Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

CloudNine

As Blockchain Joins the Healthcare Profession, Are Legal Departments Prepared to Keep Up?: eDiscovery Trends

When we hear the word blockchain, most of us still think of Bitcoin, that mysterious new currency that seems to equally enthrall forward thinking investors and less-than-savory entrepreneurs who lurk around the darkest parts of the Dark Web. But blockchain technology is finding more and more practical uses, most recently in the healthcare industry.

In a recent Wall Street Journal Article, blockchain is presented as a low-cost, highly secure way to unify healthcare records, which to date has been a huge obstacle. As the article puts it, “In the current tangle of incompatible records systems that typifies U.S. health care, incorrect information can creep in when patient data gets re-entered multiple times by doctors’ offices, insurers and hospital staff. Big errors can seriously affect the quality of care that patients receive, small discrepancies can result in wrongful denials of insurance coverage, and errors of all types add to the system’s cost.”

In very simplified terms, Blockchain works like a giant Google Sheet: a single ledger that can be added to simultaneously by all users in the system, with each “transaction” creating an audit trail so that its data is nearly infallible. For healthcare records systems, this can put patients, insurers, and providers literally on the same page, providing secure and accurate information for all stakeholders across the board.

In January, Nashville-based Change Healthcare (a network of 800,000 physicians, 117,000 dentists and 60,000 pharmacies) introduced a blockchain system for processing insurance claims. The shared ledger of encrypted data gives providers a “single source of truth,” according to Emily Vaughn, blockchain product development director at Change Healthcare.

All parties can see the same information about a claim in real time, so that a patient or provider won’t have to call multiple parties to verify information. Each time data is changed, a record is shown on the digital ledger, identifying the responsible party. Any changes also require verification by each party involved, ensuring record’s accuracy.

Change Healthcare won’t reveal actual numbers about how much the new system (which processes roughly 50 million events daily) cuts costs, but the efficiencies, accuracy, and security will no doubt bring huge savings.

The question regarding the eDiscovery implications with this type of move are clear: How will this data be preserved, collected, and prepared for review? It’s not so much a question of a technical nature (though that will have to be answered by someone, but I’ll leave it to the software engineers to properly answer it). What I mean to say, is that anytime a new data source is introduced into the organization’s landscape, the question of preservation, collection, and production should already be on the minds of the legal department. Often, changes in a company’s technology infrastructure are driven by departments outside of legal: usually a combination of IT and business units looking for efficiency, security, and cost savings. Many times, large decisions will be made, leaving the legal team in the position of playing catch up when it comes to discovery should litigation arise.

So, even if your company isn’t moving to blockchain anytime in the near future, this story of what is happening in the healthcare space is important to consider, because, to quote the poet William Blake, “What is now real, was once only imagined.” And the potential uses for blockchain technology lately seems to be on everyone’s mind.

So, what do you think?  How do you see the increased use of blockchain technology affecting eDiscovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

CloudNine Voted as a Leading National eDiscovery Provider in Eleven Categories in 2018 Best of Midwest Reader Ranking Survey

Fourth Annual Best of the Midwest Survey Highlights Legal Community Recognition of CloudNine

CloudNine, a leader in simplifying and automating legal discovery, today announced its recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in the National Law Journal’s fourth annual Best of the Midwest annual reader ranking survey. 

The National Law Journal’s Best of the Midwest 2018 Survey was published in June with the top three responses in each category shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following eleven reading ranking categories:

  • Best End-to-End Litigation Consulting Firm (3)
  • Best End-to-End E-Discovery Provider (3)
  • Best Technology-Assisted Review Solution (2)
  • Best Data & Technology Management E-Discovery Provider (1)
  • Best Online Review Platform (2)
  • Best Legal Hold Solution (2)
  • Best Managed E-Discovery & Litigation Support Service Provider (2)
  • Best Managed Document Review (1)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (1)
  • Best Predictive Coding E-Discovery Solution (1)
  • Best Corporate Investigations (1)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot and open to those working in the Midwest legal community. 

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002, and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine (cloudnine.com) is a legal discovery technology company with expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by more than 2,000 legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s off-premise and on-premise software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

CloudNine has been highlighted by industry experts in reports, reviews, and surveys including Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a popular trusted source for legal industry information. A leader in eDiscovery simplification and automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Court Denies Plaintiff Request for “Quick Peek” to Privilege Log, Proposing Special Master Review Instead: eDiscovery Case Law

In Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-05236, (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2018), New York Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker, ruling on a debate of what constitutes privileged ESI,  denied the plaintiff’s request for a “quick peek” at 3,300 documents listed on the defendant’s privilege log, opting to propose instead for a special master to conduct a privilege review of those documents.

Case Background

In June 2017, the defendant moved for return of an accidentally produced privileged document under the agreed-upon procedures set forth in their Clawback Agreement, which then led to further discussion between the parties about the defendant’s privilege designations, with the plaintiffs believing the defendant over-designated documents as privileged.

In July 2017, the court directed the plaintiffs to identify a subset of 80 documents from the defendant’s privilege log that had been withheld on the basis of the deliberative process privilege. The court also ruled that “the defendant would have an opportunity to rereview the 80-document subset identified by Plaintiffs and determine whether it intended to maintain its privilege claim as to each document.”

After this review, the defendant maintained a claim of privilege over only 27 documents and withdrew its privilege designation for 51 document and produced them.  The Court subsequently ordered the City to submit all 80 documents to this Court for in camera review for purposes of assessing the validity of the initial and remaining privilege designations.

The plaintiffs also contested some of the defendant’s refusal to answer at depositions on the basis of attorney-client, work product, and/or deliberative process privilege and submitted a letter to the court seeking privilege rulings on 20 questions to which the City’s witnesses were directed not to respond. The defendant subsequently withdrew its privilege objections six of these questions and provided the plaintiffs with responses.

In February 2018, the court issued a lengthy ruling granting the defendant’s Clawback Demand and granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of certain documents from the sample set of documents designated as privileged by the defendant on its privilege log. The court also granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to questions posed during depositions. At the same time, the court directed the defendant to re-review its privilege designations, after which, the defendant de-designated certain documents as privileged and produced them.

In April 2018, the plaintiffs raised a concern with the volume (3,300 documents) designated by the defendant as privileged. The court then directed the parties to meet and confer concerning a proposal to address the plaintiffs’ concerns. At that meeting, the plaintiffs proposed the Court order the defendant to turn over all 3,300 documents designated as privileged for a “quick peek” at them, promising to review them in only a few weeks. The defendant, which had already spent significant time reviewing documents for privilege prior to producing them, vigorously objected.

Judge’s Ruling

After taking into consideration FRCP 26 and FRE 502, as well as previous case law, Judge Parker ruled:

“The task of reviewing 3,300 documents is enormous and one that this Court cannot complete before the end of fact discovery on July 31, 2018 given other demands in this and other cases. Appointment of a Special Master to conduct the privilege review pursuant to Rule 53 is therefore warranted…. In accordance with Rule 53(b)(1), the parties may file a letter regarding their position on the appointment of a Special Master, whether they have identified any conflict-of-interest issues… and suggest other candidates for appointment if they so desire…. Given the costs of a Special Master, Plaintiffs are directed to evaluate whether they can narrow the documents for review so as to reduce the time and thus the costs of the review.”

Judge Parker proposed the appointment of the Honorable Frank Maas (Ret.) of JAMS, who recently retired as a Magistrate Judge in the District and was available to conduct a review (and was recently proposed for a privilege review in another high-profile case).  Judge Parker indicated that “the parties may file a letter regarding their position on the appointment of a Special Master, whether they have identified any conflict-of-interest issues that would preclude appointment of Judge Maas, and suggest other candidates for appointment if they so desire.”

So, what do you think? Is the appointment of a special master to perform the privilege review the right ruling? 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.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Judge’s Ruling on Scope Under Rule 26 Brings a Mixed Bag of Motions Granted and Denied: eDiscovery Case Law

In TMJ Grp., LLC v. IMCMV Holdings, No. 17-4677 (E.D. La. April 6, 2018), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld ruled on Motions to Compel by both parties, both of which were granted in part and denied in part.

Case Background

The plaintiff, TMJ, alleged that it had been fraudulently induced to invest in two Margaritaville restaurants (one in the Mall of America and one in New Orleans) by the defendants. An interesting aspect of the discovery motions is TMJ’s allegation that it sought and obtained financing for the investment at issue in this lawsuit from FNBC Bank and that IMCMV altered financial figures in the financial statements so that FNBC would approve the financing after initially rejecting it.

IMCMV’s Motion to Compel

The first item at issue was the defendant’s motion to compel the redacted communications between FNBC and the plaintiff, which were ordered for in-camera review, as well as several depositions given after the discovery deadline. As a result, issues arose around scope of discovery under FRCP Rule 26.

The plaintiff submitted much of their document production right before or on the discovery deadline (around 3,700 pages) and as a result, the defendant said it didn’t have all the relevant documents available for the depositions where some FNBC documents were discussed, and because it did not have sufficient time to review those documents prior to the deposition, they argue that they “had an incomplete picture of the relationship, agreements, and documents, exchanged between FNBC and TMJ.”

The defendant also sought to compel the deposition of one or more former FNBC representatives, pointing out that the FNBC representatives are listed on both parties’ witness lists. However, because they did not have all of the FNBC documents prior to the discovery deadline, they initially decided not to depose FNBC. The late production of documents caused them to revisit this decision.

The plaintiff opposed the deposition of any FNBC representatives, claiming the request is untimely, because they identified FNBC personnel in its initial disclosures and earlier document production and that the defendant had long had sufficient information to determine whether to take such depositions. The plaintiff insisted it would be prejudiced if the depositions were allowed, given that trial was imminent.

TMJ’s Motion to Compel

The plaintiff’s motion to compel sought certain financial documents, including tax returns and schedules, financial statements, and accounting ledgers for all of the defendant’s other Margaritaville restaurants, insisting the documents were relevant, because the defendant’s financial forecasts were based on comparable IMCMV owned restaurants, which influenced their decision to invest.

The defendant claimed these financials were irrelevant and disproportional as the other restaurants are not a part of this litigation. The defendant explained that this data was already produced in Excel files which was considered by their expert.

The plaintiff also demanded responses to its interrogatories regarding the reasoning behind changes to financial statements made while the investments at issue here were being negotiated, alleging that the defendant altered them to make the investment appear more attractive to the plaintiff and FNBC. The plaintiff makes note that their identical responses to the three requests aren’t “boilerplate,” but that they meaningfully explain how changes were made by stating that “in preparing financial projections, [IMCMV] takes into account planned seating capacity, estimated revenue per seat per year, the financial results of other Margaritaville-themed restaurants, the location, market competitors, and the labor market.”

The plaintiff also sought text messages between the parties, pointing out that they frequently corresponded in this manner. The defendant responded that their former chief development officer left the company, and they had not been able to access his iPhone. The defendant requested passcodes from the former CDO, but those didn’t work. Another individual who also was no longer working for IMCMV, had custody of the phone in the interim, but he had reset the phone and added a new passcode. The defendant then contacted Apple and its carrier, AT&T, who both indicated that the passcode could not be bypassed without resetting the phone.

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding IMCMV’s motions, there was no real dispute that a deposition of an FNBC representative is within the scope of discovery. Judge van Meerveld ruled that “a second deposition of Motwani [an FNBC Bank representative] is appropriate here in light of the documents produced after his deposition. The scope of the deposition shall be limited to the documents produced after Motwani’s deposition, and any other documents or issues required to give context to, provide clarification of, to contrast with, or explain discrepancies with the documents produced after Motwani’s deposition. This could, therefore, permit reference to earlier produced documents.” Accordingly, an extension of the discovery deadline was provided, and the defendant “may proceed with a deposition of one FNBC representative and, if necessary due to that representative’s inability to provide complete answers, a second FNBC representative.”

In regard to the plaintiff’s motions, Judge van Meerwald agreed that “the financial documents for the other Margaritaville restaurants are not relevant or proportional to the needs of this case. TMJ already has the key performance indicators extracted from those financials for the purpose of creating the business cases and pro formas for the proposed investment. The relevance of the financial statements of the other restaurants is too tangential to justify the burden of production.” As to these documents, the motion to compel was denied.

As to the plaintiff’s demand that certain financial documents be produced in Excel rather than PDF format, the court found the burden to the defendant “too great to justify IMCMV undertaking that endeavor here. However, the Court has ordered the parties to work together to provide the documents in their native format. If this is unsuccessful, the parties may contact the chambers of the undersigned to set up a telephone conference to discuss.”

So, what do you think? Did the judge interpret the idea of scope under Rule 26 correctly?  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.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Former Employee Sanctioned for Lying Under Oath, Destruction of ESI: eDiscovery Case Law

In Heggen v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00440-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. April 27, 2018), Indiana Magistrate Judge Susan Collins ruled that the plaintiff’s destruction of requested cellphone recordings, as well as lying under oath, were sanctionable under FRCP Rule 37.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed the case against her former employer – a provider of temporary medical staffing, home health care, and wellness services – with claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The plaintiff stated under oath that she chose to leave these employers “voluntarily” because the two clients with whom she worked were going into a nursing home.

However, the defendant pointed out that records show that the plaintiff was terminated after she refused to discuss a complaint that the plaintiff stole $300 from a client under her care, as well as mismanagement of the client’s financial assets. A discovery request to the Indiana Department of Workforce Development revealed that the plaintiff had worked for Interim Health Care immediately prior to joining the defendant, even though she responded to the first request for production with a different former employer, and then stated a second employer during her deposition. Based on the records from Interim, the defendant claimed that the circumstances of the plaintiff’s departure from Interim were “strikingly similar” to the plaintiff’s time at the defendant, including that a patient’s medications went missing – the plaintiff then tested positive for the missing medications on a drug test, and the plaintiff failed to return to work after the complaint.

The clearest contention that the defendant brought is that the plaintiff destroyed key evidence in at least three different ways and this, along with the other actions by the plaintiff, the defendant contended was grounds for a dismissal sanction. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she made about seven recordings of unidentified defendant employees and said these recordings supported her claims against the defendant, she also testified that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) had the recordings, because she deleted the recordings from her cell phone since she “didn’t want them to have [her] phone lost and have them be out there.” She claimed she had emailed the recordings to the EEOC, but couldn’t find any copy of the emails transmitting the recordings. After sending the emails, she performed a factory reset of her phone (an older Apple model) that basically had “broke[n] down,” and that she was trying to get working again. The reset deleted all of the data stored on it, including the recordings.

She felt that emailing the recordings to EEOC was a form of preservation and “thought it was okay to get rid of them[.]” Copies of three of the recordings were found, and the plaintiff submitted transcripts of these recordings with her response brief, and she also provided a copy of the recordings and transcripts to the defendant. However, there was no explanation for the other missing recordings.

The defendant had sought the recordings from the plaintiff for months through traditional discovery and because it did not have the recordings when it deposed the plaintiff, it felt that resulted in prejudice against them. They also argued that there was a significant difference between original recordings and copies of recordings. What the plaintiff submitted appeared to be at least two different layers of recorded conversations: “an ongoing face-to-face interaction between individuals who are supposedly simultaneously listening to and participating in a different interaction by telephone, all recorded on top of each other.”  Also, because they were copies, there was no way to delve into the original metadata of the recordings. Further, while the original recordings were made on an iPhone, the files produced were in 3GP format, a format generally used by Android phones, raising even more questions.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Collins ruled that the defendant’s failure under oath to disclose Interim as a prior employer and for her destruction of the original cell phone recordings was sanctionable. But noted that a sanction for discovery abuse must be “a proportionate response to the circumstances.”

Judge Collins stated, “The draconian sanction of dismissal is not presently warranted here. Rather, the present circumstances warrant the imposition of lesser sanctions in the form of a monetary penalty—that is, ordering Heggen to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, that Maxim incurred in filing the motion to compel [See FRCP Rule 37]. The Court has no reason, at least at this juncture, to conclude that the imposition of this monetary penalty would be fruitless. The Court will also consider a spoliation instruction upon a pretrial motion by counsel should this case go to trial. The motion for sanctions is otherwise denied. Heggen is duly warned that any additional discovery transgressions may result in further sanctions against her, up to and including dismissal of this case.”

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling correct or was a sanction of dismissal warranted in this case?  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.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Former Football Players Sanctioned for Failure to Produce: eDiscovery Case Law

In Michael E. Davis, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 10-cv-03328-RS, (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ruled that the plaintiff’s failure to fully comply with the discovery requests by the defendant were sanctionable under FRCP Rule 37, which states, “Such sanctions may include ordering a party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by its failure to comply with the order or rule.”

Case Background

Three former NFL players claimed that Electronic Arts (EA) used their likenesses in the Madden NFL videogame series without authorization. In July 2017, EA moved to compel plaintiffs to provide further responses to discovery, and the court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the disputes set forth in the letters and to file joint letters regarding any remaining disputes. After a hearing, the Court granted in part EA’s motions to compel further responses to requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”), interrogatories, and requests for admission (“RFA”), setting a deadline for response on September 28, 2017.

A day after the deadline, the plaintiffs responded by saying they had, “engaged in a reasonable and diligent search” but found no responsive documents to certain requests. The plaintiffs also said the requested privilege log was rendered unusable due to a computer error even though both the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ attorney had stated in an earlier hearing that they had regular communications via email regarding the case.

EA requested sanctions of $45,000 against the plaintiffs under Rule 37. However, the billing records EA provided to the court did not segregate the fees by task or category, which makes it difficult to evaluate the reasonableness of the time expended, or to calculate precise sums that should be allowed or disallowed. But even with the problems with EA’s billing records, it was clear that EA incurred substantial attorneys’ fees in attempting to obtain plaintiffs’ compliance and seeking court intervention.

Judge’s Ruling

Given the inconsistencies between counsel and plaintiffs’ statements about communications regarding this litigation, Judge Ryu expressed concern about the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ search for responsive documents and ordered them to “search thoroughly all . . . email, going all the way back, for communications between [Plaintiffs] and other people who are not lawyers about this case.”

Judge Ryu also ruled that the plaintiffs’ response to the defendant’s discovery request was deficient and found monetary sanctions appropriate in this case, in addition to the evidentiary sanctions, as their conduct forced EA and the court to continue to expend significant resources to address plaintiffs’ failure to meet its discovery obligations and provide basic discovery.

“A sanction of $25,000 is justified in these circumstances and acknowledges that this amount represents a significant discount from the actual attorneys’ fees incurred by EA as a result of plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions. The court finds that $25,000, coupled with the evidentiary consequences set forth above, are an appropriate sanction here.”

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling correct or were sanctions unwarranted in this case?  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.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

CloudNine Voted as a Leading National eDiscovery Provider in Nine Categories in 2018 Corporate Counsel Reader Ranking Survey

Third Annual Best of Corporate Counsel Survey Highlights In-House Community Recognition of CloudNine

CloudNine, a leader in simplifying and automating legal discovery, today announced its recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in Corporate Counsel Magazine’s 2018 “Best of Corporate Counsel” annual reader ranking survey. 

Corporate Counsel’s Best of 2018 Survey was published in May with the top three responses in each category shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following nine reading ranking categories:

  • Best Online Review Platform (3)
  • Best End-to-End E-Discovery Provider (2)
  • Best Technology Assisted Review E-Discovery Solution (3)
  • Best Legal Hold Solution (2)
  • Best Managed Document Review Services (3)
  • Best Managed E-Discovery & Litigation Support Service Provider (3)
  • Best Data & Technology Management E-Discovery Provider (2)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (1)
  • Best Predictive Coding E-Discovery Solution (3)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot and limited to those working within in-house corporate legal and compliance departments. 

“CloudNine is excited to be recognized by in-house corporate legal and compliance professionals as a national leader in the delivery of eDiscovery software and services for the third consecutive year,” shared Brad Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of CloudNine. “We highly value this continued vote of confidence and will continue to strive to build on that confidence with discovery automation technology and professional services that simplify eDiscovery.”

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002, and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine (cloudnine.com) is a legal discovery technology company with expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by more than 2,000 legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s off-premise and on-premise software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

CloudNine has been highlighted by industry experts in reports, reviews, and surveys including Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a popular trusted source for legal industry information. A leader in eDiscovery simplification and automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent