as when, if ever, to search backup tapes.

In my view, though, what has been noticeably missing from this debate is discussion of the mundane, pick-and-shovel e-discovery concerns that affect every case.  I mean the elementary technical issues and practical challenges involved in extracting data from electronic storage media, processing the data and its metadata into document review software applications, and supporting the review and production of the data as discovery or evidence.  We need to agree on the best way to do all of these, with the equipment available to us today.  We also need to agree on the best way to document the process.

The Electronic Data Extraction Network (EDEN), a nationwide community of e-discovery service providers founded and sponsored by BLT, is developing its EDEN Standards to provide members and electronic discovery vendors best-practices guidance in the identification, extraction, preservation, processing, search, review and production of electronically stored information.  The EDEN Standards are presented from the viewpoint of the technical personnel supporting electronic discovery in litigation.  They are designed to be practical in nature, and include forms, templates and record-keeping details.  EDEN Standards are properly crafted if EDEN members perceive them to be sensible – even obvious – and in line with what most of our community would consider reasonable practices.  No e-discovery support technician should be surprised by any Standard.

If our national EDEN community agrees on best-practices approaches to execution and documentation, we all benefit.  First, we will do our jobs well.  Second, we and our clients will know that the data extracted or processed by us has been handled in a safe and reasonable manner.  Our standardized records-keeping processes will reflect the quality of our work.  When an attorney or judge asks how we can be confident that we have taken the right course of action, we can point to the backing of an organization with members in every state.

Nothing like this exists at present.  E-discovery vendors are mostly on their own, or supported by fragmented, informal groups.  Recordkeeping is learned by experience, or from others who learned the same way.  No one can point to a formalized process or an accepted best practices standard.  Does this mean that today’s practices are poor?  Not necessarily.  It means only that practices are diverse.  Many in the e-discovery community are doing a terrific job.  Some are in over their heads.

What a lack of standards does mean is that we are challenged to defend our work piecemeal when it is subjected to scrutiny.  How many copies did we make during our single opportunity to create an image of a contested hard drive?  Why did we image some drives, and merely copy others?  How did we decide to approach extraction efforts from a mail server, and why?  Our answers may all make sense, but it would be far more comforting to call on the additional support of an established standard -  a practical, sensible guideline developed with the input of a nationwide community of e-discovery service providers.

Ultimately, EDEN Standards will help EDEN members and others in the computer forensics and electronic discovery communities to produce defensible, industry-supported work product and documentation – securing the functions and processes of electronic discovery.  We hope that you will join us in their development.

Please submit comments, suggestions, and inquiries regarding the EDEN Standards to: standards@edenhub.com.