On this MLK Day, I thought I would take at how the principles championed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. relate to those in eDiscovery.

Here are some of those observations with a little help from my “friend” (😉), ChatGPT.

Access to Evidence as a Civil Rights Issue

Those practices and the broader civil rights movement translate naturally to the modern world of eDiscovery, particularly around access, fairness, and accountability. At its core, the civil rights struggle was about ensuring access to justice and equal treatment under the law. In today’s legal environment, access to justice often depends on access to ESI. Emails, chat messages, HR systems, and collaboration platforms frequently contain the evidence needed to prove discrimination, retaliation, or systemic bias. Without effective eDiscovery practices, that evidence can remain hidden, fragmented, or lost, undermining the ability of courts and litigants to reach just outcomes.

“The Arc of the Moral Universe” Relates to Parties’ Preservation Obligation in Litigation

Dr. King’s famously said: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. That relates strongly to preservation obligations in eDiscovery. Justice is only possible if relevant information is preserved long enough to tell the full story. Civil rights cases often depend on historical patterns rather than isolated events, making retention of long-term data critical. Failing to suspend auto-deletion policies, the use of ephemeral messaging, and weak information governance policies can lead to prematurely erasing evidence that could reveal systemic wrongdoing. Preservation rules under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) exist to ensure that the passage of time or advances in technology do not prevent accountability or distort the truth.

Civil Rights Litigation Has Been a Driver of Modern Discovery

Civil rights litigation itself helped shape the foundations of modern discovery. Landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education relied heavily on evidence to demonstrate inequality and harm. As civil rights and employment laws expanded, so did the need for broad access to organizational records, policies, and communications. This evolution ultimately contributed to the expansive discovery principles that were later adapted to electronic data, making today’s eDiscovery practices a result in part of earlier civil rights–driven demands for transparency.

Equality Under the Law Includes Equal Treatment of Data

The civil rights concept of equality under the law also has a clear parallel in eDiscovery. Fair discovery requires that data be treated consistently, regardless of whose data it is or where it resides. Selective preservation, uneven collection, or biased review practices can distort the evidentiary record and undermine fairness. Courts expect parties to apply neutral, defensible discovery processes, reinforcing the idea that justice depends not only on legal rights, but on how evidence is managed and produced.

The Civil Rights Act and the Explosion of Employment Data

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 further illustrates the connection between civil rights and eDiscovery. By expanding protections against discrimination in employment and other areas, the Act dramatically increased the volume and complexity of disputes requiring detailed factual records. Modern civil rights cases now often involve large quantities of digital evidence, from emails and performance reviews to collaboration-platform data and workforce analytics. eDiscovery technology enables attorneys and courts to analyze these materials at scale, revealing patterns of conduct that would have been challenging to identify decades ago.

Truth, Transparency, and Nonviolent Accountability

Dr. King’s commitment to truth, transparency, and nonviolent accountability also aligns with the principles of eDiscovery. Rather than relying on assertions or power imbalances, eDiscovery forces parties to confront what the data actually shows. It provides a structured, lawful mechanism for uncovering facts and resolving disputes through evidence rather than coercion. In this way, eDiscovery serves as a modern, nonviolent tool for accountability, consistent with civil rights ideals.

Bias in Technology: A Modern Civil Rights Concern

The civil rights movement’s concerns about implicit bias are increasingly relevant in an era of AI-driven eDiscovery. Advanced analytics and generative AI can dramatically improve efficiency, but they must be implemented with care to avoid embedding bias into search terms, training data, or review decisions. Transparency, validation, and human oversight reflect the same civil rights values of fairness and equal protection that Dr. King advocated. Taken together, these parallels show that eDiscovery is not merely a technical process, but a critical mechanism for advancing justice in the digital age.

“A Right Delayed Is a Right Denied” Relates to the Need for Efficient eDiscovery Practices

Finally, Dr. King also famously said: “a right delayed is a right denied”, which somewhat relates to the core principle of “just, speedy, and inexpensive” advocated of Rule 1 of the FRCP. Delayed productions, endless discovery disputes and obstructive data practices run counter to that core principle. Conversely, eDiscovery efficiency promoted by capabilities like early case assessment and analytics to promote a discovery process that is relevant and proportional can help ensure that the right to justice won’t be delayed.

So, what do you think? Are there any other ways that you can relate the principles of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to those in eDiscovery? 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.