Australian courts have made proportionality explicit. The Federal Court's Central Practice Note (CPN-1) and Technology and the Court Practice Note (GPN-TECH) expect parties to confer on the scope of electronic discovery and to use technology to keep it reasonable; state case-management regimes take the same line. The costs blowout usually happens before review even starts — in over-collection.
Collect Narrow, Defensibly
Targeted collection starts with a custodian map: who actually touched the issues, on which systems, over what period. Collecting those sources forensically — with hashes and a documented method — costs little more than an IT export and preserves every downstream option. What it avoids is imaging every server "to be safe" and paying to host and review the lot.
Cull Early, on the Record
De-duplication, date filtering, file-type exclusion and search-term testing routinely remove the majority of a collection before human review. The discipline is documentation: every cull criterion recorded, hit counts reported, and the method disclosed to the other side when required. That record is what makes an aggressive cull defensible rather than a discovery-obligation risk.
Where parties can agree search terms and exchange protocols early — as the practice notes encourage — disputes shrink to the handful of documents that matter. Our role is usually a short one at the front: scope, collect, cull, hand over a review-ready set, and stand behind the method if it's ever questioned.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Do Australian Courts Expect on the Scope of Electronic Discovery?
Proportionality. The Federal Court's Central Practice Note (CPN-1) and Technology and the Court Practice Note (GPN-TECH) expect parties to confer on scope and use technology to keep discovery reasonable; state case-management regimes take the same line.
How Is Aggressive Culling Kept Defensible?
Documentation. Every cull criterion is recorded, hit counts are reported, and the method is disclosed to the other side when required. That record is what turns de-duplication, date filtering and search-term testing from a discovery-obligation risk into a defensible cost saving.
When Should a Forensic Examiner Be Involved in eDiscovery?
At the front, during scoping and collection. Collecting targeted sources forensically — with hashes and a documented method — costs little more than an IT export, preserves every downstream option, and avoids paying to host and review material that should never have been collected.