lev-os E-Discovery Status Report
Produces an attorney-work-product status report tracking ESI from collection through review for U.S. commercial litigation.
Prerequisites
Gather before starting. Flag and caveat any gaps in the report.
- Vendor collection logs — custodian names, item counts, GB volumes, file types, processing status
- Review platform exports — document counts, reviewer IDs, coding dates, relevance/privilege/issue-tag designations
- Search term results — hit counts per query, precision/validation sampling data if available
- Privilege log drafts — finalized privilege assertions with custodian and document-type breakdowns
Quick Start
- Normalize custodian names across all sources into a single canonical list
- Populate each report section using the templates below
- Surface flags and anomalies at each stage
- Mark final output: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Report Sections
1. Executive Summary
- Collection completeness status
- Search strategy effectiveness (one sentence)
- Review progress % and projected completion date
- Critical issues requiring immediate action
2. Collection Metrics by Custodian
| Custodian | GB Collected | Items | Email % | Office Doc % | Other % | Processing Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [X.X] | [N] | [X%] | [X%] | [X%] | Complete / Pending / Error |
Flags:
- Volume >2× matter average → possible over-collection or key player
- Unexpectedly low volume → incomplete collection risk
- Processing error rate >5% by custodian or file type
Validation: Collected ≥ Processed ≥ Loaded ≥ Reviewed. Explain any downward discrepancy.
3. Search Term Performance
| Search Term / Boolean | Hits | Hit Rate (%) | Precision (if sampled) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Term] | [N] | [X%] | [X%] | Keep / Refine / Drop |
Flags:
- Hit rate >30% → likely overbroad
- Hit rate <0.5% → likely underperforming
- High inter-term overlap → recommend consolidation
- If precision data exists, project relevant yield from unreviewed hits
4. Review Progress
| Metric | Count | % of Loaded |
|---|---|---|
| Loaded to platform | [N] | 100% |
| Reviewed | [N] | [X%] |
| Coded Relevant | [N] | [X%] |
| Coded Privileged | [N] | [X%] |
| Coded Non-Responsive | [N] | [X%] |
| Remaining | [N] | [X%] |
Reviewer Productivity:
| Reviewer | Docs Reviewed | Avg Docs/Hr | Relevance Rate | Privilege Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [N] | [X] | [X%] | [X%] |
- Flag coding patterns >15% above/below team average (QC concern)
- Note velocity trend: accelerating / decelerating / stable (weekly rolling avg)
- Projected completion: [Date] at [N] docs/day — state assumptions explicitly
5. Privilege Analysis
| Custodian | Docs Reviewed | Privilege Assertions | Privilege Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [N] | [N] | [X%] |
- Note whether overall privilege rate is within expected range for matter type
- Break down privilege rate by document type (email vs. office docs vs. other)
- Flag custodians with rates >2× matter average for senior attorney QC
6. Recommendations & Timeline
- Resource needs: additional reviewers / vendor remediation / search refinement
- Search adjustments: specific terms to modify
- QC actions: reviewer-specific or category-specific
- Risk items: gaps, processing failures, tight deadlines
- Milestones: processing complete, first-pass review complete, privilege log ready (with dates)
Pitfalls
- Privilege substance leaks — present privilege statistics in aggregate only; never reveal communication substance or attorney mental impressions
- Adverse findings — report collection gaps, QC failures, and search weaknesses without minimization so counsel can make informed decisions
- Missing audit trail — document how discrepancies were resolved and what validation steps were taken; the process may be challenged
- Unstated assumptions — all projections must explicitly state their underlying assumptions
- Distribution control — limit report distribution to litigation team members with case management need