eDiscovery

Insights from the Masters Conference – Denver | June 24, 2025 | Hosted by Fennemore Craig PC  | Article by Sheila Sadaghiani

Last week at The Masters Conference in Denver, I sat in on a session that felt less like a legal panel and more like group therapy for those of us trying to tame the chaos of mobile data in eDiscovery. The message was clear: if you’re not thinking about mobile data, you’re already behind.

This panel was moderated by Chip Koons, CEO at Veracity Forensics and the panelists were Rick Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing at CloudNine, Melinda Redenius, Forensic Consultant at Veracity Forensics and Sean Solis, Counsel at BakerHostetler. This panel rounded out the perspectives of technology, forensics and the practice of law with the focus on smartphones in investigations and litigation.

Let’s face it, our smarty pants devices know everything. Who we texted, where we were, what we Googled at 2 a.m., and whether we really did hit our step count (thank you, Apple Watch). So, when a case lands on your desk and a smartphone or device is involved, and it always is, it’s time to get serious.

Phones Aren’t Just Phones Anymore

The session kicked off with a reminder that mobile devices are no longer simple communication tools. They are digital diaries overflowing with location data, app activity, messages, and maybe even a TikTok or two. That also means they are goldmines in investigations, but getting to that gold, not so easy.

Challenge #1: Privacy in a BYOD World

The ever-present Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) issue came up fast. The consensus? If you don’t have a crystal-clear policy in place, you’re setting yourself up for a compliance migraine.

Policy isn’t just a formality, it’s your defense. Require consent. Explain what’s being collected. And for the love of litigation, communicate with custodians. People get weird when you ask to peek into their phones, and can you blame them? Some even back up personal data to their iClouds, which just adds another layer of “fun.”

Also, heads up; board members are not always thrilled about handing over their devices. Shocking, I know.

One story shared involved a chemical plant incident where investigators suspected employees were texting during the event. They requested phone data leading up to and during the incident. The court said nope, calling it a fishing expedition. Moral of the story? Narrow your scope or risk reeling in an empty net.

Challenge #2: Ephemeral Everything

Next up: ephemeral data. Think Snapchat, disappearing messages, and auto-delete features that make forensic teams want to throw their phones into the nearest river.

But don’t lose hope. You can still get creative. One clever tactic mentioned was collecting data from other people the custodian communicated with. Deleted texts? Rebuild them from the other side of the conversation. Like digital duct tape.

Also, this is a big one, the Department of Justice is now specifically calling out the need to preserve ephemeral messages. So yes, your compliance program better have something to say about that.

Oh, and when you’re issuing a legal hold, spell it out. Literally. Include instructions on how to turn off auto-delete features. No assumptions.

Challenge #3: Geo-Location (aka “Where Were You Really?”)

Geo-location came up as both a powerful tool and a slippery slope. Every photo you take, some apps you open, it’s all tagging your location to the same database on the device. But here’s the twist: geo data is tied to the phone, not necessarily the person using it. So, you might know where the phone was, but can you prove who was holding it?

Still, if used wisely, location data can help build a compelling narrative. It just needs to be paired with the right context and a bit of tech wizardry.

Real Talk: No Easy Buttons

The overall vibe? There’s no magic wand here. But there are technologies that can help make sense of the chaos. Whether you’re threading messages across multiple platforms or using targeted collection tools like ModeOne, Oxygen, or Cellebrite, the key is to know your case and tailor your collection strategy accordingly. Then, review platforms like CloudNine Review will make the review experience MUCH easier than traditional document review platforms.

One case even hinged on data from a wearable fitness device. Yep, turns out those calories burned were worth more than expected in court.

Final Takeaways:

• Your mobile data strategy should be locked and loaded before discovery starts.
• Communication with custodians isn’t optional; it’s critical.
• Don’t just collect, preserve intentionally.
• And finally, get a service provider in early. This isn’t a solo mission.

So, the next time someone shrugs off mobile data as “just texts,” remind them: your phone might be the most honest (and unforgiving) witness in the room.

P.S. If you think mobile discovery is scary now, just wait until someone subpoenas your smart fridge.

Insights from the Masters Conference – Denver | June 24, 2025 | Hosted by Fennemore Craig PC

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer an emerging idea in legal discovery, it’s the present reality. At The Masters Conference in Denver, Fennemore Craig PC hosted an insightful session titled “AI in eDiscovery: What Was, What Is, and What’s Coming,” led by Adrian D’Amico, Director of Emerging Technology and Innovation, and Dean Seiveno, Chief Enterprise Officer. The session offered a sweeping view of how AI has evolved in the eDiscovery space and where it’s heading next.

The Evolution: From Automation to Insight

AI began reshaping eDiscovery by doing what humans couldn’t which is rapidly processing vast volumes of data. Early adoption focused on the automation of time-consuming processes like email and chat message review, issue identification, and document summaries. These tools gave legal teams the ability to cut through digital noise faster and more efficiently than ever before.

However, D’Amico pointed out that what we’re seeing now is a far cry from basic automation. The AI landscape and the technologists creating solutions is growing at an quick pace, leaving many overwhelmed and uncertain on which solutions, workflows and platforms should be considered.

D’Amico urged attendees to recognize that the real threat to your position or practice isn’t AI itself, it’s a lack of training in how to use it effectively. “AI doesn’t replace people,” D’Amico said. “A lack of AI training is what replaces people.”

Current Capabilities: Beyond Data Culling

Today’s AI-powered eDiscovery extends well beyond initial data sorting. It now plays a role across the entire EDRM spectrum:

• Identification & Preservation of sensitive data like PII
• Collection and early data analysis strategies that surface discoverable and relevant information early
• Processing and Analysis that leverage smart clustering and thematic analysis
• Review & Production tools that can visualize communication patterns, changes in sentiment, and emerging narratives that plug into traditional review and production workflows

One significant advancement is the shift from Continuous Active Learning (CAL) to Continuous Active Prompting (CAP). Unlike CAL, which trained models based on document coding decisions, CAP relies on natural language prompts. This allows legal teams to iterate prompts, create storyboards, uncover deeper context, and even analyze audio and video files and all through conversational interfaces.

Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT can now assist in:

• Drafting correspondence
• Extracting or testing legal arguments
• Modeling damages using curated eDiscovery datasets

But, D’Amico emphasized, only use firm-approved AI tools and never use a public tool for sensitive or proprietary information to maintain compliance and security.

The Future: Agentic AI and Multimodal Discovery

Looking ahead, both panelists predicted the rise of AI agents: automated systems that act like digital assistants within the eDiscovery workflow. These “Agentic AIs” will perform tasks like:

• Drafting privilege logs
• Reviewing batches of documents
• Monitoring quality control across platforms
• Create summaries of the documents, case arguments and organize data by topic

While these agents will still require human oversight, they represent a dramatic leap in efficiency and scalability.

Another exciting frontier is Multimodal Discovery which is the ability to connect and contextualize data across formats and cross channel communications. For example, searching for a keyword or concept could simultaneously pull in emails, Slack messages, call transcripts, and IoT data from wearables. This “search one, find all” approach has the potential to uncover layers of meaning and interconnectivity that were previously invisible.

Intent, Sentiment, and the Challenge of Ephemeral Data

Modern communications are rife with nuance like emojis, memes, GIFs, and slang interspersed throughout all textual conversations. Interpreting these requires more than a keyword search; it demands contextual intelligence. D’Amico described the importance of eDiscovering intent which is the ability of AI to read between the lines and identify tone, sentiment, or potential misconduct embedded in these short-form, symbolic messages.

Wearable technologies and IoT devices also present emerging data sources that, when analyzed correctly, can provide additional context around behavior, location, and anomalies tied to key events.

Adoption Trends and Practical Guidance

Citing the ILTA 2024 eDiscovery Survey, Seiveno noted that:

• 76% of large law firms and 46% of midsize firms are already using AI in some form for their practice
• Adoption varies across roles: 40% legal support, 22% attorneys, 63% paralegals

Legal professionals are at varying stages of their AI journey. “Just get started somewhere,” Seiveno advised. “Even small steps create momentum.”

He offered three core recommendations:

1. Engage Clients – Create a one-page explainer to secure informed consent and highlight AI’s value.
2. Offer Training – Ensure both legal and support teams are informed on emerging tools and workflows.
3. Oversee Workflows – AI needs human oversight. Establish governance to validate outcomes and improve models.

Ethics and Compliance: Start with Policy

As AI becomes more embedded in legal practice, ethical boundaries and regulatory obligations must remain top of mind. The panel referenced several key sources:

• ABA Opinion 512 – Emphasizes duty to disclose the use of AI
• FRCP 11 – Requires “reasonable inquiry” in representations made to the court
• FRCP 37 – Addresses consequences for failing to disclose methods used
• In re Google Play Store Antitrust – A recent case highlighting the significance of transparency in AI use

Building policy starts with assessing existing tools, incorporating ABA guidance, promoting firm-wide enterprise AI solutions, and ensuring client data is kept fully siloed from other matters.

Final Thoughts

AI in eDiscovery is evolving from a helpful tool into a strategic advantage. But with this evolution comes the responsibility to educate, govern, and ethically apply these innovations. As D’Amico put it, “AI can surface things people wouldn’t even think to look for.” And that’s the key: not replacing human judgment, but enhancing it.

Whether you’re new to AI or already using it daily, one thing is clear: the future of discovery isn’t just data-driven—it’s AI-enabled, ethically informed, and client-focused.

Insights from The Masters Conference Chicago – May 20th, 2025

In a dynamic and data-driven legal environment, the once-separate domains of eDiscovery, privacy, cybersecurity, records management, and AI legal advisory are converging into a single, multifaceted discipline: Data Law. At The Masters Conference in Chicago, a diverse legal professional panel explored how law firms and corporations can adapt by building integrated teams and workflows that reflect this evolution.

Panelists:

• Jay Carle – Seyfarth Shaw
• Jason Priebe – Seyfarth Shaw
• Natalya Northrip – Medallia
• Amanda Metts – Baxter
• Paul Noonan – United Airlines
• Jenny Hamilton – Exterro

The End of the Siloed Approach

Jay Carle (Seyfarth Shaw) opened the discussion by noting that traditional silos are breaking down. “These disciplines are starting to overlap more and more. The siloed approach doesn’t work when it comes to managing risk. Everything needs to be interconnected.” This theme resonated throughout the session, with each panelist emphasizing how integration enhances control, efficiency, and legal defensibility.

Cross-Functional Collaboration in Action

Paul Noonan (United Airlines) illustrated how information governance and eDiscovery are aligning more closely, particularly in understanding and managing the corporate data footprint. Noonan mentioned that they have a suite of approved applications for oversight, but there are always rogue apps like WhatsApp. That’s where internal education and policy enforcement become critical.

Amanda Metts (Baxter) highlighted the necessity of clear, enforced preservation and collection policies within legal departments, and noted that being in legal, preservation is inevitable so policies must be enforceable and aligned across departments.

Jenny Hamilton (Exterro) provided a unique perspective from both the legal and tech sides, explaining that while a law firm might benefit from separate departments, corporations need cross-departmental alignment. Hamilton said that litigation and IT need to work hand-in-hand. Identify the greatest risks, but also accept that some risk is inevitable.

AI, Privacy, and Cybersecurity – Managing the Convergence

Jason Priebe (Seyfarth Shaw) noted the growing complexity with generative AI (GAI). He said that some clients are exploring GAI models cautiously, while others are saying no entirely. Regardless, there must be centralized command and control over which apps are used, how data is retained and secured, and how discovery protocols are enforced, especially when working with opposing counsel.

He stressed the importance of having clear protective order templates and requiring outside parties to adhere to the same security standards when handling data.

Natalya Northrip (Medallia) reinforced that even if GAI policies are in flux, organizations should have internal panels that shape them across departments, ensuring responsible innovation.

Building Governance That Works

The conversation turned practical when the audience asked how to effectively enforce policies. Noonan suggested publishing policies company-wide and performing regular audits. He emphasized that litigation is also a great check and that employees subject to legal holds are more aware of the policies. Carle added that repetition is key: Constant messaging keeps data policies top of mind.

Priebe recommended leveraging technology solutions that analyze data throughout an enterprise to support classification and governance across various data law functions.

On change management, Noonan emphasized structured rollouts and company-wide communication. He said that they already have change management processes in place to ensure employees understand and follow new policies.

The Takeaway: Integration is the Future of Data Law

All panelists agreed: modern legal matters require a holistic, integrated approach to data. Whether it’s a litigation hold, responding to a regulatory inquiry, or deploying new AI tools, legal teams need to understand how privacy, cybersecurity, records, and discovery intersect, and be prepared to respond cohesively.

For both law firms and corporate legal departments, the challenge is to build multidisciplinary teams, foster internal alignment, and ensure everyone from technologists to litigators knows how to navigate today’s overlapping data risks.

As Carle aptly concluded, that at the very least, attorneys need to know who to call internally. That kind of awareness is the minimum standard in today’s legal landscape.

Masters Conference Chicago | May 20, 2025
Hosted by Seyfarth Shaw LLP | Presented by Infinnium

As the legal landscape continues to involve many new communication data as evidence, the conversation around data governance and eDiscovery is becoming more urgent and more strategic. At the 2025 Masters Conference in Chicago, a dynamic panel featuring Doug Kaminski, Chief Revenue Officer of Infinnium, and David Cohen, Senior Counsel at Reed Smith LLP, offered a powerful call to action: The data revolution is not coming; it’s already here.

A Moment of Reckoning for Legal Tech

“This is a pivotal moment in the legal profession,” Kaminski opened, “and shiny GenAI tools alone won’t cut it. Real transformation demands a shift in how we manage and make sense of our ever-expanding data universe.”

Kaminski and Cohen explored the imminent overhaul of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) in what’s being dubbed “EDRM 2.0” and aims to integrate with the Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) and address the increasingly blurred lines between governance, discovery, and compliance.

Cohen noted, “It’s time to revise the EDRM because what we do today often begins with filtering and analysis before collection. The traditional model doesn’t reflect that. Analysis is now happening at the very beginning of the process as well as most every step along the way.”

The Push Toward the Source

In today’s data-rich environment, organizations can no longer afford to “lift and shift” massive datasets across siloed systems. Kaminski emphasized the growing importance of conducting analysis at the data source: “You get to the answers you want sooner, without error-prone handoffs or multiple data copies. Review is then on richer, more relevant content.”

This upstream approach: Identify, Preserve, Process, and Analyze in-place is gaining traction thanks to advanced connectors and automation tools. Kaminski highlighted Infinnium’s suite of over 50 data connectors as an example of how technology is enabling pre-collection analytics, sentiment analysis, and early identification of sensitive content, all while minimizing disruption.

The Expanding Data Universe

Both speakers stressed the massive growth in enterprise data types. “It’s not just documents and emails anymore,” Cohen explained. “It’s corporate communications, chat platforms, and other ephemeral sources. Email itself is still growing as a communication standard.”

Complicating matters are rising privacy regulations and increasing volume-related costs, especially from cloud platforms like Microsoft 365. These pressures are fueling a renewed interest in data minimization which is a principle that’s becoming essential for legal teams managing both compliance risk and cost.

“Legal operations are getting more involved,” Kaminski said, “and they’re finding that minimizing data proactively is not just best practice, it’s a necessity.” He warned that if data isn’t proactively remediated before a litigation event, it will inevitably become part of discovery, leading to exponential costs and risks.

Defensibility in the GenAI Era

While there’s growing excitement around Generative AI, adoption in legal workflows remains cautious. “There’s still fear around hallucinations and reliability,” Cohen acknowledged. “But ESI protocols remain the best safeguard for determining how GenAI and human review can complement each other.”

Importantly, Cohen emphasized that organizations need to actively manage their data environments and not just to comply with laws like the GDPR or CCPA, but also to defend against evolving threats, including weaponized DSARs (Data Subject Access Requests) and cyber breaches.

Action Steps for Legal Teams

So what can organizations do today?

• Challenge legacy thinking. Reevaluate traditional workflows and consider how modern tools can shift functions leftward in the EDRM.
• Embrace practical data minimization. Reducing data footprints helps control costs and limit exposure.
• Think holistically. Understand the entire data universe from creation to retention to remediation.
• Leverage AI responsibly. Use it where it helps most, but always under robust review protocols.
• Find a sherpa. As Kaminski noted, “You don’t have to do it alone, but you do have to start.”

Conclusion

The key takeaway? The legal world must stop reacting to data and start governing it actively, strategically, and in place. The convergence of compliance, technology, and litigation readiness is creating both pressure and possibility. For those willing to rethink their processes and embrace modern tools, the data revolution isn’t a burden it’s a competitive edge.

www.Infinnium.com
Know your Data. Govern your Data. In Place.

By Rick Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing at CloudNine, and Melissa Weberman, Counsel and Head of eData at Arnold & Porter

In today’s evolving corporate data landscape, custodian interviews—early interviews of key employees who hold relevant electronically stored information (ESI) —remain a cornerstone for defensible discovery. Even with today’s advanced analytics and AI tools, a thorough custodian interview can provide a major advantage in saving costs and managing discovery risks. As the volume and variety of corporate communication methods evolve—ranging from traditional email to short-messaging apps like Slack, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, and Signal—attorneys should consider sharpening their custodian interview techniques to identify and preserve relevant ESI. The stakes are high: poor interview and collection strategies can result in spoliation, sanctions, and reputational damage.

Start With a Clear Purpose

Custodian interviews serve multiple critical purposes in litigation, including:

• Identify where relevant data lives, including on personal devices or unofficial “shadow IT” apps—i.e., any tool employees use for work without the company’s formal IT approval or retention controls (e.g., personal Dropbox, WhatsApp, or a private Slack workspace). This ensures no major source of evidence is overlooked early on.
• Help preserve data and avoid spoliation, because by learning what data exists and where, counsel can promptly preserve it (for example, by issuing legal holds or suspending auto-deletion on systems). Failure to identify a source through interviews could result in data loss. For example, if a custodian uses an ephemeral messaging app, interviewing them quickly allows you to halt any auto-delete settings before relevant messages disappear.
• Scope and focus the discovery effort, as a well-run interview arms you with information to negotiate a reasonable scope of discovery with the opposing side. You can learn which data is truly important—and what can be safely excluded—making discovery more proportional to the needs of the case. This can reduce unnecessary review of irrelevant data, saving time and money.
• Uncover key facts and terminology, because speaking to custodians often reveals context that is not obvious from documents alone. They can explain project code names, acronyms, or unique jargon that they use, and critical date ranges and players. Knowing these details guides you in formulating better search terms or using analytics (e.g., recognizing a code word in emails that filters irrelevant documents). In turn, this improves the efficiency of downstream review and helps you spot important evidence faster.
• Demonstrate a defensible process, as courts expect counsel to make a good-faith, thorough effort to find relevant ESI. By conducting and documenting these interviews, you can later show the court (or opposing counsel) that you took reasonable steps to identify and preserve all relevant information. This record becomes vital if there are ever challenges to your discovery process or accusations of missing data.

Being intentional can ensure the interview is productive and minimizes missed evidence. Before the interview, review the custodian’s role, potential data sources, and communication tools. Consider preparing a case-specific checklist or interview template—do not rely on a static form—to ensure you are properly prepared for the specific nature of the case and the client’s business processes.

Customize Based on Your Role

Successful custodian interviews and defensible collections require strong collaboration among in-house counsel, outside counsel, and service providers. In-house counsel aligns the interview process with the company’s internal policies, reassures employees, and facilitates access to systems. Outside counsel, meanwhile, brings an external perspective that shapes strategy, ensuring that questions are thorough and appropriately scoped, and keeping the process defensible. Service providers deliver the technology for efficient and secure data collection, processing, and hosting for review. They offer tools for real-time collection, develop secure workflows for managing diverse data sources, and generate detailed documentation that may prove critical if collection practices are later challenged in litigation. When all three groups—internal legal teams, external attorneys, and technology partners—work together seamlessly, the result is a defensible, efficient, and transparent discovery process that stands up to scrutiny and reduces risk.

Build Trust with the Custodian

Custodians are more likely to share relevant information if they understand that interviews are standard procedure and not indicative of wrongdoing (but it is important they understand that the interviewer represents the company, not the individual custodian). Establish rapport by:

• Clearly explaining the purpose of the interview.
• Reassuring them that the process is routine—not an accusation.
• Emphasizing that the custodian’s cooperation protects the company and themselves.
• Collaborating with in-house counsel to act as a bridge and underscore legitimacy.

Gaining custodian buy-in can increase cooperation and the quality of disclosures. Further, building trust early can pay dividends later when collections need to be supplemented or deposition preparation begins.

Modern Communications: Ask the Right Questions

Today’s employees communicate through a mix of chat apps, collaboration tools, mobile devices, and cloud platforms. Consider asking specifically about:

• Chat applications (e.g., SMS, Slack, Teams, or WhatsApp) and whether relevant. messages sit in private channels or DMs.
• Collaboration hubs (e.g., Confluence, SharePoint, or Google Drive).
• Personal devices or accounts used for work.
• Any unsanctioned “side” apps or cloud storage.

Be prepared for reluctance or lack of awareness or recollection. Use visuals or demos to jog memories.

Coordinate With IT and Records Personnel

It is often useful to speak with IT personnel who understand the company’s systems. They can provide a high-level view of standard data sources, retention policies, and system locations. However, always verify those details with the custodian’s actual practice. For example, IT might report that “all email is on the server, none is stored locally,” but an interview reveals the employee saved archives on a local drive contrary to policy. Similarly, a policy might say employees should not use USB drives or personal devices, yet a custodian may admit they routinely did so. Use the IT interview as a starting point, then confirm details with each custodian to help avoid blind spots.

Leverage Real-Time Collection and Screen Sharing

Where appropriate, use technology that enables real-time review and preservation of data. Screen sharing or live data exports during the interview can:

• Validate custodian responses in real time.
• Capture volatile or short-lived communications before they expire.
• Prevent spoliation by reducing the lag between identification and preservation.

Tools that allow screen sharing, cloud sync capture, or mobile device previewing are particularly effective.

Document the Interview Meticulously

Consider taking the following contemporaneous notes:

• Custodian identifiers and role: Record the custodian’s full name, title/department, and location, along with a brief description of his role in the matter. This provides context for his data and helps show you identified relevant custodians in good faith.
• Interview logistics: Note the date of the interview, method (in-person/remote), and who conducted it. Consistency here supports defensibility, showing interviews were done timely (typically soon after the legal hold) and by appropriate personnel.
• Legal hold notice: Document that the custodian confirmed receiving the litigation hold notice and acknowledged his preservation obligations.
• Data sources identified: List every source of potentially relevant information the custodian uses, including:
  • Devices: Work and personal devices (computers, phones, tablets, external drives).
  • Email accounts: Work email (Exchange/Office 365, etc.) and any personal or secondary accounts used for work.
  • Network locations: Shared drives, department file servers, databases, and cloud repositories (SharePoint, Google Drive, etc.).
  • Business applications: Relevant enterprise systems (CRM, HR systems, finance databases) that the custodian accesses.
• Communications and collaboration channels: Document chat or messaging apps (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp, SMS/iMessage, etc.), social media or direct messages if used for business, and any ephemeral messaging platforms. Note if relevant content exists and how it’s preserved. If the custodian uses apps with auto-delete or self-destruct features (e.g. Snapchat, Confide, Wickr), record this and any preservation steps taken (such as disabling auto-delete or instructing the person to save screenshots).
• Retention policies and auto-delete settings: Capture any information about data retention or deletion that could affect the custodian’s ESI. For example, ask if the custodian’s emails auto-delete after 90 days, if chat histories are retained, or if device data is routinely wiped. Document what you learn and any preservation steps taken. If the custodian had been manually deleting relevant data, note that and instruct (and document) that such deletions cease.
• Custodian’s actions: Document any actions the custodian has already taken regarding his data, and record if he mentions any data loss or issues.
• Follow-up steps and outstanding items: At the end of the interview, list any follow-up actions needed and track them. This might include scheduling a forensic collection of the custodian’s device, reaching out to IT about a newly identified server, or interviewing an additional person the custodian identified. Clearly document what will be done, by whom, and when. Maintaining this as part of the interview record ensures nothing falls through the cracks and evidences a continuing, diligent effort.
• Additional custodians or data sources named: A good interview often identifies other people or systems that might have relevant data. Document any new custodians, departments, or repositories the interviewee mentions. This guides your next steps and creates a record that you are expanding the preservation scope appropriately.

By following the above checklist, legal teams can create a defensible paper trail of their custodian interviews. In the event of a discovery dispute or motion, your team’s diligent documentation—complete with who, what, when, and how you addressed custodian data—can serve as strong evidence of your good faith and compliance with eDiscovery obligations. This not only helps in court but also keeps internal eDiscovery projects on track by tracking what has been done and what remains outstanding at each stage.

Best Practices Recap

• Start early.
• Use a standardized interview form but tailor questions case-by-case.
• Keep the tone transparent and cooperative.
• Involve IT and cross-check what policies say versus real-world practice.
• Document interviews, tools used, and preservation efforts meticulously.

Custodian interviews are more than an information-gathering step—they are a strategic moment to protect your client and ensure discovery obligations are met. By combining interview best practices with modern collection technology, legal teams can build a defensible foundation for any case.