Coordinating Discovery Attorneys (CDAs)

CDAs address the timing of discovery productions, the format in which materials will be produced, the early identification of discovery production issues and ways to maintain the evidentiary integrity of discovery. CDAs can provide additional in-depth and significant hands-on assistance to CJA panel attorneys and federal defenders in cases that require technology and document management expertise, including facilitating the implementation of the "Recommendations for Electronically Stored Information Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases" (Recommendations). CDAs evaluate the level of computer sophistication of each lawyer; identify the types of discovery involved; assist in dialogue with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the volume, form and timing of discovery productions (as explicitly encouraged in the Recommendations); assist in deciding how best to distribute the discovery; help determine what technology and other resources are necessary for discovery review and management; and aid in maintaining quality control of the discovery review process. By using a CDA, discovery is generally provided in a more useful form; one knowledgeable person assesses the case's litigation support needs and assists counsel in obtaining the resources necessary to meet them; discovery is more effectively and efficiently tracked; the purchase of litigation support software, hardware, and services is more cost effective; discovery is provided in a more timely manner; and the overall case processing times and costs are likely to be reduced.

Russell M. Aoki’s practice emphasizes criminal defense and business litigation. He has served as a judge pro tem, mediator, arbitrator, special master and special disciplinary counsel for the Washington State Bar Association. He has been a Criminal Justice Act Panel attorney for over 25 years and a former CJA District Representative for the Western District of Washington. Mr. Aoki also serves as a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office, to provide litigation support assistance on complex criminal cases. He has been appointed by U.S. District Courts over 100 times in 28 jurisdictions. From 2006 to 2009 Mr. Aoki served on the Washington State Bar Association’s Board of Governors, during which he was the Treasurer. Mr. Aoki also served as the Washington State Supreme Court’s appointee to the Office of Public Defense Advisory Committee for 12 years. He is the past Board President of Northwest Defender Association, past President of the Asian Bar Association of Washington and a past Trustee of the King County Bar Association. He served as a trustee for the Legal Foundation of Washington from 2013 to 2017. Mr. Aoki has been named one of the top 25 Criminal Defense Attorneys in Washington by Washington Law & Politics from 2006 to 2012 and one of the top Criminal Defense Attorneys in Seattle by Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, July 2010 and Seattle Magazine, January 2007. Mr. Aoki is AV rated by Martindale Hubbell and is the 2016 recipient of the Washington State Bar Association’s President’s Award for his contribution to the legal profession. He was featured in the King County Bar Bulletin, Profile: Russ Aoki Doing the Heavy Lifting, February 2019. 

Elizabeth Daniel Vasquez has focused on the intersection of data, science, technology and the criminal legal system for more than a decade. She is the founder and owner of E. Daniel Vasquez Consulting. Elizabeth created and ran the Science & Surveillance Project at Brooklyn Defender Services, worked as a staff attorney in the trial division of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and litigated wrongful conviction and civil rights cases involving forensic error and misconduct throughout the country at Neufeld Scheck & Brustin, LLP. Through her work, Elizabeth has cultivated deep technical and strategic experience working with experts and investigators across disciplines and handling cases that involve complex science, data science, and eDiscovery.

Ms. de Almeida is an experienced attorney and discovery coordinator in the Southern District of New York, helping CJA counsel with discovery management, particularly when national CDAs have been unavailable. Her trial experience and discovery management skills have made her a well-respected resource among defense counsel, the Government, and the court. Besides the Southern District of New York, Ms. de Almeida has assisted with complex multiple defendant cases that have enormous amounts of discovery in the Northern District of California, Nevada, Kansas, Virginia, Puerto Rico, Oregon and Missouri. Ms. de Almeida’s practice exclusively involves working on complex, voluminous multidefendant federal cases or death eligible federal cases. Prior to practicing law, she worked in San Francisco, CA on a complex, multi-defendant case that required utilizing e-discovery tools to organize and prepare discovery and has continued this work nationally. She has worked as associate counsel, legal research and writing counsel, and a technologist, in litigation support services. 

Her experience working as a team member has allowed her to learn and explore e-discovery tools and to provide and oversee e-discovery management from case preparation through trial. Ms. de Almeida’s experience includes training lawyers and paralegals on how to utilize and implement e-discovery tools in their practice, simplifying the process of case management and preparation.

Before entering private practice, Mr. Ellis spent 13 years at Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as a trial attorney and a supervisory attorney. He currently handles a wide variety of criminal cases, including white-collar fraud, terrorism, computer crimes, child pornography offenses, and complex drug offenses. In addition to his trial work, Mr. Ellis is a certified cell phone examiner, and is known nationally for his work as a trainer in the area of digital forensics, electronic case management, and social media investigations. He routinely presents at the National Forensic College in New York City and the Capital Case Defense Seminar in California. Mr. Ellis serves as a member of the Legal Resource Committee as part of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC), which is administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He is a founding member of the San Diego ESI Forum, an organization focused on educating the bar about electronic discovery. John is also an adjunct professor and the author of two chapters in Defending a Federal Criminal Case. Mr. Ellis graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2003.

Emma M. Greenwood, Esq., of Greenwood Law Group, PLLC in New York, NY and Woodstock, NY, has focused her legal career almost exclusively on the intersection of law and technology and the integration of technology in the practice of law. She has represented defendants on dozens of federal criminal matters in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, most of which involved substantial ediscovery complexity. She also consults privately on e-discovery issues in criminal and civil cases in state and federal courts. Since 2011 she has served as a National Coordinating Discovery Attorney (CDA) with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO), Defender Services Office (DSO) to provide direct assistance to defense lawyers nationwide on discovery management and access issues arising in federal criminal matters that involve multi-defendants and complex e-discovery. In her CDA capacity, she has been appointed by United States District Judges on scores of federal criminal cases in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th Circuits, providing tools and technology assistance to hundreds of federal criminal defense lawyers, the majority of which are members of the CJA Panel working as solo-practitioners or at small firms. Ms. Greenwood is a regular faculty contributor on CLE programs across the country on various local, state and national e-discovery topics. 

In September 2014, Ms. Greenwood was among nine lawyers in the country selected and profiled as a “Legal Rebel” by the American Bar Association (ABA) for her accomplishments and continued work to provide e-discovery assistance to the federal criminal bar, including developing tools that help ensure an efficient e-discovery review process for lawyers and their clients.

Factors considered in determining whether a CDA will work on a particular case are:

• whether the number of co-defendants is so large as to create a risk of costly duplicative efforts, which could otherwise be eliminated or reduced upon the appointment of a CDA, or whether there are other factors that create a likelihood that the CDA's participation would enable costs to be contained;
• whether the volume of discovery is so large that addressing the organizational needs in the case would interfere with defense counsel's ability to address the legal and factual issues in a case;
• whether unusual organizational or technological issues exist, not commonly found even in complex cases, that would interfere with defense counsel's ability to address the legal and factual issues in a case;
• whether the case is prosecuted in a region that lacks experts who can provide necessary technology support and document management expertise in addressing the factors described above;
• whether the timing of the request, which preferably should be made early in a case, is such that the CDA's participation is likely to be of assistance to defense counsel, promote efficiency, and contain costs; and,
• the CDA's workload.

Not all factors need be present to seek the services of the CDA. In determining how much weight to provide each factor, the seriousness of the alleged offense will be considered. The National Litigation Support Administrator (NLSA) makes an initial decision as to whether to assign a CDA to assist on a case. After the NLSA determines that the services of a CDA would be of assistance, CJA counsel should petition the court ex parte for the appointment of the CDA to assist defense counsel (using a model motion and order provided by the NLST). The petition must be submitted ex parte because of the need to describe possible discovery management strategies and potential future costs. The court's appointment of the CDA to work with all court appointed defense counsel in the case provides authority for the CDA to confer directly with the prosecution on issues of discovery, which allows for better coordination and overall cost-efficiencies regarding information exchange.

If for some reason the services of a CDA are unavailable or not a good fit for your case, the NLST may still be able to provide assistance regarding discovery management.

If the court, a panel attorney or FDO is interested in utilizing the services of a CDA, one of the CJA attorneys in the case should first communicate with the NLST's Sean Broderick, National Litigation Support Administrator.

An initial consultation will be set up with a National Litigation Support Administrator (NLSA) to determine whether the case is appropriate for a CDA.  NLSAs makes an initial decision as to whether to assign a CDA to consult on or assist in a case. 

If the case is identified as potentially appropriate for a CDA, a second consultation with one of the CDAs will occur. The CDA decides about the use of the CDA’s services in the subject case. Factors considered in determining whether a CDA will work on a particular case are:

• whether the number of co-defendants is so large as to create a risk of costly duplicative efforts, which could otherwise be eliminated or reduced upon the appointment of a CDA, or whether there are other factors that create a likelihood that the CDA's participation would enable costs to be contained;
• whether the volume of discovery is so large that addressing the organizational needs in the case would interfere with defense counsel's ability to address the legal and factual issues in a case;
• whether unusual organizational or technological issues exist, not commonly found even in complex cases, that would interfere with defense counsel's ability to address the legal and factual issues in a case;
• whether the case is prosecuted in a region that lacks experts who can provide necessary technology support and document management expertise in addressing the factors described above;
• whether the timing of the request, which preferably should be made early in a case, is such that the CDA's participation is likely to be of assistance to defense counsel, promote efficiency, and contain costs; and,
• the CDA's workload.

Not all factors need be present to seek the services of the CDA. In determining how much weight to provide each factor, the seriousness of the alleged offense will be considered. After the NLSA and CDA determines that the services of a CDA would be of assistance, CJA counsel should petition the court ex parte for the appointment of the CDA to assist defense counsel (using a model motion and order provided by the NLST).

If for some reason the services of a CDA are unavailable or not a good fit for your case, the NLST may still be able to provide assistance regarding discovery management via NLST's direct assistance. 

After the NLSA and CDA determines that the services of a CDA would be of assistance, CJA counsel should petition the court ex parte for the appointment of the CDA to assist defense counsel (using a model motion and order provided by the NLST). The petition must be submitted ex parte because of the need to describe possible discovery management strategies and potential future costs. The court's appointment of the CDA to work with all court appointed defense counsel in the case provides authority for the CDA to confer directly with the prosecution on issues of discovery, which allows for better coordination and overall cost-efficiencies regarding information exchange.

If for some reason the services of a CDA are unavailable or not a good fit for your case, the NLST may still be able to provide assistance regarding discovery management via NLST's direct assistance. 

• Services of Additional Coordinating Discovery Attorneys (CDAs) Available in Appropriate, Select Federal CJA Cases (2025)