Warner Norcross + Judd LLP Partner Scott Carvo co-authored “How to Resolve the ECA vs. EDA Confusion Once and For All,” with Mandi Ross, CEO and managing director of Insight Optix discussing both the importance and confusion surrounding analyzing data early in cases.
In the article, Carvo and Ross discuss the concepts of “Early Case Assessment (ECA),” vs. “Early Data Assessment (EDA),” their similarities and why legal and eDiscovery professionals can’t agree on the appropriate term to describe the process of analyzing data early in a case.
The Sedona Conference Glossary, eDiscovery & Digital Information Management, Fifth Edition defines ECA as: “The process of assessing the merits of a case early in the litigation lifecycle to determine its viability. The process may or may not include the collection, analysis, and review of data.”
EDA is defined as: “The process of separating possibly relevant electronically stored information from nonrelevant electronically stored information using both computer techniques, such as date filtering or advanced analytics, and human assisted logical determinations at the beginning of a case. This process may be used to reduce the volume of data collected for processing and review.”
Although there is a distinct difference between ECA and EDA, it can still be confusing. Carvo and Ross explain that it really comes down to case strategy – including liability analysis, damage assessment, adversary investigation and litigation budget forecasting – to consider for the overall strategy for the case.
They explain further the scope of discovery, outlining the needs of a case and how the six proportionality factors of Rule 26(b)(1) significantly impact the strategy for the case in terms of deciding whether to proceed or settle. Additionally, Carvo and Ross provide practical legal considerations for case strategy decision making.
Read the full Insight Optix article here.
Carvo puts his eDiscovery expertise to good use in both his general litigation practice and in helping the firm as a whole, drawing on his technical background to make information exchange more effective and less expensive. He also advocates for clients in matters involving restrictive covenant, employment and general commercial litigation. Learn more about his practice here.
