A document overlooked or kept out of scope never comes into the case. What is lost at Rule 26 is lost for the life of the matter.
Corporate defendants come to the meet and confer with a structural edge built over decades — their records held in enterprise systems their own IT teams know intimately, and counsel advised accordingly. Plaintiff's counsel typically is not.
Under Rule 26(f) the parties build the discovery plan; under Rule 26(b)(1) proportionality bounds its scope. Both are routinely used to narrow what enters the case. Agreements that look reasonable can quietly exclude whole categories of evidence — and what is excluded here rarely surfaces later. The scale differs from a single PI case to a thousand-claimant MDL. The asymmetry does not.
"What is not surfaced at this stage rarely surfaces later. Critical documents kept out of scope do not re-enter the case. They are simply gone."
The Rule 26 Framework
Rule 26(f) — the parties meet and confer and set a written discovery plan: scope, form, and sequence of production.
Rule 26(b)(1) — discovery is limited to what is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case — the standard invoked to narrow production.
We bring to the plaintiff's side what the defense brings to theirs: expert knowledge of how enterprises build and hold their records. We know which systems hold what, which custodians matter, and which technical arguments exist to narrow scope rather than reflect reality. Walk into Rule 26 with that intelligence, and the negotiation that decides everything downstream happens on even terms — or better.
Litigation infrastructure across MDLs representing roughly 400,000 to 500,000+ claimants — among the largest pharmaceutical, toxic tort, and product liability litigations in modern legal history.
Baycol (MDL 1431) · Trasylol (1928) · Actos (2299) · DePuy Hip (2197) · Zantac (2924)
Roundup (MDL 2741) · Paraquat (3004) · Deepwater Horizon (2179)
Pelvic mesh — 9 interrelated MDLs · IVC filters · Hernia mesh
Aetna · Motorola · Tyco shareholder class actions
Across 80+ litigations, Crivella is the strategic case-planning partner for high-volume, high-complexity discovery — and a pioneer of grounded, AI-driven legal method.
A complete picture of the opposing party's systems, custodians, and repositories — before the other side defines scope.
The shared systems and databases that hold responsive material no single custodian surfaces.
The technical and behavioral indicators that data is being moved beyond reach — caught before it's irreversible.
The organization's internal language, mapped before search-term deals quietly exclude key evidence.
Ensuring burden-reduction agreements don't function as evidence-exclusion agreements.
The right order of production for every deposition — then monitoring for gaps that show terms aren't honored.
Vendors, contractors, and regulators likely to hold responsive material — reached before the window closes.
Production specs that preserve evidentiary value and work with our platform the moment they arrive.
Living assessments updated as rolling productions reveal more about the other side's environment.
A documented record of what was produced, what was missing, and every deviation — to support motions and sanctions.
Logs are constructed, not just compiled. We catch inadvertently produced privileged material and exposed redactions, and we keep running statistics on who and what is withheld across every log.
The result, on request, is a named deliverable — the Privilege Log Statistical Assessment Report — surfacing the people and timeframes where privilege is invoked to suppress rather than protect. It grounds in camera requests, waiver arguments, and motions to compel.
Corporate-designee testimony binds the company. Done well it produces the admissions that define the case; done blind, it telegraphs counsel's gaps.
When a matter demands it, we go beyond advisory: topic analysis, preparation notes, exhibit development, and in-person attendance — at the table with counsel, bringing direct knowledge of the corporation's systems to press where it matters and catch evasion.
Quality systems, safety records, and internal communications held in systems counsel can't see. What's defined out of scope is gone. We make sure it isn't.
A smaller party against a large counterparty faces the same enterprise-data problem. Decision records rarely surface without technical pressure.
HR, performance, and payroll systems hold what decision-makers knew and did. Reaching them requires knowing they exist.
Decades of operational records and risk assessments — the ones establishing knowledge and concealment are the most carefully managed.
Claims handling, internal guidelines, and reserve documentation are the record. Without advisory at Rule 26, the key categories get defined out.
Larger scale, the same problem. 25 years across 80+ MDLs is unmatched depth in the most demanding version of it — and it transfers to every matter.
Rule 26 defines the knowledge base for every stage that follows. Defining it is Stage One. Deploying it — with speed, precision, and grounded AI — is Stage Two.
Stage One · You Are Here
Rule 26 Technical Advisory
Define the knowledge base. Eliminate the asymmetry.
Stage Two
Litigation Document Intelligence →
Deploy the knowledge base to win.
Every engagement begins with a confidential conversation. Tell us where you are, who you're up against, and what you know about the other side's data environment. We'll take it from there.