Yesterday, the EDRM 2.0 project team met to discuss status of the project, so here’s an update on the EDRM 2.0 project.

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is certainly the most iconic model in eDiscovery and has been in existence for nearly two decades after being developed by a team of eDiscovery professionals in 2005, led by George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, who founded EDRM. The model has only been slightly updated since, primarily through the adding of Information Governance to the model – and eventually, the Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM), making the IGRM a model within the model. It also received a refresh last year with a new design.

Now, the EDRM model is undergoing a significant update, with the development of EDRM 2.0 well underway, after being kicked off in May. A global cross-section of the industry has come together, representing law firms, government agencies, technology vendors, and corporate legal departments. As was the case with the original EDRM model project, the coalition is not tied to any specific vendor or affinity group, to ensure a balanced and unbiased approach. The effort has also made a point of including voices from both the plaintiff and defense sides of litigation, from the project trustee level on down.

Project trustees are Charisma Starr, VP, Legal Operations Manager at JP Morgan Chase, Brett Burney, e-Law Evangelist at Nextpoint, Shannon Bales, Legal Ops Manager, Munger Tolles & Olson and Stephanie Clerkin, Director of Litigation Support at Korein Tillery.

The update on the EDRM 2.0 project meeting yesterday included 49 participants, so it was well attended. So far, EDRM and the project team have been collecting feedback and requirements from the global cross-section of participants to inform the development of EDRM 2.0. This process has involved the submission and discussion of a wide range of models and terminology, with a focus on the future of eDiscovery practices, while recognizing the groundbreaking work of Socha, Gelbmann and the team who created the original model.

As part of the update, the definitions of current eDiscovery terminology may be expanded or modified to reflect modern practices. The structure of the EDRM itself is under scrutiny, with phases potentially being reordered, changed, added, or removed to better align with contemporary workflows.

One area receiving particular attention is the concept of “analysis” and how it should be reflected across the entire EDRM. This focus recognizes the growing importance of data analysis throughout the eDiscovery process, from early case assessment to trial preparation.

Another potential change is the potential addition to the model of a “Disposition” phase, which would address the end-of-case procedures and data closeout.

While significant progress has been made on EDRM 2.0, the door remains open for additional participation. Legal professionals, technologists, and other stakeholders in the eDiscovery process are encouraged to contribute their insights and expertise and can do so by sending an email to info@edrm.net.

It’s hard to believe it has already been nearly five years since EDRM was purchased by Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad from Duke Law, and EDRM has several completed and active projects during that time. EDRM 2.0 will certainly be the most significant project undertaken since the creation of the original model and, so far, it looks like a lot has been accomplished!

So, what do you think? What changes would you make to the EDRM model? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Hat tip to Shannon Bales who contributed some of the information included in this update. 😊

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.