How can I estimate and document review costs to support a proportionality argument before the meet-and-confer?

In US federal civil litigation, the scope of discovery is tied to proportionality. The governing rules direct parties to weigh factors such as the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues, the parties’ relative access to information, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. To raise burden credibly, you need defensible numbers, not adjectives. Note that proportionality standards and procedures differ across state courts and other countries, so confirm the rules in your jurisdiction.

Build the cost estimate from data volume

Start by scoping the sources and the population:

• Identify custodians and systems. List the people, mailboxes, file shares, collaboration tools, and structured systems likely to hold responsive material.
• Measure volume. Capture raw volume (GB, item counts) and, where possible, the post-deduplication and post-filtering count after date ranges and search terms are applied.
• Estimate the review set. Project how many documents reach attorney or paralegal review after culling.

Translate volume into dollars and hours

Break the estimate into the phases you can defend:

• Collection and processing of the identified sources.
• Hosting of the data for the matter’s duration.
• Review labor — the largest variable. Estimate documents per reviewer per hour, blended hourly rates, and total hours.
• Privilege review, quality control, and production overhead.

Show your assumptions (review rate, hourly rate, cull ratio) so the figures can be tested and discussed rather than dismissed as guesswork.

Document it for the meet-and-confer

Reduce the analysis to a short, sourced memo: the data map, the volume figures, the per-phase cost breakdown, and the assumptions behind each number. Tie the total back to the proportionality factors — for example, comparing projected review cost to the amount in controversy. Propose concrete narrowing measures (tighter date ranges, fewer custodians, targeted search terms or technology-assisted review, or phased production) and estimate the savings of each. Offering alternatives, rather than simply objecting, signals good faith and gives the court a workable record if a dispute arises.

For frameworks on cooperation, proportionality, and defensible process, The Sedona Conference publishes widely cited practitioner guidance.

For related concepts, see e-discovery.