Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: E-Discovery and Legal Holds

Cooperation Proclamation

Also known as: The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, The Cooperation Proclamation
Simply put

The Cooperation Proclamation is a statement issued by The Sedona Conference that encourages parties involved in litigation to work together openly during the discovery process, rather than treating it as an adversarial contest. It promotes the idea that concealing information should be replaced by cooperation and transparency between opposing parties. The Proclamation has been endorsed and applied by members of the judiciary.

Formal definition

The Cooperation Proclamation is a consensus advocacy document published by The Sedona Conference, a nonpartisan nonprofit research and educational organization, as part of a coordinated effort to promote cooperation among all parties to the discovery process, including electronically stored information (ESI) discovery. Its central thesis is that adversarial practices characterized as "hiding the ball" should be replaced by cooperation and transparency in the conduct of discovery. It has been accompanied by supplementary materials, including an edition described as "Resources for the Judiciary," and has been endorsed and applied by members of the judiciary. As a guidance and advocacy instrument rather than binding law, its authority and adoption depend on voluntary endorsement and the discretion of courts and practitioners within applicable jurisdictions; the specific procedural weight it carries may vary by court and jurisdiction.

Why it matters

Discovery has long been one of the most contentious and resource-intensive phases of litigation, and the rise of electronically stored information (ESI) has amplified both its cost and its complexity. The Cooperation Proclamation matters because it reframes discovery not as a purely adversarial contest but as a process that can be conducted more efficiently and fairly when parties exchange information openly. For records and information governance professionals, this framing has practical consequences: the way an organization manages, retains, and produces records directly affects its ability to participate cooperatively and defensibly in discovery.

The Proclamation's influence derives largely from its endorsement and application by members of the judiciary rather than from any binding legal force. Because leading jurists have publicly supported and applied its principles, courts may look more favorably on parties who demonstrate good-faith cooperation and less favorably on those who engage in what the Proclamation describes as "hiding the ball." This creates an incentive structure in which sound recordkeeping and transparency in production can reduce disputes, sanctions risk, and the expense of protracted discovery motions.

It is important to understand the limits of the Proclamation's authority. As a consensus advocacy and guidance document, its weight depends on voluntary endorsement and the discretion of individual courts and practitioners. The procedural significance it carries may vary by court and jurisdiction, and it does not itself impose obligations in the way a statute or rule of procedure would. Organizations should therefore treat it as a persuasive statement of professional norms rather than as a source of enforceable requirements.

Who it's relevant to

Litigation and e-discovery counsel
Attorneys managing discovery are the primary audience for the Proclamation, since it addresses how parties conduct the discovery process. Its endorsement by members of the judiciary means counsel may benefit from demonstrating cooperation and transparency, though the specific weight given to these principles depends on the court and jurisdiction.
Records and information governance professionals
Those responsible for managing and retaining records support the cooperative discovery process the Proclamation advocates. Well-controlled records improve an organization's ability to locate, produce, and account for information transparently, which aligns with the Proclamation's emphasis on replacing concealment with openness.
Members of the judiciary
Judges are a distinct audience, as the Proclamation has been endorsed and applied by leading jurists and is supported by materials described as 'Resources for the Judiciary.' Courts exercise discretion in how they apply its cooperation principles within their own procedures and jurisdiction.
Compliance and legal operations teams
Teams that coordinate litigation readiness and manage the cost and process of discovery may find the Proclamation useful as a statement of professional norms. Its non-binding nature means it should inform practice and expectations rather than be treated as an enforceable requirement.

Inside Cooperation Proclamation

Coordinated cooperation framework
A statement of principle promoting collaboration among stakeholders in electronic discovery, encouraging parties to work together rather than treating discovery as a purely adversarial exercise. The specific institutional origin and formal status of any such proclamation vary, and readers should confirm its provenance within their own jurisdiction and practice context.
Emphasis on proportionality
A recognition that the effort and cost devoted to identifying, preserving, and producing records should typically be proportionate to the matter's value and complexity. Proportionality standards depend on the applicable procedural rules and jurisdiction.
Early engagement on scope
Encouragement for parties to discuss the scope of relevant records, preservation obligations, and production formats at an early stage, which can reduce disputes later. The extent to which early engagement is mandated versus recommended varies by jurisdiction and court.
Preservation and legal hold considerations
Attention to the duty to preserve potentially relevant records once litigation is reasonably anticipated. Legal hold triggers, scope, and duration differ across jurisdictions and should be assessed against the governing legal regime and organizational policy.
Records lifecycle intersection
The point at which routine records management, retention, and disposition activities intersect with discovery obligations. Note that disposition here may need to be suspended for records subject to a hold; disposition is broader than destruction and can include transfer or permanent preservation, but these are typically paused during an active hold.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Cooperation Proclamation.

Is the Cooperation Proclamation a formal law or regulation that organizations must comply with?
No. The Cooperation Proclamation is generally understood as a judicial and professional call to voluntary cooperation rather than a statute, regulation, or binding rule in its own right. Its influence typically derives from persuasion and adoption by courts and practitioners rather than from independent legal force. Any binding obligations that touch on cooperative conduct usually arise from the applicable procedural rules, court orders, or professional standards of the relevant jurisdiction, not from the Proclamation itself. Because the specifics differ by jurisdiction and forum, its status and weight should be confirmed against local authority.
Does endorsing cooperation mean parties must disclose everything or waive their protections?
Not as commonly framed. Cooperation in this sense generally refers to transparent, good-faith engagement about process, such as the scope, methods, and logistics of identifying and exchanging relevant material, rather than an obligation to surrender substantive positions or protections. It typically does not require a party to abandon applicable privileges, confidentiality claims, or legitimate objections. The extent of any disclosure obligation depends on the governing procedural rules and the direction of the tribunal, which vary by jurisdiction and sector, so the boundary between cooperation and required disclosure should be assessed case by case.
How can an organization operationalize a cooperative approach in its records and information practices?
Organizations often translate cooperative principles into practice by preparing to discuss process openly, which typically depends on knowing where relevant records reside, how they are classified, and how retention and disposition are applied. Maintaining reliable inventories, defensible retention schedules, and documented procedures generally supports the ability to explain and justify one's approach. Because expectations differ by jurisdiction and forum, many organizations align internal practice with the specific procedural rules and any court directions that apply to them, rather than relying on the Proclamation alone.
What documentation supports demonstrating good-faith cooperation?
Documentation that records decisions and their rationale is often valuable, including notes of process discussions, agreed protocols, and records of the methods used to identify and handle relevant material. Evidence of consistent application of retention schedules, classification practices, and legal hold procedures can help show that conduct was reasonable and defensible. The persuasive value of such documentation depends on the governing rules and the expectations of the tribunal, so its sufficiency should be judged against the applicable jurisdictional requirements rather than assumed.
How does a cooperative posture interact with legal holds and the suspension of routine disposition?
A cooperative posture generally does not diminish the obligation to preserve relevant material once a duty to do so arises. In many jurisdictions, the triggering of a legal hold typically requires suspending routine disposition for material within its scope, and this preservation duty operates independently of any commitment to cooperate on process. Cooperation more often concerns how parties communicate about the scope and mechanics of preservation and exchange. The precise timing and reach of preservation obligations depend on jurisdiction, sector, and the facts, so specific requirements should be confirmed against applicable authority.
Which roles within an organization are typically involved in supporting cooperative practices?
Support for cooperative practices often draws on several functions, including records managers and information governance staff who understand where records reside and how retention and disposition operate, legal or compliance personnel who interpret the applicable procedural rules and hold obligations, and IT or information systems staff who understand how information is stored and retrieved. The allocation of responsibilities varies by organization and jurisdiction, so many organizations define these roles through internal policy and coordinate them according to the requirements of the relevant forum.

Common misconceptions

A cooperation proclamation is a binding legal rule that overrides adversarial obligations.
Such statements are typically aspirational or advisory framings intended to encourage collaboration, and their legal weight depends on the issuing body and jurisdiction. They generally do not displace parties' underlying procedural duties, and their enforceability should be confirmed against the governing rules.
Cooperation in discovery means the same thing as routine records management.
Cooperation frameworks address conduct during litigation or investigation, whereas records management concerns the control of records as evidence of activity across their lifecycle. The two intersect, particularly around preservation and legal holds, but they are distinct disciplines with different objectives and drivers.
Adopting a cooperative posture requires parties to disclose everything or waive protections.
Cooperation typically concerns transparency about process, scope, and format rather than surrender of substantive rights or privileges. The precise boundaries depend on the applicable procedural and privilege rules in the relevant jurisdiction.

Best practices

Confirm the provenance, status, and jurisdictional applicability of any cooperation proclamation before relying on it, and treat aspirational statements as guidance rather than binding rules unless the governing framework provides otherwise.
Engage counsel and stakeholders early to agree on the scope of relevant records, preservation obligations, and production formats, documenting these discussions for later reference.
Ensure legal hold processes are integrated with records retention and disposition schedules so that routine disposition is suspended for records subject to preservation duties.
Apply proportionality by scaling discovery effort and cost to the matter's value and complexity, in line with the applicable procedural rules and jurisdiction.
Maintain the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of preserved records so that produced material remains defensible as evidence, distinguishing authoritative records from copies, drafts, and transitory information.
Verify preservation, privilege, and disclosure requirements against the specific jurisdiction and sector rather than assuming a single national regime applies universally.