I was glad to receive a comment on the post from Canadian e-discovery expert Peg Duncan, who clarified some of my remarks. Peg is one of the people who developed the e-discovery guidelines for the province of Ontario. She is deeply involved in Sedona Conference WG7 (Sedona Canada) as a member of the Steering Committee. Peg wrote that the Judicial Council's practice direction for civil eDiscovery was less concerned with activities like meet-and-confer and more concerned with activities related to production.
"... The judicial guidelines are less about electronic discovery than they are about electronic production - i.e. getting the documents to the other parties and into court in electronic form, whatever format they may have been stored in."
Fair enough. Production -- and presentation too -- are valid e-discovery stages as per the EDRM model. They can also be complex undertakings, and require clear communication and lines of responsibility between parties.
We agreed on Sedona's proportionality principles.