The litigation-hold notice should not need a war room. It should be a workflow step.
The standard eDiscovery story starts with the hold notice and degrades from there. Notice goes out. Custodians action it inconsistently. Preservation across systems happens by spreadsheet. Custodian interviews surface additional repositories. Collection takes weeks. Privilege review on a 200,000-document corpus breaks junior associates. Production happens with gaps. Defensibility is a procedural narrative.
TeamSync's eDiscovery surface inverts the architecture. The hold lives on the platform where the documents already are. Preservation is automatic from the moment the hold fires. Collection is a query. Privilege review is AI-assisted with the statistical defensibility evidence Federal Rule 26 expects. The audit chain anchors every action. The hand-off to Relativity, Everlaw, or DISCO is supported when matter scale calls for a dedicated review platform.
Talk to the legal solutions team · Read the defensible eDiscovery pillar · See the eDiscovery Counsel page
What's in the eDiscovery surface.
The capability is composed onto the platform, not bolted on. It reads from the Intelligent Repository, respects the same permission model, writes to the same audit chain.
| Sub-capability | What it does |
|---|---|
| Hold management | Hold flag set on the platform; preservation is automatic across federated sources |
| Custodian notification | Notification with acknowledgment tracking; status anchored |
| Collection | One query across the federated estate; cryptographic chain of custody |
| Early case assessment | Statistical sampling, deduplication, near-duplicate detection |
| Predictive coding | AI-assisted privilege review with statistical defensibility evidence |
| Native review | Document review in TeamSync, with the same audit chain |
| Production | Generated artifact in the format the receiving party requires |
| Hand-off to Relativity / Everlaw / DISCO | Standard load-file formats, with chain-of-custody preservation |
What a hold actually looks like on TeamSync.
The hold is not a notification — it's an architectural change to the platform's retention behaviour for the matched scope.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1. Hold scope defined | Custodians, document categories, date ranges, source systems |
| 2. Hold flag set | The platform marks every matching document as held |
| 3. Federation respects the hold | Federated sources receive preservation instructions where supported; otherwise the platform maintains a copy |
| 4. Audit chain anchors the event | Hold creation, scope, custodian acknowledgments, all anchored |
| 5. Subsequent edits and deletions to held documents | Rejected by the platform's retention engine |
| 6. Hold release | Released; audit chain shows the release event with authorisation |
A regulator or opposing counsel asking "when was the hold set, what scope, who was notified, and what was preserved?" gets a chain-segment answer.
What the predictive coding actually delivers.
Predictive coding is the tool that determines whether your privilege review is defensible at the scale that matters. The core question is the statistical evidence — Federal Rule 26 defensibility depends on it.
| Element | What TeamSync provides |
|---|---|
| Training-set construction | Active-learning loop with reviewer-in-the-loop |
| Coding decisions | Per-document classification with confidence scoring |
| Statistical sampling | Recall, precision, F1 with confidence intervals |
| Reviewer agreement metrics | Inter-reviewer agreement, with calibration |
| Defensibility evidence pack | Federal Rule 26-aligned, generated artifact |
| Audit anchoring | Every coding decision, every reviewer override, anchored |
The eDiscovery counsel's deposition prep stops being a reconstruction exercise.
What changes for the legal team.
| Activity | Before | With TeamSync |
|---|---|---|
| Hold notice deployment | Email + per-system preservation | Workflow step; preservation automatic |
| Custodian interview cycle | Multiple weeks; reveals additional repositories | Compressed; platform already federates |
| Collection cycle | Per-system workflow, manual reconciliation | One query, cryptographic chain of custody |
| Privilege review at scale | Junior associates working weekends | AI-assisted with statistical defensibility |
| Production package | Reconstruction artifact | Generated artifact |
| Defensibility argument | Procedural narrative | Cryptographic proof |
How customers compare TeamSync for eDiscovery.
The eDiscovery evaluation usually compares against:
- Relativity / RelativityOne — strong on large-matter review; the platform-level hold and the in-place collection are weaker
- Everlaw — strong on modern review UX; the cross-source platform story is weaker
- DISCO — strong on AI-assisted review; the records-of-record integration is weaker
- Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium) — strong inside M365; cross-source platform and cryptographic audit are weaker
For specific comparisons: - TeamSync vs Relativity - TeamSync vs Everlaw
Read further.
- Why TeamSync — defensible eDiscovery — the architectural pillar
- eDiscovery Counsel page — the role-specific conversation
- General Counsel page — the executive view
- Litigation-hold without the war room — the use case — the conversation when the hold notice arrives