Self-collection occurs when custodians identify and produce their own relevant material. It risks incomplete collection, metadata alteration from copying, and inconsistent judgment about relevance.
Courts have criticized unsupervised self-collection in a number of decisions.
Alternative Names:
Custodian Self-Collection, Self-Collection
Why it Matters?
Self-collection is attractive because it is cheap, and it fails in predictable ways: custodians apply their own relevance judgment, miss locations they forgot about, and alter metadata by dragging files between folders. Courts have ordered recollection at the producing party's expense where self-collection proved inadequate, which converts the initial savings into a substantially larger cost. Attorney-supervised collection with documented instructions is the defensible middle path.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Why do courts criticize self-collection?
What is the defensible alternative?
