Crafting Effective eDiscovery Keyword Searches 

The eDiscovery process – where attorneys review large volumes of digital information to uncover relevant facts, documents, and evidence – is handled during the initial stages of a litigation. Keyword searches require litigation experience to ensure they retrieve accurate and comprehensive data. Effective eDiscovery keyword searches demand not just technology but also a deep understanding of the case, the parties involved, and the language likely used in pertinent communications. This is where experienced litigation attorneys provide critical direction for the case.

Understanding the Case Context and Language

Attorneys approach eDiscovery keyword development by first understanding the specific case context, which includes the claims, defenses, key facts, and allegations. Attorneys with experience in particular areas of law, such as antitrust, intellectual property, or employment, can better predict the language that might appear in relevant documents. For instance, in antitrust litigation, attorneys know that terms like “market,” “competitor,” and “price” are highly relevant.

An attorney’s background also plays a key role in interpreting industry jargon, abbreviations, or colloquial terms that a less experienced professional might overlook. In a technology case, for example, words like “API,” “patch,” or “platform” could hold significant meaning. A seasoned attorney anticipates these unique expressions and incorporates them into keyword development to ensure comprehensive search results.

Anticipating Synonyms and Variations

One of the primary challenges in eDiscovery is that relevant terms may be expressed in multiple ways. Experienced attorneys, aware of common language variations, tend to generate a robust list of keywords and synonyms to capture as much relevant information as possible. This involves thinking of both formal and informal expressions and anticipating how different individuals involved in the case might phrase key terms. For instance, in financial litigation, “investments,” “portfolio,” “holdings,” and “assets” may all point to similar concepts but could be used interchangeably by different parties.

Beyond synonyms, seasoned attorneys often account for linguistic nuances like spelling variations, abbreviations, and regional differences. They may, for example, include both “labor” and “labour” in cases involving international clients or review documents from parties that use British English spellings.

Testing and Refining Search Terms

Experienced litigators understand that keyword searches rarely yield perfect results on the first try. Effective eDiscovery keyword searches involves an iterative process where attorneys test, analyze, and refine search terms to improve accuracy and relevance. Testing might reveal certain keywords that generate too many irrelevant hits, or “false positives,” which dilute the review process. Conversely, some search terms might yield fewer results than expected, suggesting they need adjustment.

Through multiple testing rounds, attorneys narrow down search terms to achieve a balance between thoroughness and precision. They also leverage their experience to identify patterns, such as common language patterns that consistently yield relevant results, which may vary by case or even by client. This dynamic approach maximizes the relevance of the data retrieved, ensuring that time and resources are effectively allocated.

Leveraging Boolean Logic and Advanced Search Techniques

Beyond keywords alone, attorneys apply Boolean logic – using connectors like “AND,” “OR,” and “NOT” – to refine searches further. They might combine specific terms to avoid overly broad results, ensuring that only the most pertinent documents surface in the eDiscovery review.

For instance, if a case involves allegations of price-fixing, an attorney might use a Boolean search to include “price” and “discussion” but exclude terms that would muddy results, such as “sales pitch.” Through this approach, attorneys develop highly customized, case-specific search queries, drawing on a mix of substantive knowledge and technical skill.

Effective eDiscovery requires more than just plugging in keywords. It demands the insight, intuition, and experience that seasoned litigators bring to the table. That expertise helps streamline the discovery process, ensuring that they uncover relevant data without wasting valuable resources on irrelevant documents. By understanding case context, anticipating language variations, testing and refining search terms, and applying advanced search logic, attorneys can elevate eDiscovery to a strategic tool that strengthens their case. For eDiscovery support contact Baer Reed today.