---
title: "Review the discovery set under Federal Court eDiscovery Practice Note CM 6"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/review-the-discovery-set-and-draft-a-production-issues-list/australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-T1-R4-AU"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["AU"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Review the discovery set under Federal Court eDiscovery Practice Note CM 6

> Group the permitted discovery set, flag likely privileged items, and draft a relevance list, privilege-log entries and chronology. Keep Harman-undertaking documents out of tools that train on or retain inputs.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/review-the-discovery-set-and-draft-a-production-issues-list/australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Group the permitted discovery set, flag likely privileged items, and draft a relevance list, privilege-log entries and chronology. Keep Harman-undertaking documents out of tools that train on or retain inputs. |
| What the lawyer must review | Validate the seed set and document the protocol Run elusion testing and sampling to a court-accepted recall Review every possibly privileged document (Evidence Act s 122) and the log Check vendor terms against the Harman undertaking (Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125) Format production to CM 6 or the state practice note |
| Written for | Australia |
| Applies to | [Review the discovery set and draft a production issues list](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/review-the-discovery-set-and-draft-a-production-issues-list.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
2. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
3. Preserve original files and relevant metadata. Document provenance and handling, and seek forensic review where authenticity needs to be resolved.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*