DLC-ASSESS-001 · Course Assessment · 60% of grade

Module Labs — The Practitioner's EDRM

Participant

Cohort

Eight labs, one per module. Each is designed to take 60–120 minutes and produces a concrete artifact you'd hand to a client or a vendor tomorrow. Rubric-graded. Weighted equally within the Lab component.

How labs work

1. Read the scenario. These are drawn from real matters (facts anonymized). Take the situation seriously.
2. Produce the deliverables. Each lab lists 3–5 concrete deliverables. Use the referenced kit templates (DLC-M01-001 etc.) — that's what they're there for.
3. Self-assess. Before submitting, run through the rubric and score yourself. Faculty grade against the same rubric.
4. Submit. Upload all deliverables + this self-assessment page to the cohort portal. Deadline is end of the module week.

Grading Scale (per lab)

"Meridian Holdings' General Counsel, Jane Sanders, gave notice last Friday. She has a company-issued MacBook, a corporate iPhone, and a personal iPhone. Her assistant mentioned she uses Signal with two board members. Two collection vendors have quoted the work: Vendor A is bidding standard rates; Vendor B is 30% cheaper but says they can't preserve Signal disappearing-message metadata. You have until end-of-week."

Deliverables (submit all four)

1. Collection protocol using DLC-M01-002, filled in for this matter. Include the DLPUniqueID scheme, per-source tool assignments, and the escalation triggers.
2. Custodian interview script using DLC-M01-003, with matter-specific probes added for the Signal-with-board scenario (include how you'd handle a refusal without pressing).
3. Written vendor recommendation memo (1 page) — which vendor, why, and what conditions you'd impose. Address the Signal-metadata gap.
4. Delphoria Platform field map confirming which fields you'd expect at the executive dashboard level for this matter, using DLC-M01-004 as the reference.

Rubric

Total (of 15):   Notes to faculty:

"You have the sample annotated RelOne report (DLC-M02-002) in front of you. The client wants a 15-minute call at 4pm to decide what to remediate. The vendor is asking for $28,400 in remediation; you think that's high. What do you tell the client?"

Deliverables

1. Annotated exceptions triage — using DLC-M02-001 verdicts (REMEDIATE / DEFER / ABANDON / ESCALATE), mark each exception class in the DLC-M02-002 sample. Justify any deviation from the sample annotations.
2. Client-facing summary (3 paragraphs, no jargon) — using the DLC-M02-001 template. Include your recommended remediation spend and expected doc yield.
3. Vendor pushback memo — explain why the $28,400 quote is or isn't reasonable, and what you'd counter with. Reference DLC-M02-001 cost rules of thumb.

Rubric

Total (of 15):   Notes:

"Same 480 GB processed corpus. Vendor A quoted $18,000 to load into Relativity. Vendor B quoted $6,500 to load into Reveal. Both quotes are 'complete' loads. The client wants to know why the difference — and whether either is trying to gouge them."

Deliverables

1. Field-mapping worksheet using DLC-M03-002 for the Delphoria template. Complete columns D–G for both target platforms.
2. SOW comparison memo — bullet the friction points that inflate cost on either quote. Suggest what would bring them into line.
3. 15-minute sanity-check plan — using DLC-M03-003, describe what you'd have the paralegal check within 24 hours of first-load-complete for either vendor.

Rubric

Total (of 12):   Notes:

"Corpus: 120,000 documents, ~55% email, richness estimated 8–12%, 40% is spreadsheets or media. Opposing counsel wants your TAR protocol before the next meet-and-confer, in two weeks. Your firm has never used TAR 2. What do you send?"

Deliverables

1. TAR protocol using DLC-M04-003, fully filled in for this matter. Choose the workflow; justify in §1 comments.
2. Sampling plan — using DLC-M04-001 Sampling Calculator, size the control-set and elusion-round samples. Show the parameters used.
3. GenAI exclusion memo — for the 40% spreadsheet/media population, describe which are routed out of ML entirely (using DLC-M04-002) and why.
4. Meet-and-confer opening — 5 bullets you'd lead with when presenting the protocol to opposing counsel.

Rubric

Total (of 15):   Notes:

"Same 120,000-doc corpus. Client authorizes up to $75,000 in analytics spend. You have two vendor pricing sheets (see DLC-M05-002). Build the analytics stack — and explain why each analytic earns its place."

Deliverables

1. Break-even model using DLC-M05-001 — check each analytic that clears the break-even bar. Attach the sheet.
2. Recommended analytics stack (1-page memo) — the two-to-four analytics you'd deploy in priority order, with expected cost, expected doc elimination, and dependencies.
3. Cost-prohibitive analysis — which analytics you excluded and at what corpus size they would become worth it. Explain the "walk away" line.

Rubric

Total (of 12):   Notes:

"Opposing counsel wants a rolling production of ~4,000 documents by Friday. Approximately half require redactions. Two of the responsive documents are attachments to parents you've withheld as privileged. What do you send, in what form, and how do you QC it?"

Deliverables

1. Production spec using DLC-M06-001, filled in for this matter. Decide the format for the 2 attachments-to-privileged-parents question.
2. Redaction QC plan — using DLC-M06-002, walk through each item and mark completion / not-applicable / hold. Highlight the post-redaction OCR pass.
3. Cover letter (3 sentences) accompanying the production.
4. Family-integrity narrative — how you'll explain to opposing counsel (proactively) the treatment of the 2 privileged-parent-attachment cases.

Rubric

Total (of 12):   Notes:

"Your review turned up 300 privileged emails across a threaded corpus. Under 'all-emails' threading, they'd generate 300 log rows. Under 'inclusive-emails' threading, closer to 120. Opposing counsel wants a document-by-document log; you'd prefer inclusive or categorical. Draft the log and the ask."

Deliverables

1. Two draft logs — sample 10 rows each under (a) all-emails and (b) inclusive-emails approaches. Use DLC-M07-001 for field selection and DLC-M07-002 for descriptions.
2. Comparison table — row count, information conveyed, defensibility trade-offs.
3. Meet-and-confer paragraph proposing your preferred approach. Cite FRCP 26(b)(5) and, if applicable, FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim.
4. Description quality audit — pick 5 of your descriptions and evaluate them against DLC-M07-002 Section 5 ("What NOT to say"). Fix any that fail.

Rubric

Total (of 12):   Notes:

"Your firm just adopted a policy allowing generative-AI use across all matters. As the eDiscovery lead, you're asked to draft the internal certification workflow, the AI-use disclosure for court filings, and the two categorical exclusions where AI must not be used. Present to the Managing Partner in two weeks."

Deliverables

1. AI-use disclosure clause using DLC-M08-002, adapted to your firm's practice areas. Provide both a filing-level clause and a discovery-response clause.
2. Internal certification workflow — the five-step process, tailored to your firm's document-management system.
3. Two matter-type exclusions — describe the specific matter types where you'd decline AI use categorically, and why. Anchor in Mata, Park, and the standing-order landscape.
4. Case-law briefing memo (2 pages) — the 8 cases from DLC-M08-001 that most inform this policy, with practice implication for each.

Rubric

Total (of 15):   Notes:

Summary & Sign-off

Lab Book — Final Roll-up

Roll-up