Rethinking Document Production in Legal Discovery

In civil litigation, discovery is often the most time-consuming and costly part of the process. As the number of documents involved continues to skyrocket, legal teams must focus on managing this massive volume in the most efficient, cost-effective, and rapid manner, as mandated by federal court guidelines.

One area frequently overlooked, yet which can drastically improve efficiency, is the format of document production. This seemingly small detail can have a profound impact on both the speed and the cost of discovery for all parties involved. Let’s dive into the evolution of document production and how it’s shifting toward more modern methods.

The Old Way – Near Paper (Image) Production

When eDiscovery first emerged, the standard practice was to create digital images of each page of a document. These images were then stamped with a unique ID and page number, accompanied by .txt files containing extracted text and a metadata index (e.g., dates, authors). This method allowed for the exchange of documents without the need for physical printing.

As technology progressed and the PDF format became more widely accessible, PDF image productions became the preferred format for discovery in Australia. In this format, the document text remains in a searchable layer within the PDF itself.

While some teams continue to rely on this traditional method, the increasing volume of data in modern cases has led to significant delays. This outdated approach can add days or even weeks before the review process can even begin.

The Shift – Native Document Production

As the size and diversity of data grow, so too does the variety of file types involved — from videos to intricate spreadsheets and 3D files. These types of documents simply cannot be effectively rendered into PDFs for disclosure.

To overcome the challenges of converting documents to PDF, native production has become the most efficient and cost-effective option. This method involves disclosing documents in their original, unaltered formats, such as .doc, .docx for Word documents or .xlsx, .xls for Excel files. There’s no need to transform the documents into digital images or PDFs.

Along with the native files, a metadata index or load file is included to ensure that all relevant metadata is transferred correctly. This simple and direct approach cuts down on unnecessary processing, reducing both costs and the time it takes to complete discovery.

Exceptions to native production include:

• Emails — To prevent issues with forwarding or replying, emails are provided as .mhtml files, which can be viewed in browsers or eDiscovery tools.
• Redacted Documents — For documents requiring redactions, the redacted sections are burned into image formats. However, this only affects a small portion of documents during production.

Global Trends in Legal Markets

While Australia continues to favor PDF-based production, other legal markets are increasingly adopting native format disclosures:

• United States — Despite the U.S. legal market’s preference for single-page image productions, the immense scale of discovery is pushing teams to embrace native format production due to its faster processing times and lower costs.

• United Kingdom — In the UK, the Civil Procedure Practice Directions now designate native format as the standard for disclosure. Image-based formats are typically reserved only for documents requiring redaction.

Near Paper vs. Native Format – What’s the Best Approach?

When deciding between traditional image-based formats and native production for document review and disclosure, native format is the clear winner for a number of reasons:

• Smaller file sizes — Native formats are often much smaller than their PDF counterparts, leading to lower hosting and storage costs.
• Cost-effective hosting — Hosting documents provided by opposing parties is significantly cheaper when native formats are used.
• Speed — The process of importing, exporting, and transferring files is much faster in native format.
• Preserving metadata — Using native formats minimizes the risk of accidental metadata corruption or loss.
• True-to-original presentation — Native documents maintain their original formatting and properties, which is essential for accurate review.

While converting documents to PDF format can still be useful during trial preparation — particularly when stamping them with document IDs or burning in redactions — it’s more efficient to apply these changes only to documents that will actually be presented as evidence. After all, only a fraction of the documents reviewed during discovery will ultimately be relied upon in court.

Conclusion

Adopting native format production is proving to be the most efficient, cost-effective, and reliable approach for document discovery. It reduces costs related to storage, hosting, and file transfers, while also preserving metadata and file integrity. As the volume and complexity of data in litigation continues to rise, the transition to native format production is becoming increasingly essential for legal teams worldwide.

For more information about how Arrow Translation can assist with your legal document processing, from discovery to trial preparation, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Our expert team is ready to streamline your eDiscovery process and reduce both time and costs across the board.

◀️：A Deeper Dive into Subtitles, Closed Captions, and SDH Subtitles in China

▶️：Creating Accessible E-Learning in China: Reaching Learners Everywhere