From collected data to an informed review plan
eDiscovery hosted review gives counsel a workspace accessed through a browser to search, organize and review electronically stored information (ESI). Before review begins, processing and early case assessment help your team understand the data received, test its scope and plan the work ahead.
Forensic Discovery helps law firms and businesses move from collected files to a reviewable dataset. We work with counsel on intake, processing, culling, search term testing and export requirements. The engagement can stop at a compatible export for your firm’s platform or include hosted document review and technical support.
This work sits within our eDiscovery services. If your matter calls for prioritization beyond the standard review workflow, discuss AI-assisted and technology-assisted review as a separate scoped option. We confirm the available features and workflow before work begins.
Prepare, assess, review
Identify file types, extract available text and metadata, and apply agreed date, custodian and file type filters. The processing plan can address duplicate handling, exclusion of known system files using reference lists (deNISTing), optical character recognition (OCR) and exceptions. We document exclusions and failures so reduced counts remain explainable.
Explore the received data by source, custodian, date and document type before assigning a full review. Visual data metrics and custodian plots can reveal an unexpected gap or concentration. They describe the material received; they cannot establish that every relevant source was collected.
Test proposed terms and inspect sample hits before making search decisions. Hit reports can show counts by term and custodian, with the counting basis identified. Counsel can refine overbroad terms or investigate missed terminology. A search hit is a candidate for review, not a responsiveness decision.
Explore email relationships and group related messages or similar documents where the dataset and available analytics support it. Threading and near-duplicate grouping help reviewers compare context and versions. Similarity does not mean identity, and a relationship view does not establish a person’s intent or knowledge.
Plan a workspace accessed through a browser around the review team, searches and coding decisions. Discuss tagging, assignments, redaction, permissions and technical support during scoping. The agreed platform configuration determines which functions are available. Counsel retains responsibility for legal review and release decisions.
Prepare an agreed export for another review platform or a production directed by counsel. Confirm native files, images, extracted text, metadata fields, load files, numbering and endorsements before delivery. A sample import and documented quality checks help identify compatibility problems before the full transfer.
You have collected data but need a realistic picture of the proposed search scope. Early case assessment and hit reports can inform counsel’s preparation for a Rule 26(f) meet and confer. Counts, samples and documented limitations give the team a factual basis for discussion. Our eDiscovery consulting and ESI protocol support provides the related technical context; counsel decides legal positions and obligations.
Your attorneys and paralegals need a shared workspace rather than separate copies of the same documents. Hosted review can organize the dataset and support a consistent review plan. Confirm who will review, who will administer the workspace and what support is included. Hosting and technical assistance do not by themselves include attorney document review. For larger review questions, explore AI-assisted review options with their own validation and oversight requirements.
A large production may contain native files, images, load files and mixed metadata. Begin by checking the delivered structure, counts and available fields. Discuss whether comparison with your existing collection is appropriate. Differences in processing or duplicate rules can change counts; they do not automatically show that material is missing from the production or was withheld.
Your firm may need processing and culling without changing where reviewers work. We can scope an export around the receiving system’s specifications. Identify required fields, document families, text and image conventions, then test a sample. Compatibility depends on the source data, export options and destination requirements, so confirm those details before committing to a transfer.
Acceptance depends on the actual files, export format and processing support. We inspect the inputs and record exceptions rather than treating a file extension as proof that its content is fully reviewable.
| Received data | Processing focus | Review consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Email and attachments | Message metadata, text, families and available threading | PST, OST and other exports need inspection; attachments and linked cloud files are different sources. |
| Documents, spreadsheets and PDFs | File identification, available text, metadata and OCR where scoped | Passwords, formulas, embedded objects and pages containing only images can affect review and rendering. |
| Text messages and chat exports | Participants, timestamps and supported conversation structure | Export limits and missing context can affect grouping and display. |
| Collaboration and cloud exports | Available fields, relationships and source organization | Attachments, versions and permissions may not be carried into the received export. |
| Mobile extraction outputs | Supported reports or exports suitable for review | An extraction is not automatically a dataset ready to load for review. |
Collecting the underlying account or device comes before processing its output. When the source has not yet been acquired, discuss forensically sound email collection or our broader data preservation and collection services as a separate stage.
Record what arrived, its source identifiers and available chain of custody documentation. Check the transfer and identify missing materials or access barriers. Intake cannot repair gaps in earlier collection records.
Set custodians, date ranges, duplicate handling and file type rules with counsel. Record the time zone basis, family treatment and exceptions so the resulting dataset can be explained.
Review source and custodian metrics, term counts and sample results. Flag gaps and processing exceptions. Counsel decides whether the scope or terms need revision before review proceeds.
Confirm the supported platform functions, user access and review structure. Agree on coding fields, assignments and training needs. Test how representative documents and families appear to reviewers.
Provide the agreed technical assistance for searching, coding, redaction and review quality checks. Counsel directs responsiveness, privilege and other legal decisions. Record changes that affect the review population.
Prepare the agreed export or production, reconcile counts and test load files. Check the specified fields and redactions. Release follows counsel’s approval and the agreed quality control process.
The engagement may include an early case assessment report, search term hit reports, exception records, export sets and load files. Specify whether counts refer to files, messages, families, unique items or term hits; those measures are not interchangeable.
Production specifications can include Bates numbering, endorsements and fields for counsel’s privilege log. Redaction and privilege decisions require review; an export alone does not establish that sensitive content was removed. Where needed, scope a declaration describing the methods used through our expert witness and testimony services.
Forensic Discovery connects digital forensics source work with the practical needs of document review. The emphasis is on knowing what came in, explaining what changed during processing and preparing a usable handoff to the legal team.
These controls support an explainable workflow. They do not guarantee completeness, privilege protection, admissibility or a case outcome.
We work with outside counsel, litigation teams, paralegals, internal legal teams and businesses responding to discovery or information requests. Forensic Discovery works with law firms and businesses only and does not accept direct individual consumer matters. If a law firm represents the individual, the firm may contact us about the matter. See our offices and service locations for engagement contact options.
Costs depend on processing complexity, exceptions, hosting duration, users, support requirements and production volume.
Request a proposed scope, responsibilities, deliverables, assumptions and pricing in writing before authorizing work. Our guide to hosted review cost and efficiency factors provides background, not a quote or a promised reduction in cost.
It is a workspace accessed through a browser for reviewing processed matter data. Your team can work within an agreed review structure without operating the hosting infrastructure. Available tools, access settings and support depend on the platform and engagement. Our introduction to eDiscovery hosted review explains the basic workflow.
It is useful after initial data arrives and before committing to a full review plan. Early case assessment can show volume and distribution by source, custodian, date and type. It can also guide questions about gaps. Counsel decides how the results affect discovery positions; the received dataset does not establish the universe of relevant evidence.
Agreed filters can exclude dates or file types outside the agreed scope, remove identified duplicates and separate known system files. Threading and near-duplicate grouping can organize related material without making every grouped item identical. Document the rules, exceptions and treatment of families. The reduction depends on the actual data; no fixed percentage applies.
Discuss the data and deadline with us. A scoped test can report term hits and available custodian breakdowns, with previews or samples to assess context. Overlapping terms can count the same document more than once, so the counting method matters. Counsel evaluates whether the test is adequate and how to use it in the conference.
An export can be planned around your receiving platform rather than requiring your firm to change systems. Confirm its load file, field, native, text and image requirements first. A sample import can expose mismatches in family relationships or metadata. Final compatibility depends on supported source and destination formats and must be tested.
Pricing depends on the incoming data and what remains after agreed processing, as well as hosting duration, users, technical support and production work. Difficult formats and exceptions can add work. Hosting, processing and legal review are separate cost components. Request the proposed scope, deliverables, assumptions and pricing in writing before authorizing work. One rate does not fit every matter.
We assess the schedule after learning the volume, formats, transfer method and access requirements. Passwords, damaged files, unusual exports and reprocessing can affect timing. Tell us about the deadline at intake so we can discuss sequencing and any staged delivery. A proposed schedule requires confirmation against the actual inputs and available capacity.
Before transferring sensitive data, confirm the hosting arrangement, access controls, encryption, audit logging, retention and deletion terms that apply to the engagement. Do not assume a particular control is enabled because a platform offers it. Counsel should direct privilege handling and production approval. Hosted review and redaction tools do not guarantee against unauthorized access or disclosure.
Direct team access can be part of the agreed hosted review setup. Confirm permissions, training, search assistance and administrator responsibilities, along with the support included in scope. Your legal team controls its review decisions. Read about hosted review workflows for attorneys and paralegals for additional context.
Volume, deadlines and prioritization needs may justify evaluating additional review methods. The decision depends on the data, available features and a validation plan supervised by the legal team. See our separate AI-assisted hosted review service for that discussion. Standard processing analytics do not by themselves establish that an AI review workflow was used.
Describe the data you have, the deadline and where your team plans to review it. Forensic Discovery can help define the processing, early case assessment and hosted review work your matter needs.
Use the form for a general inquiry; arrange an appropriate transfer method before sharing evidence or sensitive matter details.
"*" indicates required fields
(866) 458-4993 
