Timely, practitioner-focused commentary on the issues that decide ESI disputes — Daubert-ready expert selection, TAR validation, ephemeral messaging spoliation, and generative AI in discovery.
An eDiscovery expert is only as valuable as the opinions that survive the other side's motion to exclude. The December 2023 amendments to Rule 702 sharpened that test — and by 2026, courts are applying it with teeth. Here is how to vet an expert before you retain, not after the Daubert motion lands.
More than a decade after Da Silva Moore blessed predictive coding, technology-assisted review is no longer novel — it is expected. But the fights have shifted from whether you can use TAR to how you validate it and what you must disclose. Here is the 2026 state of play for litigators.
Auto-deleting chats and the migration of substantive conversation onto phones have made messaging the most contested corner of ESI. Under Rule 37(e), the question is no longer just whether data is gone — it is whether the loss was reasonable, intentional, and prejudicial. Here is the 2026 landscape.
Generative AI has moved from pilot to production in eDiscovery — classifying, summarizing, and surfacing privilege at a speed manual review cannot match. The capability is real, and so are the risks. Defensibility in 2026 depends on the controls you put around the model, not the model itself.