The Sedona Conference^® (TSC) has published for public comment its Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery.

The Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery (available here with free account) has been released by TSC’s Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1). The Commentary asserts that better communication naturally will reduce blunderbuss* requests for databases that typically encompass irrelevant or inappropriate information, or the production of terabytes of useless, undifferentiated data.

This Commentary offers practical suggestions that the drafting team believes will clarify the obligations of both requesting and producing parties and simplify discovery in matters involving databases and information derived from databases. The specific facts of a litigation matter and, combined with the implementation of relevant databases, likely will raise additional retention and production issues not explicitly covered by this paper. Even so, the drafting team believes that the groundwork laid by this Commentary will provide valuable guidance to litigants facing novel issues of database retention and production.

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery is the application of the existing Sedona Principles (a set of best practices and guidelines for managing ESI in discovery that has been around since 2003 and was last updated in 2018) to databases and database information. To that end, the WG1 team developed the following Sedona Conference Database Principles addressing the preservation and production of databases, as follows:

1. Scope of Discovery: Absent a specific showing of need, a requesting party is entitled only to database fields that contain relevant information, and give context to such information, and not to the entire database in which the information resides or the underlying database application or database engine.
2. Accessibility and Proportionality: Due to differences in the way that information is stored or programmed into a database, not all information in a database may be equally accessible, and parties should therefore apply proportionality to each component of a database to determine the marginal value of the information to the litigation and the marginal cost of collecting and producing it.
3. Use of Test Queries and Pilots: Parties should use objective information, such as that generated from test queries, pilot projects, and interviews with persons with relevant knowledge to ascertain the burden and benefits to collect and produce information stored in databases, and to reach consensus on the scope of discovery.
4. Validation: A responding party should use reasonable measures to validate that its collection from the database is both reasonably complete and did not inadvertently modify the ESI.
5. Data Authenticity and Admissibility: The proper validation of collection from a database does not automatically make the substantive information stored in the database authentic, admissible or true. These are separate issues that need to be analyzed by the appropriate decision-makers.
6. Form of Production: The way in which a requesting party intends to use database information is an important factor in determining an appropriate format of production.

The Sedona Conference Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery is open for public comment through August 23, 2025. Questions and comments may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org. The drafting team will carefully consider all comments received, and determine what edits are appropriate for the final version. You know the drill. 😉

This is the third notable commentary in less than two months from the WG1 working group, after publishing the public comment version of the Commentary on Discovery of Collaboration Platforms Data in early April and publishing the public comment version of the Commentary on Discovery of Mobile Device Data in mid-May. That’s three in about three months – impressive!

So, what do you think? Do you think the Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery will help organizations address challenges with production of structured data? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

*If you had to look up “blunderbuss”, you’re not the only one – I did too. According to Wikipedia, a blunderbuss is a 17th- to mid-19th-century firearm with a short, large caliber barrel. I’m blown away! 🤣

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.