01
Class action
Can you disprove commonality when the class is built on billions of records?
See how we answered itHide the answer
Counsel faced a certification theory that assumed uniform behavior across an enormous transactional population. Sampling had not settled the question either way.
We worked from the system that produced the records before touching the records themselves, then tested whether the claimed pattern survived at population scale.
Counsel went into the certification fight knowing precisely which parts of the theory the data supported and which it did not.
02
Authenticity
Can you authenticate evidence everyone else assumed was valid?
See how we answered itHide the answer
A central document had gone unchallenged through months of briefing. Both sides had built argument on top of it.
We examined provenance rather than content: how the file came to exist, what the surrounding artifacts recorded, and whether the two accounts were consistent.
The record supported a different reading than the assumed one, and the strategy adjusted before the assumption became testimony.
03
Timeline reconstruction
Can you build a timeline when email is not the evidence?
See how we answered itHide the answer
The relevant conduct lived in mobile devices, cloud services, and application logs across several custodians. The mail file said almost nothing.
Correlate across sources rather than search within one. Each artifact was placed on a common clock, with gaps identified as gaps.
A sequence the parties had been arguing about in the abstract became a documented chronology one expert could explain and stand behind.
04
Archive recovery
Can you find decades-old policies inside millions of archived documents?
See how we answered itHide the answer
Coverage turned on documents created long before the systems that now stored them, in formats no one had indexed for this purpose.
Treat retrieval as an evidentiary exercise: understand how the archive was built, then design a search whose completeness could be explained.
Counsel could say what was found, what was searched, and why the search was reasonable. That is the part that matters when it is challenged.
A narrower range of expected outcomes. A clearer view of what can be shown, where uncertainty remains, and conclusions built to withstand scrutiny. That is what Truth Through Data means in practice.
The earlier you understand the evidence, the better the decisions that follow.
The evidence is abundant. But volume is not access. Access is not understanding. And understanding is not an expert opinion.
Increasingly, evidence is buried across devices, applications, databases, cloud systems, transactions, and other complex sources. It must be found, preserved, made accessible, understood, and interpreted in the context of the matter. And when expert testimony is required, that understanding must support an independent, defensible opinion.
When important evidence surfaces late, assumptions may already have become strategy. When it is identified, tested, and understood early, your team can build its strategy around what can actually be shown. This isn’t just for trial. It is also for TROs, letters rogatory, discovery requests, subpoenas, depositions, summary judgment, mediation, and arbitration.
You bring the legal expertise. We bring the evidence expertise.
iDS combines technical, analytical, and subject-matter expertise to help you move from evidence to understanding, and, when necessary, from understanding to opinion and testimony.
You know the law. We help you know the evidence.
Tell us what you need to establish. We will tell you what the evidence shows, what it does not, and what it means for your case.
Contact iDSRead how we approached matters that started as unanswerable questions. No client details, no case statistics.
See the Can You…? questions →Copyright © 2026 iDiscovery Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Cookie settings