Close
Enter your
text here
Monthly Archives :

November 2017

Legal Industry Analyst Ari Kaplan Interviews CloudNine CEO Brad Jenkins

Podcast: The Alignment of E-Discovery, Technology, and Industry Insight

Interview with Brad Jenkins by Legal Industry Analyst Ari Kaplan

I spoke with Brad Jenkins, the co-founder and CEO of CloudNine Discovery, a cloud-based e-discovery software provider. We discussed the genesis of CloudNine, how e-discovery has changed over the past 15 years, the trends that are driving what the company offers, its approach to security, how CloudNine differs from other companies in this sector, its portfolio of educational content, and how e-discovery is evolving.

Click here to listen to the podcast interview (10 Minutes).

Source: Reinventing Professionals

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

No Dismissal of Claim Against Defendant Accused of Transferring Company Info to Dropbox Account: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott Labs. v. Finkel, No. 17-cv-00894-CMA (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2017), Colorado District Judge Christine M. Arguello denied the defendant-movant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff-respondent’s conversion claim that the defendant disclosed the plaintiff’s confidential information and trade secrets to a third party and transferred that information to his personal online cloud storage Dropbox account.

Case Background

In December 2014, the plaintiff hired the defendant as a General Manager for its Nutrition Division, where he received access to its confidential information and trade secrets.  To protect its confidential information and trade secrets, the plaintiff required the defendant to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements and its Electronic Messages policy prohibited the defendant from backing up or storing digital information on personal devices and also prohibited sharing info with outside parties.  Despite that, during the defendant’s employment, he both disclosed plaintiff confidential information and trade secrets to a third party and transferred that information to his personal online cloud storage Dropbox account and was fired, in part, for that.  On the date of his termination, the plaintiff’s IT personnel (with the defendant’s consent) deleted its confidential information that he transferred to his personal Dropbox account.

However, the plaintiff later discovered that “Dropbox has a feature that allows a user to restore any file or folder removed from an active user account in the past 30 days or longer, depending on the version of Dropbox.”  As a result, the plaintiff asked the defendant 1) to certify that all its information was deleted from any electronic or physical storage location owned or used by the third party, 2) that it be allowed to monitor his Dropbox account activity and ensure that the deletion restoration feature was not activated and 3) to allow a third-party forensic consultant to examine his Dropbox account to ensure that all of the plaintiff’s information was deleted and not re-downloaded or transferred.  When the defendant refused, the plaintiff sued, asserting claims of breach of contract, conversion, and misappropriation of trade secrets.  The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, arguing that the claim is preempted by the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) and the allegations showed that the defendant was authorized to access and use the information and that he returned it to the plaintiff upon request.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Arguello stated: “To assert a claim of conversion, Plaintiff must show: (1) Plaintiff has a right to the property at issue; (2) Defendant has exercised unauthorized dominion or ownership over the property (3) Plaintiff has made a demand for possession of the property; and (4) Defendant refuses to return it.”  In her analysis, Judge Arguello addressed elements two and four (as one and three were undisputed) and found that the defendant still has unauthorized “dominion or ownership” over the documents and concluded that “Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the fourth element” with regard to defendant’s refusal to allow it to re-access his Dropbox account.

As for the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s claim is preempted by CUTSA, Judge Arguello rejected that argument, stating: “At this stage in the litigation, the Court is without a sufficient record to determine whether some, part, or all of Plaintiff’s conversion claim depends on a finding of trade secret status and is, therefore, preempted by the CUTSA. Indeed, none of the allegedly converted information has been presented to the Court, nor has it been described in much detail.”  As a result, she denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff have the right to re-access the defendant’s Dropbox account?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Uber’s Response to Data Breach? Pay the Hackers to Keep Quiet About It: Cybersecurity Trends

Hackers stole the personal data of 57 million customers and drivers from Uber last year.  Their response?  Conceal the breach for more than a year, and pay the hackers $100,000 to delete the data (sure they did) and keep quiet about the breach.

As reported on Bloomberg (Uber Paid Hackers to Delete Stolen Data on 57 Million People, written by Eric Newcomer) last week, compromised data from the October 2016 attack included names, email addresses and phone numbers of 50 million Uber riders around the world. The personal information of about 7 million drivers was accessed as well, including some 600,000 U.S. driver’s license numbers. No Social Security numbers, credit card information, trip location details or other data were taken, Uber said.

According to Bloomberg, the breach occurred when two attackers accessed a private GitHub coding site used by Uber software engineers and then used login credentials they obtained there to access data stored on an Amazon Web Services account that handled computing tasks for the company. From there, the hackers discovered an archive of rider and driver information. Later, they emailed Uber asking for money, according to the company.

Travis Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder and former CEO, learned of the hack in November 2016, a month after it took place, the company said. Uber had just settled a lawsuit with the New York attorney general over data security disclosures and was in the process of negotiating with the Federal Trade Commission over the handling of consumer data. According to Bloomberg, Kalanick declined to comment on the hack.

Joe Sullivan, the outgoing security chief, spearheaded the response to the hack last year, a spokesman told Bloomberg.  Dara Khosrowshahi, the new CEO as of September, asked for the resignation of Sullivan and fired Craig Clark, a senior lawyer who reported to Sullivan.

“None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it,” Khosrowshahi said in an emailed statement. “We are changing the way we do business.”

After Uber’s disclosure, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into the hack, his spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said. And it should come as no surprise that the company has already been sued for negligence over the breach by a customer seeking class-action status.

So, what do you think?  How severely should Uber be punished for failing to disclose the breach?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Hat tip (as always) to Sharon Nelson of Ride the Lightning for her coverage of the story.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Process This! – Close Outlook Before Compressing or Zipping PST Files for Processing: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having recently experienced this with a client, I thought I would revisit this helpful tip.  This is one of the tips Tom O’Connor and I will be covering this Friday – E-Discovery Day – on our webcast Murphy’s eDiscovery Law: How to Keep What Could Go Wrong From Going Wrong at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST).  Click here to register for Friday’s webcast.

As you may know, at CloudNine (shameless plug warning!), we have an automated processing capability for enabling clients to load and process their own data – they can use this capability to load their data into our review platform.  They can even process and load data straight into Relativity using our Outpost for Relativity module.

Regardless whether they load data into CloudNine or Relativity, most of our users are using the processing capability to process emails, usually from Outlook Personal Storage Table (PST) files.  Even though increased volumes of social media and other types of electronically stored information, emails are still predominant in eDiscovery.  And, for users trying to process and load that data, we get one issue more than any other when it comes to processing those Outlook emails:

They still have Outlook open with the PST file opened when they attempt to upload that PST file or when they try to create a ZIP file containing the Outlook PST.

When that happens, the resulting ZIP file that is created (either by the user or by our client application if the data is not already contained in an archive file) will almost invariably be corrupted or empty.  Either way, this will result in a failure during processing of the loaded data – because the data being processed will simply be corrupt.

This is not only true for CloudNine processing, this is also true for any application that you use for processing, such as Law PreDiscovery.  So, before attempting to create a ZIP (or RAR or other type of archive) of a PST file (or before you upload it to a platform like CloudNine for processing), make sure that Outlook is closed or at least that the PST file is closed within Outlook.  That’s the best way to have a positive “outlook” to discovering emails.  Get it?  :o)

So, what do you think?  Is email still the predominant source of discoverable ESI in your organization?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

If You’re a Cloud Provider or Consumer, Consider These Guidelines on How to Conduct Yourself in Europe: eDiscovery Best Practices

While we were preparing to eat turkey and stuff ourselves with various goodies last week, the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) provided an important guideline for compliance with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The CSA, a world leading organization dedicated to defining and raising awareness of best practices to help ensure a secure cloud computing environment, last week announced the release of the CSA Code of Conduct for GDPR Compliance, which provides cloud service providers (CSPs), cloud customers, and potential customers with much-needed guidance in order to comply with the new obligations stemming from the GDPR.  As part of the release, the CSA also launched the CSA GDPR Resource Center, a new community-driven website with tools and resources to help educate cloud service providers and enterprises on the new GDPR.

“Companies worldwide are struggling to keep pace with shifting regulations affecting personal data protection. The Privacy Level Agreement (PLA) Working Group realized it was critical for cloud providers to have guidance that would enable them to achieve compliance with EU personal data protection legislation,” said Francoise Gilbert, CSA Lead Outside Counsel and PLA Working Group co-chair.

“With the introduction of GDPR, data protection compliance becomes increasingly risk-based. Data controllers and processors are accountable for determining and implementing within their organizations appropriate protection levels for the personal data they process,” noted Paolo Balboni, European ICT, privacy and data protection lawyer, and co-chair of the Privacy Level Agreement Working Group. “In this scenario, the CSA Code of Conduct for GDPR Compliance is of fundamental importance as it gives guidance for legal compliance and the necessary transparency on the level of data protection offered by the CSPs.”

The new CSA Code of Conduct for GDPR Compliance is designed to meet both actual, mandatory EU legal personal data protection requirements (i.e., Directive 95/46/EC and its implementations in the EU member states) and the forthcoming requirements of the GDPR and specifies the application of the GDPR in the cloud environment, primarily with regard to the following categories:

  • Fair and transparent processing of personal data;
  • Information provided to the public and to data subjects (as defined in Article 4 (1) GDPR);
  • Exercise of data subjects’ rights;
  • Measures and procedures referred to in Articles 24 and 25 GDPR and the measures to ensure security of processing referred to in Article 32 GDPR;
  • Notification of personal data breaches to supervisory authorities (as defined in Article 4 (21) GDPR) and the communication of such personal data breaches to data subjects; and
  • Transfer of personal data to third countries.

The CSA Code of Conduct for GDPR Compliance also contains mechanisms that enable the body referred to in Article 41 (1) GDPR to carry out mandatory compliance monitoring by the controllers or processors who undertake to apply it, without prejudice to the tasks and powers of competent supervisory authorities pursuant to Article 55 or 56 of GDPR.

With GDPR adoption looming in less than six months, you can expect to hear more about GDPR on this blog and other publications in the coming months.  Click here to access the CSA Code of Conduct for GDPR Compliance (after completing a short survey).

So, what do you think? Is your organization preparing for GDPR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Hat tip to Rob Robinson and his excellent Complex Discovery blog for coverage of the story.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

What I’m Thankful for in Thanksgiving 2017: eDiscovery Thanks

Three years ago, I wrote about what I’m thankful for this holiday season from an eDiscovery standpoint.  I’m even more thankful and blessed now, so I thought I would do it again.  Happy Thanksgiving!

Our Great Team: It’s been a great year so far at CloudNine and I get a chance to work with all of the departments, from our terrific Client Services team that provides the hands on services that our clients need to meet their deadlines to our wonderful Support team that enables our clients to get the most out of our software products.  Thanks to our Marketing program, our blog is more popular than ever, we now conduct one to two webcasts a month and I’ve had the opportunity to speak at several conferences, including ILTA and The Masters Conference.  And, our Sales team has enabled us to continue to grow and expand our client base and set new company records!

Our Webcast Attendees and Participants: Speaking of webcasts, we’ve already done sixteen(!) of them this year and still have a couple more to conduct, including this one on eDiscovery Day.  Thanks to all of my co-presenters, including Karen DeSouza, Julia Romero Peter and, of course, Tom O’Connor.  And, thanks to everyone who has attended, many of whom have received CLE credit!  There are literally thousands of you!  :o)

Our Clients: Believe it or not, I have a day job over and above the blog – providing services to our clients.  Our services offering is one of the factors that makes CloudNine unique and I’m grateful to our clients for choosing us to assist them with their litigation and eDiscovery needs.  Not to mention that providing professional services to our clients gives me great ideas for blog posts!

Great eDiscovery Resources: As always, I’m thankful for the great resources that keep me up to date on eDiscovery trends, and they’re also great sources for blog topics!  Here are some of my favorites:

  • Ball in Your Court: Craig Ball always has the more interesting and compelling eDiscovery takes;
  • e-Discovery Team®: Ralph Losey’s blog still covers topics in more depth than any other;
  • Ride the Lightning: My go to site for data security info, courtesy of Sharon Nelson of Sensei Enterprises;
  • ACEDS: The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) site provides regular industry updates that keep me informed and give me additional topics to cover;
  • eDiscovery Assistant: Kelly Twigger’s site is my new go to site for eDiscovery case law, giving me one place to go to check out the latest case law decisions;
  • Complex Discovery: As always, my colleague Rob Robinson is still the master at compiling stories and statistics related to eDiscovery topics, ranging from business confidence surveys to industry acquisitions to interesting articles that I may have otherwise missed (and lots more).

Our Readers: I’m also thankful for all of you who continue to read and follow this blog.  And, especially thanks to those who provide interesting and insightful comments on our posts.  We’re at over seven years now and over 1,800 posts (and counting)!  Thanks to all of you for reading and following us!

Personally, I’m very blessed and most thankful for my family, particularly my wife Paige and our kids Kiley and Carter.  I love you guys!

So, what do you think? What are you thankful for in eDiscovery or in general?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts next Monday.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here are Some More Up to Date Fun Facts on Big Data: eDiscovery Trends

For many of the webcasts that we’ve conducted at CloudNine this year, we’ve noted several big data fun facts that illustrate the challenges that many organizations face in managing increasing volumes of data.  But several of those facts are three years old.  So, we thought it would be fun to take a look at some more up to date facts about big data that you can share with your family at your annual Thanksgiving gathering!

It was just a little over three years ago that we shared these fun facts with you, courtesy of Bernard Marr.  Here are some of my favorite facts from that article back then:

  • Every 2 days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of time until 2003;
  • Over 90% of all the data in the world was created in the past 2 years;
  • The total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years;
  • And, my favorite one – If you burned all of the data created in just one day onto DVDs, you could stack them on top of each other and reach the moon – twice.

Here are some of the more recent facts, again from Bernard Marr.  They may be dated April 2016 (OK, they’re not completely up to date), but they’re still interesting:

As always, we’ve provided the links to enable you to check out the source of each interesting big data stat.  One thing is certain about the growth of big data in the world today – the extent to which it’s growing will continue to be amazing!

So, what do you think?  What is your organization doing to combat increasing volumes of data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Dilbert.com

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Florida Has a New eDiscovery Checklist: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the best things about speaking at The Master’s Conference is that you get to see other great sessions and presentations as well.  During the Orlando event earlier this week, one of the sessions was presented by Ralph Losey, a regular thought leader interviewee on this blog, who discussed revisions and amendments to a notable Local Rule on Pretrial Procedure in Civil Actions.  Those amendments include an excellent new 33 point eDiscovery checklist.

As Ralph discussed during the session and covered on his excellent E-Discovery Team® blog here (side note: you’ve got to love any blog post with two pictures of Milton from Office Space), the United States District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida is now revising its Local Rule 16.1 on Pretrial Procedure in Civil Actions (here’s a link to the Local Rules with the revisions, including the Administrative Order regarding the amended Rules).  The amendments will go into effect on December 1, 2017.  As Ralph noted, the main revision in the local rules is the addition of a new subsection (K) under 16.1(b)(2) Conference Report that lists what must be included in the attorneys’ report:

(K) any issues about: (i) disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; (ii) claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including — if the parties agree on a procedure to assert those claims after production — whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502: and (iii) when the parties have agreed to use the ESI Checklist available on the Court’s website (www.flsd.uscourts.gov), matters enumerated on the ESI Checklist;

Ralph calls the rule revision and checklist a “fine addition” to the local rules, indicating that his only complaint is that the rule change doesn’t go far enough on Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Rule 502(d) orders for non-waiver of privilege (which we’ve covered several times on this blog, most recently here).  His only criticism of the checklist is its use of non-descript bullet points, instead of numbering.  So, Ralph in his blog post and also in a handout from this week’s session, changed the bullet points to Roman numeral letters for easier referencing.  He also provided comments regarding each of the items (in blue italics, so they’re easily distinguishable).

With that in mind, here are the eight categories contained within the ESI checklist (number of items in each section in parentheses):

I. Preservation (7 items)

II. Liaison (1 item)

III. Informal Discovery About Location and Types of Systems (4 items)

IV. Proportionality and Costs (6 items)

V. Search (2 items)

VI. Phasing (6 items)

VII. Production (4 items)

VIII. Privilege (3 items)

A couple of the most notable categories is the idea of having an eDiscovery liaison for each party (which I think is a great way to help ensure a smooth discovery process) and the option and approach of conducting discovery in phases (which is also a great idea to help prioritize production of ESI and keep the process moving forward).

Regardless, it’s a great resource and guide, whether you’re in Florida or not.  A copy of the checklist (again, with Ralph’s comments) can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Do you use a checklist to guide you through the discovery process? As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Where Do You Start? Perhaps by Seeing What Other People Think: eDiscovery Best Practices

Earlier this week, Rob Robinson asked the question “Where Do I Start?” on his excellent Complex Discovery blog when discussing the most significant challenges for those seeking and sourcing eDiscovery software and software-enabled services.  Maybe one of the best places to start is by checking out the customer feedback.

In Rob’s article Where Do I Start? Seeking and Sourcing eDiscovery Software, he provides technology buying cycle steps to serve as a framework for helping individuals and organizations address the buying process challenge for eDiscovery software, as follows:

  1. Determine the Discovery Problem or Goal
  2. Identify Discovery Technology Critical to the Solution
  3. Form a Shortlist of Provider Solutions
  4. Talk to End Users of Solutions on Shortlist
  5. Evaluate Potential Solution Options (Discussions, Demonstrations, Trials)
  6. Select Solution and Negotiate Pricing and Terms

Rob notes that, in particular, steps three and four often pose unique challenges given the number of offerings and providers in the eDiscovery ecosystem.  However, one way to differentiate those offerings and providers is through customer feedback.  As Rob notes:

“For those interested in a more targeted, bottoms-up approach to evaluating possible software or software-enabled service solutions, several online technology review sites are available for helping individuals to understand offerings through the lens of customer feedback.”

Rob lists three sites to check out, which are:

Each site is a little bit different, but each is useful in their own way.

Capterra gives you the ability to sort products in several different ways, including “hot products”, most reviews and highest rated.  When you click on the star rating for a provider, you can see the individual reviews for that provider, which includes provider pros and cons identified by each reviewer, as well as an overall score and overall comment about their impression of the product.

G2 Crowd gives you a Crowd Grid® for eDiscovery, which looks at Market Presence and Satisfaction to identify Niche players, Contenders (I coulda been a contender!), High Performers and Leaders.  You have to know the icon for each of the providers (hint: ours is a blue cloud) or put your cursor on the provider to figure it out.  When you click on the provider icon, you get a popup with the provider name and their star rating – click on that and you get a listing of the reviews for that provider where the reviewers indicate things such as what they like best about the provider, what they dislike, recommendations to others considering the product and business problems solved and benefits from using the product.

Gartner Peer Insights lists the providers with the ability to sort by number of reviews, as well as overall rating.  When you put your cursor on a provider, you can choose to “read reviews” or “compare”, where you can select two or more providers and line them up side by side to compare based on various features.  If you sign up for full access to the site, you can read the full reviews, which are considerably extensive.

Reading the provider’s reviews can be an essential part of “doing your homework” prior to engaging that provider to evaluate them on your own because they can help you identify considerations that you might not otherwise think of on your own.  Consider checking out the reviews on these sites to learn “the good, the bad and the ugly” that the providers may or may not tell you themselves.

So, what do you think?  Do you check out product reviews when considering an eDiscovery provider? As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here’s an Opportunity to Learn More About On-Premise and Off-Premise Solutions and Where CloudNine Fits in Both: eDiscovery Trends

Many say that the cloud is revolutionizing eDiscovery as we know it, while others still prefer the control of the on-premise eDiscovery solutions they’re used to using.  So, what factors should you consider when selecting your own eDiscovery solution?  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS, you can learn more about the different approaches and how CloudNine supports both of those environments.

Today’s ACEDS webinar at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT) is titled On-Premise, Off-Premise or Both?  This is a one-hour session that I will be conducting that is part presentation and part demonstration, including a couple of new modules we’ve recently introduced at CloudNine.

Presentation Highlights:

  • Drivers for eDiscovery Technology Solution Decisions Today
  • The Cloud vs. No Cloud Debate
  • A Comparative Approach to eDiscovery Technology
  • Key Components of an eDiscovery Technology Solution

Demonstration Highlights:

  • CloudNine eDiscovery Platform (Upload/Process/Review/Produce)
  • NEW: Outpost from CloudNine: Data Transfer into Relativity
  • NEW: CloudNine Automated Data Collection

If you want an opportunity to learn a lot more about CloudNine and how we address today’s challenges with both on-premise and off-premise technology, this webinar is for you!  To sign up for today’s webcast, click here.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel overwhelmed by the eDiscovery solution choices that exist today?  If so, please feel free to join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.