HPC Tier Module
eDiscovery Project Modeler
Model an eDiscovery review project and test it for FRCP 26(b)(1) proportionality, swept across scenarios in the browser.
See it run - a worked example, 100% in this browser tab
What it is
Model an eDiscovery review project and test it for FRCP 26(b)(1) proportionality, swept across scenarios in the browser. Give an ESI volume (GB with a docs-per-GB assumption, or a raw document count), a TAR/analytics cull percentage, a review rate (docs/reviewer/hour), reviewer count, hours per day, and a cost per reviewer hour (or per document) plus the case value. For each scenario it computes documents to review, total review hours, the calendar timeline (business days rolled over weekends and court holidays via the shared date engine), total review cost, and cost per document, then compares projected cost against case value and FLAGS when review cost is disproportionate. Document math is exact integers; hours/cost are cross-checked two ways for a PRECISE verdict. Vary reviewers, rate, or cull across a batch and compare cost vs timeline. Proportionality is a legal argument, not a formula, and rates/volumes are estimates - both are flagged. Cites FRCP 26(b)(1) and 26(b)(2)(B). In-browser, no data leaves the page. Not legal advice.
Honest scope
Deterministic and citation-backed: every figure is exact arithmetic or a cited rule. Any year- or jurisdiction-indexed value is a confirmable input, never an eternal hardcode. This is a computation tool, not professional (legal, tax, medical, or financial) advice - confirm against the controlling authority for your context.
Authorities cited
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) - the scope of discovery is limited to matters relevant to any party's claim or defense and PROPORTIONAL to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) - a party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost; on a motion the court may still order it for good cause, considering the 26(b)(1) limits. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
- The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery (a widely cited practitioner treatment of the 26(b)(1) factors). Cited as practice context; this tool computes ONE input (a cost estimate) to that multi-factor analysis, not the analysis itself.
Run it on your own data
Open it inside GDBS to save runs to Sandbox, attach results to a Worklog case, or share through a Gate client portal - all in the browser, nothing uploaded to anyone’s cloud.