eDiscovery & Litigation Support
Document Review Services and Secure Review Hosting
Hosting, licensed attorney review, privilege QC and clean closeout for litigation and investigations, with every legal decision left to counsel.
When you need document review services
Document review services turn a pile of collected email, chat, files and phone data into a searchable, tagged set that counsel can produce, withhold or use at deposition. Honeybadger Solutions hosts the data, staffs review when you need reviewers, and handles the technical side of privilege logs, redactions and production, as part of our eDiscovery and litigation support practice.
The need usually shows up in one of three ways. A production deadline is set and the data is too large for a shared drive. A small firm or in-house team has no review platform of its own. Or a matter is winding down and nobody knows how to export, reconcile and close it out cleanly.
We keep one rule front and center: attorney review is performed by licensed attorneys, and legal calls on responsiveness, privilege and redaction stay with the counsel who represents the client.
What we deliver
Hosting, review staffing and closeout are separate services. You can host with us and review with your own team, or have us run the full workflow under counsel’s protocol.
Managed review hosting
A secure review workspace with search, tagging, saved searches and self-service exports. Five named users are included. Each additional named user is added per month.
Premium review environment
For larger or more complex matters, a premium commercial review platform configured for the case. It replaces standard hosting rather than adding to it, and it requires a configuration and license quote before work starts.
Early case assessment and archive tiers
An ECA staging tier holds processed data in searchable form before review starts, without a reviewer workspace. An inactive archive keeps a dormant matter in secure storage without search or review; restoring it is a separate step.
First-level attorney review
Licensed attorneys code documents for responsiveness and issues under a review protocol approved by counsel. Staffing and conflicts checks are completed before any reviewer sees data.
Senior review and privilege QC
Experienced attorney reviewers check privilege calls, second-level escalations and quality-control samples. Specialized languages or technical subject matter are quoted separately.
Privilege logs, redactions and closeout
We build privilege log exports and apply redactions that counsel approves. At the end, we run a managed final export, reconcile counts and document the return or deletion of all data.
Privilege, clawbacks and TAR: what the rules say
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) requires a party withholding documents as privileged to expressly make the claim and describe what is withheld without revealing the privileged content. That description is the privilege log. As amended effective December 1, 2025, Rule 26(f)(3)(D) asks the parties to discuss the timing and method for complying with that requirement early, at the discovery conference.
Mistakes happen in large reviews. Rule 26(b)(5)(B) gives a clawback procedure: once notified, the receiving party must promptly return, sequester or destroy the information. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b), enacted in 2008, protects inadvertent disclosures when the holder took reasonable steps to prevent and fix the error. Rule 502(d) lets a federal court order that disclosure in the case is not a waiver in that or any other federal or state proceeding. Counsel decides whether to seek a 502(d) order; we make sure the review workflow and audit trail support it.
Technology-assisted review (TAR) is accepted in federal practice. In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Magistrate Judge Peck issued what is widely cited as the first judicial approval of computer-assisted review. In Rio Tinto v. Vale (S.D.N.Y. 2015), he wrote that it is now black letter law that courts will permit a producing party to use TAR, and that TAR should not be held to a higher standard than keywords or manual review. Whether TAR fits your matter, and how it is disclosed and validated, is counsel’s decision.
The EDRM model, a widely used reference framework, describes review as evaluating documents for relevance, responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality, privacy and issue significance, and stresses that the stages are iterative rather than strictly linear. Our hosting is built around that reality: data moves between ECA, review and production as the case develops.
Choosing the right tier
| Tier | Search | Reviewer access | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence preservation storage | No | No | Holding collected data before any review decision |
| ECA staging | Yes | No | Culling and sizing the data before review |
| Managed review hosting | Yes | Yes, five named users included | Most small and mid-sized matters |
| Premium review environment | Yes | Yes | Large volumes, complex productions or analytics-heavy matters |
| Inactive archive | No | No | Stayed or dormant matters that may restart |
How an engagement runs
- Request online. Choose eDiscovery or document review on the request form, with the approximate data volume, deadlines and the number of people who need access.
- Scope and tier. We recommend a tier, confirm user counts and agree on whether attorney review, analytics or privilege log support are needed.
- Load and process. Collected data is processed, deduplicated and loaded, with counts reconciled against the collection.
- Protocol and staffing. For managed review, counsel approves the review protocol, coding panel and staffing plan, and conflicts checks are completed.
- Review and QC. First-level review, senior privilege QC and escalations to counsel run on an agreed schedule with progress reports.
- Produce and close out. We prepare productions to the agreed ESI protocol, then export, reconcile and document the return or deletion of data when the matter ends.
Authority, consent and legal limits
We host and review data only for the party that has the right to it, through its counsel. Reviewers follow counsel’s written protocol and escalate close questions rather than deciding them. We do not make final privilege determinations, sign privilege logs or decide what to produce; counsel does.
Analytics and AI-assisted review can save time, but no tool is perfect. We never promise an accuracy rate or turnaround that the data does not support, and validation results are reported to counsel as they are. This is general information, not legal advice.
How it is priced
Our document review services are priced by unit, explained here in words and stated in numbers on your written quote. Hosting is billed per gigabyte per month based on the peak volume in the workspace, prorated for the days the matter is active, with a monthly minimum per matter. Five named users are included in standard hosting; additional users are billed per user per month. The premium environment is quoted after configuration and licensing are confirmed. ECA staging, preservation storage and inactive archive are each billed per gigabyte per month with their own matter minimums.
Attorney review is billed per reviewer hour, with a project minimum for first-level review and a smaller minimum for senior review and privilege QC. Analytics or AI-assisted review is quoted per project, with design time, tool usage, licenses and validation priced separately. Matter closeout is a per-matter package with a set number of hours and a volume cap. Media and data transfer charges are extra.
| Included | Quoted separately |
|---|---|
| Search, tagging and self-service exports in standard hosting | Named users beyond the five included |
| Count reconciliation on load and at closeout | Premium platform configuration and licensing |
| Documented return or deletion at closeout | Analytics, TAR design, tool usage and validation |
| Progress reporting during managed review | Specialized language or subject-matter reviewers |
Mistakes to avoid before you contact us
- Loading everything. Hosting is billed on volume. Ask about ECA staging and date or custodian culling before you push everything into review.
- Skipping the review protocol. Reviewers need written definitions of responsiveness, privilege and key issues. A vague protocol produces inconsistent coding.
- Leaving privilege logs for the end. Agree on log format and timing at the Rule 26(f) conference, and tag privilege reasons as you review.
- Forgetting to close the matter. Data left in an active workspace keeps costing money and keeps risk alive. Plan the export and deletion.
- Assuming any user can see anything. Set user roles carefully, especially with co-counsel, experts or clients in the workspace.
Who this is for
- Law firms
- Solo and small-firm litigators
- In-house legal teams
- Government and public agencies
- Insurance defense counsel
- Companies responding to subpoenas
Why the online request is faster
Choosing eDiscovery or document review on the online request form routes your matter straight to the specialist who scopes hosting and review, with your volume, deadline and user count already in hand. That means no phone tag and a written recommendation sooner.
Frequently asked questions
What do your document review services include?
Our document review services cover secure review hosting, first-level attorney review, senior review and privilege QC, privilege log and redaction support, productions to an agreed ESI protocol, and matter export and closeout. You can buy hosting alone or the full workflow.
Who performs attorney review?
Attorney review is performed by licensed attorneys working under a protocol approved by the client’s counsel, after conflicts checks. Counsel makes the final legal decisions on responsiveness, privilege and redaction.
Can you prepare our privilege log?
We build the privilege log export from the review coding and apply approved redactions. The attorney decides what is privileged and approves the log before it is served.
Do you offer technology-assisted review?
Yes, as a separately quoted service. We design the workflow with counsel, run it and report validation results. Courts have accepted TAR since Da Silva Moore in 2012, but we do not promise any accuracy rate or speed.
What is the difference between ECA staging and review hosting?
ECA staging keeps processed data searchable so counsel can cull and size it before review, without a reviewer workspace. Review hosting adds named users, tagging and production tools for an active review.
What happens to our data when the matter ends?
We run a managed final export, reconcile the counts and then return or delete the data as counsel directs, with written documentation. Dormant matters can instead move to an inactive archive.
Related guides
- eDiscovery and litigation support: a general counsel’s guide
- eDiscovery vs digital forensics: what is the difference
- Slack and Teams message forensics
- Corporate email investigation and forensics
- Forensic data preservation and legal hold
- eDiscovery and litigation support services
- Legal hold services and data mapping
- Cloud account extraction
- Digital forensics expert witness testimony
Attorney review is performed by licensed attorneys under counsel’s direction; privilege, responsiveness and redaction decisions remain with counsel. This is general information, not legal advice.
Sources: FRCP 26(b)(5) and 26(f); FRE 502; EDRM model; Rio Tinto v. Vale (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Get your review workspace set up before the deadline
Tell us the volume, the deadline and how many people need access. Requesting online sends your matter straight to the specialist who scopes review and hosting, so there is no phone tag. For a production or preservation emergency, use the urgent intake form.