Rule 26(f) Preparation

Barrister Digital Solutions > Rule 26(f) Preparation

Rule 26(f) Preparation – What Can We Do For You?

If you’re currently involved in a legal dispute, you can always rely on Barrister Digital Solutions for your needs. We provide customizable and premier litigation services including rule 26(f) preparation. Here’s how we can effectively assist you with preparing for your meet and confer in order to reduce discovery costs. In most cases, it might be seen as a necessary evil but by being prepared and having defined goals for the entire conference allows us to have a proper discussion without any waste of resources.


All parties to the case should discuss all the issues regarding preserving the discoverable information. All the parties should be prepared to ask and answer the following questions at this stage.

  • What is the current status of the litigation hold such as when it was issued, the recipient, the sources, and subjects covered and all the procedures in place for an auditing compliance?
  • Are there any provisions in place to preserve sources that are time-sensitive such as social media, smartphones, third-party hosted data or website data?
  • What are the preservation measures in place when an employee leaves the company or is promoted to a different position?
  • Is the IT department in compliance with the retention of data when performing upgrades on either on the entire network or individual workplaces?
  • Have the auto-archive or auto-delete functions been disabled for any data sources covered by the hold?

By narrowing the scope of preservation, you can reduce the cost and time burden required for compliance. At BDS, we can achieve this by limiting the subject matter at hand, identifying duplicative or irrelevant data sources, citing the relevant time frame and also reducing the custodian list.

What’s The Scope Of Discovery, Technology Tools And Methodology?

The main aspect of preservation is to understand the scope of discovery. If all the parties face the same risks and costs and are similarly situated with their electronically stored information (ESI). If there are any parties with an unequal burden of discovery, they can benefit by solving any substantive disagreements relevant to the case early enough.

It’s a way to inform the other party in the event of any technical difficulties in producing or collecting the ESI in the first place. If there’s no agreement on the scope, the conference will lay the groundwork for setting a motion of protective order. You should be prepared to discuss the application and selection of technology tools or methodology from preservation to production.

There’s no need to make specific comments about technology at this stage of the process so the discussion should be kept at very high levels until you can fully comprehend the client’s ESI. You’re exempted to make any commitments to using any pre-review and industry standard filtering tools such as deduplication for the process. In the discovery plan, we can include some general agreements about using technology as a basic protocol for any future discussions.

Ediscovery experts, we can use the discussions as a way to educate any case team, especially those who are less experienced. That way, we can keep any unnecessary disputes such as inaccessibility, production protocol or discovery scope and many more issues at bay. The production format is one of the integral elements of the discovery phase. It refers to the process of exchanging technical specifications such as loading records to the other parties’ EDD review databases. If the process is done early enough, you can always use the conference as a platform for asking questions and working through any objections that might come through. After scratching the surface, serious issues are likely to pop up.

For instance, you’re likely to come across contentious issues surrounding the extracted text, production of metadata, non-standard file types, native files and data sources. If there’s a huge disparity in the discovery burdens of all the parties, there’s a great likelihood to have a great dispute in the form of production. Of course, the same goes if there’s a notable disparity in the competence of the legal parties present.

At BDS, we understand that the best way to ensure the most productive results should be grasping the practical and substantive issues before the Rule 26(f) conference happens. With proper preparation and thorough follow-up, you can always count on the best results.

Related White Paper Information

Poster Signs
How E Discovery Law Has Changed The Legal Profession

Looking for the best partner for your eDiscovery and Litigation Support?

Contact Us Barrister Digital Logo