It’s easy to think discovery problems only happen to other teams. Some organizations assume their data is organized enough, or that they’ll be able to find what they need when the time comes. The Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman decision shows how quickly that confidence can disappear. When a company failed to identify one of its core data systems, the court made clear that “we didn’t know” isn’t an acceptable answer.
What Happened in Sound Around v. Friedman?
In Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2025), the producing party failed to identify and produce data from its Data Warehouse, which stored key information such as sales, tariffs, expenses, and commission data. When questioned, they claimed they didn’t realize the system contained relevant information or that they were required to produce “raw data” from it. The court didn’t agree.
Judge Katharine H. Parker made her position clear:
“Sound Around’s counsel is absolutely wrong that it is/was not required to produce responsive information stored as data in systems over which it has custody and control. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 has long required responding parties to conduct a reasonable search for documents and information relevant to the claims and defenses.
The court also pointed to counsel’s duty to remain competent with both technology and the rules of civil procedure. In other words, it’s not enough to rely on IT or assume eDiscovery platforms will handle everything automatically. Legal teams are expected to understand the systems that hold their clients’ data and ensure those systems are properly searched.
The court’s message was straightforward: discovery obligations reach every system that holds relevant business information. If data helps the organization function, it falls within scope. That includes databases, CRMs, accounting platforms, and reporting tools, among others.
What This Means for Legal Teams
Cases like this don’t happen because people stop caring. They happen because data environments keep growing, and it takes time to pause and clean them up. Over time, systems overlap, ownership blurs, and knowledge fades. And when discovery hits, it can be hard to say with certainty what’s where.
Building Defensible Data Management Practices
The solution isn’t complicated. It starts with knowing what data you have and keeping it organized. TCDI’s approach to defensible process management borrows from Lean Six Sigma’s 5S framework. It’s simple but effective.
Sort: Identify and Evaluate Data Assets
You can begin by taking inventory. Create a centralized list of where data lives, who owns it, and how it’s used. Once that’s done, tag each source as active, archived, or obsolete, and verify whether it still supports current business or legal needs. By removing redundant or outdated information, you reduce risk, improve focus, and make discovery more manageable.
Where to Start: Use automated data mapping or discovery tools to uncover forgotten repositories, duplicate storage, or outdated work product that could create unnecessary exposure.
Set in Order: Organize for Accessibility and Control
Once you know what to keep, make it easy to find and manage. Establish a logical structure for folders, repositories, and permissions so every dataset has a defined home and owner. Consistent labeling and access rules helps ensure data can be located quickly and handled appropriately.
Where to Start: Build a simple data location matrix showing each data category, where it lives, and who is responsible for it.
Shine: Clean, Validate, and Document
Next, clean up what remains. This step is about accuracy and defensibility. Check metadata, permissions, and completeness to confirm data integrity. Fix any inconsistencies you find, correct mislabeled files, and reconcile duplicates.
Where to Start: Record what was corrected or removed and why. Keep that documentation in an accessible location and update it regularly. Transparency during audits or discovery can make all the difference.
Standardize: Establish Rules and Training
Once your structure is set, make sure it sticks. Define clear naming conventions, retention rules, and access policies. Align them with your organization’s legal and IT requirements. Document these standards and make sure everyone follows them.
Where to Start: Publish simple job aids or quick-reference guides and include data-handling standards in onboarding and training so good habits become routine.
Sustain: Monitor, Audit, and Improve
Finally, build these habits into the organization. Schedule periodic reviews to confirm that data stays accurate, current, and properly classified. Track exceptions and make adjustments as systems or teams evolve.
Where to Start: Use dashboards or scorecards to monitor compliance and highlight areas that need attention. Additionally, be sure to recognize teams that consistently maintain clean, defensible data environments.
It’s not flashy work, but it’s the kind of structure that builds confidence and defensibility. A clean, well-documented data environment saves time, reduces risk, and demonstrates control when the court starts asking questions.
The Bottom Line
Ignorance isn’t bliss, especially in eDiscovery. Courts expect legal teams and their partners to understand their data and be able to produce it when required.
Take a clear look at your data landscape. Map your systems, clean up what’s stale, and put ownership in place. Sound Around had to learn this lesson in court. If you take time to understand your data, you can avoid the same outcome.
Emily Fedeles Czebiniak
Co-Author
Share article:
Emily is an attorney with more than 14 years of experience across litigation, eDiscovery, privacy, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. At TCDI, she helps shape the company’s technology strategy, focusing on responsible AI governance and the integration of generative AI into innovative workflows. A recognized thought leader in technology and data, Emily regularly shares her insights through speaking engagements and published work.
Geoff McPherson
Co-Author
Geoff McPherson serves as the Chief Process Officer at TCDI. Geoff’s role highlights TCDI’s commitment to quality as a cultural imperative. As a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Geoff directs the efforts of TCDI’s Defensible Process Management Program which encompasses the legal defense of process and Lean Six Sigma. He manages TCDI’s internal and external continuous process improvement efforts, focusing on litigation technology processes, services, and deliverables. Geoff also conducts Lean Six Sigma training and certification for TCDI’s employees.
Prior to joining TCDI, Geoff spent 16 years developing and administering training programs in the industrial and business community, and guiding Lean Six Sigma efforts in industries as varied as manufacturing, financial services and healthcare. He is co-founder of the Lean Six Sigma School at Alamance Community College and has trained and certified over 3,000 students through the curriculum backed by NC State University.
