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