The Sedona Conference® (TSC) has published for public comment its Primer on the Electronic Discovery Implications of the Internet of Things (IoT).
The Primer on the Electronic Discovery Implications of the Internet of Things (IoT) (available here with free account) has been released by TSC’s Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1). It’s a comprehensive guide addressing the challenges and considerations of IoT data in legal discovery. It provides an overview of IoT devices and their data (IoT ESI), explaining their various contexts (commercial, consumer, industrial) and methods of communication and storage locations.
Section III of The Primer details the unique issues IoT ESI presents for discovery practices, including scope, proportionality, initial disclosures, possession/custody/control, and privacy concerns. For example, regarding proportionality, while log information is often excluded as beyond proportional scope, it can be vital in certain cases, such as:
- In a case involving an industrial workplace accident, logs from sensors embedded in machinery could be vital.
- In an injury case, data from wearable health monitors, sensors, or cameras could all be relevant.
- In a dispute involving a smart home system, logs from devices like smart thermostats or security cameras might be crucial.
Section IV outlines the specific process challenges related to IoT ESI, covering identification, preservation, collection, processing, analysis, searching, review, and production. For example, unique preservation challenges include:
- Difficulty in Identifying Relevant Data Sources: “The sheer volume and diversity of devices can complicate the identification and preservation process.”
- Rapid Evolution and Obsolescence of Devices: “Data formats and storage methods may change, making it difficult to access and preserve data from older models.”
- Complexity of Data Formats: Proprietary formats may “require specialized software or expertise to interpret.”
- Potentially Fleeting Nature of IoT ESI: “The device only storing detailed logs for a brief period before overwriting them.”
- Lack of Direct Control Over IoT Device ESI: Data controlled by manufacturers rather than owners (e.g., connected vehicles).
- Environmental Factors Affecting Data Preservation: Harsh conditions leading to “data corruption or device failure” (e.g., maritime devices). Courts should consider these factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). “Promptly identifying relevant IoT ESI and determining who has possession, custody, or control” is essential, potentially requiring “a preservation letter to the party and a subpoena to a non-party.”
And Section V discusses its admissibility in legal proceedings, including authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901 and self-authentication of IoT ESI under FRE 902(13).
As noted in the Preface, this Primer “has been in the making for a long time, reflecting significant advancements in the underlying technology while the Primer was being drafted. The initial ‘Brainstorming Group’ began meeting in November 2020 and generated its project charter in May 2021.” Other steps and delays followed, but “[a] Member Comment Draft was submitted to the entire Working Group Series membership in May 2025”, edited and here is the result. That’s perspective on how long the process can take!
The 27-page PDF Primer on the Electronic Discovery Implications of the Internet of Things (IoT) is open for public comment through September 5, 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 fourth notable commentary in a little over three months from the WG1 working group, after publishing the public comment version of the Commentary on Discovery of Collaboration Platforms Data in early April, publishing the public comment version of the Commentary on Discovery of Mobile Device Data in mid-May and publishing the public comment version of the Commentary on Addressing Databases in Civil Discovery earlier this month. They put the working in “working group”!
So, what do you think? Do you think the Primer on the Electronic Discovery Implications of the Internet of Things (IoT) will help organizations get a handle on IoT ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
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.