PD57AD gives legal teams a structured framework for disclosure, but proportionate eDiscovery doesn't come from just picking the right model. It comes from thoughtful decisions about people, platforms, and process, especially when data volume is high and time is tight.
Most teams think more data equals more control. More custodians, more search terms, more files collected...just in case. But that mindset leads to spiraling review costs, blown deadlines, and missed deadlines. Courts don't reward that. They penalize it.
Modern disclosure under PD57AD is about doing what matters. Knowing which ESI sources to focus on. Knowing how to justify what you leave out. Knowing how to back it all up in your Disclosure Certificate.
If your disclosure process still feels bloated, slow, or unpredictable, this article will show you how to fix that.
What Makes Disclosure Proportionate Under PD57AD?
Proportionality under PD57AD comes down to effort, cost, and fairness. It's outlined in paragraph 6.4 of the PD57AD guidance, which says disclosure must be reasonable and relevant to the issues in dispute. That tends to mean smaller searches, smarter filters, and fewer surprises.
Some cases involve massive amounts of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). Emails, cloud files, messaging data; this stuff piles up quickly. So, proportionate ESI practices are the court's way of saying: don't overdo it.
Several factors guide proportionality:
- How complex the case is
- How important the issues are
- How valuable the documents might be
- How much it will cost to find them
The goal is to get the right documents, not every document. That makes early case assessment a good move. It helps you understand what matters (and where to look) before the cost meter starts ticking.
How Do the Disclosure Models Shape Search Strategy?
PD57AD provides five disclosure models, A through E, each with different expectations. The court selects the model, but parties propose them together through the Disclosure Review Document (DRD).
Model A is the narrowest. It limits you to known adverse documents. Model B adds in your initial disclosure. Both are typically used in simpler cases. Model C is a bit broader. It targets specific document classes or categories.
Models D and E matter more for modern electronic discovery. Model D allows for a reasonable and proportionate search across custodians and systems.
Model E opens the door to more expansive searches, often including background documents and lines of inquiry. It's best reserved for high-value, high-complexity disputes.
Smart Scoping: Custodians, Data Sources & Keywords
You don't need to collect from every person, inbox, and platform. In fact, doing so can flood your review team and distract from the documents that matter. Scoping smartly is the better option.
Focus on custodians with direct involvement. Don't default to department-wide collections. Instead, map roles to issues and decide who's in or out.
Some ways to limit over-collection:
- Tie each custodian to a specific issue or event
- Exclude shared mailboxes unless truly relevant
- Skip archived folders unless the timeline demands it
Next, think about where the data lives. Slack, Google Drive, Microsoft 365; they often contain critical info, but not all of it is needed. So, check how each source contributes to the case.
Some tips to manage sources better:
- Identify the tools each custodian uses day to day
- Prioritize platforms tied to contracts, deals, or decisions
- Leave out backup systems unless recovery is needed
Now, narrow the search with keywords. Start with terms from the pleadings, then build filters using communication fields, timeframes, or file types. For instance, limit searches to emails between named parties from three months before a dispute.
A discovery platform like Logikcull can speed all of this up. It automatically groups files by sender, date, format, and even PII or privilege indicators. That helps you cut through the noise quickly and focus on the stuff you actually need to review.
Getting the Most From Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)
If you're still asking, "What is document review?" it's the process of sorting through collected documents to find those that matter to your case.
Reviewing files one by one is slow and expensive. TAR uses algorithms to rank relevance, detect similar documents, and flag likely privilege. That can save hundreds of hours, especially with larger datasets.
For example, deduplication keeps you from reviewing the same document twice. Email threading removes extra replies and forwards. That alone can cut your review volume significantly. In that case, privilege tagging or PII detection can help keep things compliant.
Documenting your TAR process adds credibility. Courts typically want to know how you ran the review and what tools you used. That transparency can reduce friction during challenges or audits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Parties Agree to a Disclosure Model Without Court Involvement?
No. The court has the final say, based on the DRD and case specifics. You can propose a model, but the judge approves it at the Case Management Conference.
What's the Best Way to Prove Proportionality in Document Searches?
Log your strategy clearly. Write down which custodians you selected and why. Document the search terms tested and how you refined them. If possible, include search metrics that show reduction results.
Can I Use TAR and Still Comply With PD57AD?
Yes. PD57AD doesn't restrict technology. TAR is accepted as long as it's explained and reasonably used. That's why documenting your workflow matters so much.
What Tools Help With Managing ESI Under PD57AD?
Cloud-based platforms like Logikcull handle collection, filtering, tagging, and redaction in one system. That's eDiscovery as a service, and it removes delays caused by vendor handoffs or tech gaps. It also supports compliance with UK legal disclosure rules by helping teams follow process steps cleanly.
A Clearer Path Through Modern Disclosure
PD57AD works when disclosure decisions are scoped early, supported by technology, and documented clearly. A proportionate approach to custodians, data sources, and review phases keeps costs controlled while meeting court expectations. Used correctly, eDiscovery becomes a repeatable, defensible process rather than a drain on time and budget.
Logikcull supports this approach with direct integrations to Slack, Microsoft 365, Google Vault, and Box, automated deduplication and filtering, bulk redactions, and end-to-end legal hold management in one closed-loop platform. Teams collect faster, review less, and document every step with confidence.
Request a demo to see how Logikcull helps teams meet PD57AD obligations with speed and clarity.
