With the huge volumes of electronic data subject to discovery in virtually every instance of litigation, time and costs of conducting discovery have become exceedingly important when litigants plan their discovery strategies. Rather than incurring the costs of having lawyers review every document produced in response to a discovery request in search of relevant evidence, a cost effective strategy for document review planning is to use statistical sampling of the database of documents to determine the likelihood of finding relevant evidence by reviewing additional documents. This paper reviews and discusses how sampling can be used to make document review more cost effective by considering issues such as an appropriate sample size, how to develop a sampling strategy, and taking into account the potential value of the litigation in relation to the costs of additional discovery efforts.
Barrera v. Boughton, 256 F.R.D. 403, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Cooper, D. R. and P.S. Schindler (2003), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(a)(1)(B) (December 2007).
Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (09-706-C July 13, 2010).
S.E.C v. Collins & Aikman Corp, 256 F.R.D. 403, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model. (2005). Retrieved December 16, 2010, from The Electronic Discovery Reference Model: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/eDiscoveryRoadmap.jsp
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 WL 3530097 (D.MD 2010). Working Group 1. (2009). "Achieving Quality in the E-Discovery Process.". Commentary by the Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference®. Sedona: Sedona Conference.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 312 (S.D.N.Y 2003).
Luoma, Milton and Luoma, Vicki
"Sampling: Making Electronic Discovery More Cost Effective,"
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 6
, Article 2.
Available at: http://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol6/iss2/2