When the Fight Is About the Discovery Itself.

Motions to compel, disputed ESI protocols, thin productions, and preservation fights are won on technical specifics — what exists, where it lives, what a reasonable search would have surfaced, and what production would actually cost. We supply that record, and we appear to defend it.

Confidential Consultation
The Forensic Questions We Answer

What the evidence record actually addresses.

Motion to Compel — Either Side

  • Declarations establishing what a production omits, and why
  • Whether a search was reasonably calculated to locate responsive material
  • Proportionality and burden analysis grounded in actual data volumes, not estimates
  • Rebuttal of overbreadth, inaccessibility, and undue-burden assertions
  • Realistic cost and timeline figures a court can rely on

ESI Protocols & Meet-and-Confer

  • Drafting and review of forensic protocols and ESI orders
  • Scoping custodians, sources, date ranges, and search terms
  • Defining acceptable extraction depth, formats, and production specifications
  • Technical support on the call, so protocol terms come out workable rather than aspirational

Hearings & Status Conferences

  • Appearance at status conferences, discovery hearings, and protocol negotiations
  • Plain-language explanation of the technical dispute to the court
  • Daubert and admissibility challenge support
  • The examiner who did the work appears — not a substitute reading someone else's report

Spoliation & Sanctions

  • Whether data was deleted, wiped, or altered — and when
  • Whether preservation obligations were met once the duty attached
  • Distinguishing routine retention behavior from deliberate destruction
  • Forensic support for Rule 37(e) motions and responses
What These Motions Turn On

Assertions lose to specifics.

“We produced everything responsive” and “that would be unduly burdensome” are positions, not evidence. What moves a court is a declaration identifying the specific sources that were never searched, the artifacts showing material existed on a date certain, and a defensible figure for what collecting it would actually take. That is a forensic exercise — and it is the one most often skipped.

Why Counsel Retains Us

Court-tested in this kind of matter.

We have been retained on both sides of discovery disputes, and appointed by a court as a neutral where neither side's account of a production could be taken at face value. That mix matters: an expert who has only ever argued that productions are inadequate is easy to characterize on cross, and one who has only ever defended them is easier still. We have consulted with attorneys on forensic strategy, ESI protocols, and defensible collection approaches during meet-and-confer, motion practice, and contested discovery proceedings.

Have a matter that requires this kind of forensic work?

Request a Free Consultation