Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Judge Says “Alexa, Please Testify in a Double Murder Case”: eDiscovery Trends

The occurrence of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in criminal cases is becoming more and more frequent.  Just last month, we covered a case where data from a Fitbit led to the arrest of a murder suspect (we covered another case like it last year as well).  Now, an Amazon Echo may have key evidence in a double murder committed last year.

According to Time (Judge Says Amazon Must Hand Over Echo Recordings in Stabbing Case, written by George Steer), a judge in New Hampshire has requested that Amazon hand over audio recordings from an Echo device present in a house where two women were found dead.

Timothy Verrill is accused of murdering 48-year-old Christine Sullivan and 32-year-old Jenna Pellegrini at a Farmington home in January 2017. Their bodies were found underneath a porch on the property with multiple stab wounds. Mr. Verrill pleaded not guilty the following month.

But prosecutors believe that there could be corroborating evidence recorded by an Amazon Echo device which was inside the house.

A ruling was handed down by Justice Steven M. Houran on Friday.

“The court directs Amazon.com to produce forthwith to the court any recordings made by an Echo smart speaker with Alexa voice command capability … as well as any information identifying cellular devices that were paired to that smart speaker during that time period,” the statement read.

A spokesperson for Amazon told the Associated Press Friday that the company would not be handing over any data “without a valid and binding legal demand served on us”.

In a similar case in March 2017 (which we covered here), Amazon agreed to hand over data from an Echo device that may have been privy to another murder — but only after the defendant consented to handing over the recordings (the charges were eventually dropped in that case).

Amazon’s lawyers had previously sought to quash the request on the grounds that it violated customer privacy.  That’s the battle these days, apparently — privacy vs. information.  They continue to be on a collision course which will lead to many more disputes, I suspect.

So, what do you think?  Will IoT devices be the “witnesses” of the future?  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.

Tomorrow is the Day to “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery in Orlando for 2018: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re going to be in the Orlando area tomorrow, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Master’s Conference Orlando event.  It’s a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

The Master’s Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing eDiscovery and the information life cycle.  This year’s Orlando event covers topics ranging from big data to cybersecurity to project management best practices to evaluating technology to blockchain (twice!), among other things.

The event is being held tomorrow at Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 450 S Orange Ave #650, Orlando, FL 32801.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session Data, Discovery, and Decisions: Extending Discovery From Collection To Creation at 9:45am tomorrow.  I will be moderating a panel of eDiscovery experts that includes Matthew Detzel, Attorney at Akerman LLP; Brad Koehler, Senior Director with Alvarez & Marsal; and Chad Roberts, Discovery Counsel at eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc.  We will be discussing the challenges that big data places on information governance and legal discovery professionals and potential approaches for addressing those challenges.  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost to attend can be as low as $150 for one day of terrific educational content.  So, if you plan to attend and haven’t registered yet (why not?), now is the time to do it.

While there are no more events scheduled for this year (because the year is almost over, duh), The Masters Conference is working on its event schedule for next year.  Should have more information on that soon!

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Orlando tomorrow?  If so, come join us!  If not, come to Orlando and then join us!  And, as always, 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.

After Woman’s iPhone is Seized and She Sues, Homeland Security Agrees to Delete Her Data: eDiscovery Case Law

An American Muslim woman filed suit and asked a federal judge to compel border officials to erase data copied from her iPhone.  Now, she has settled her lawsuit with the government because federal authorities have now agreed to delete the seized data.

As discussed in Ars Technica (Feds took woman’s iPhone at border, she sued, now they agree to delete data, written by Cyrus Farivar), in the case Lazoja v. Nielsen, attorneys for the woman, Rejhane Lazoja, filed what’s called a Rule 41(g) Motion, otherwise known as a “Motion to Return Property.”  Normally, this rule is invoked for tangible items seized as part of a criminal investigation, not for digital data that can easily be copied, bit for bit. But here, the plaintiff, asked the judge to return data that she already had already received 90 days after the seizure when her iPhone was returned, fully intact.

Lazoja’s case has raised new questions about the state of the law with respect to warrantless border searches, particularly in the wake of two notable Supreme Court cases that have dealt with digital privacy in recent years, Carpenter v. United States (2018) and Riley v. California (2014).  The government claims that it has the authority to search and seize someone’s device without a warrant – otherwise needed in the interior of the country. Federal authorities rely on what’s known as the “border doctrine.” This is the controversial but standing legal idea that warrants are not required to conduct a search at the border. The theory has been generally recognized by courts, even in recent years.

In this case, however, Lazoja settled her lawsuit with the government after federal authorities agreed to delete the seized data.  So, the unusual approach worked in this case.

So, what do you think?  Should deletion of seized data be covered by a Rule 41(g) motion?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case 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.

It’s Time Again to Vote for Your Favorite Legal Blogs at The Expert Institute: eDiscovery Trends

Sure, you just voted a couple of days ago, but it’s time to do so again!  If you have a favorite eDiscovery blog or a favorite general legal blog, here’s a chance to see it recognized as one of the best.  Once again, The Expert Institute is looking for your votes in the 2018 Best Legal Blog Contest.

From now until December 15th, readers can select the “best of the best” in legal blogs.  The Expert Institute has broken the nominated blogs (which includes over 100 new blogs) into nine different categories, including Expert Witness, Litigation, Criminal Law, Legal News, Education & Law School Blogs and, of course, Legal Tech.

The rules of the contest are simple. Blogs will be ranked within their category by the number of votes they receive. In addition to winners in each category, the three blogs in any category that receive the most votes overall will come home with prizes, as well as a permanent position in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.

Readers can submit only one vote per blog, but can vote for as many blogs as they like across every category. In order to cast your vote, you must log into the social media platform of your choosing (Google, LinkedIn or Twitter) to verify your voter identity. This authentication is intended to prevent duplicate votes. The Expert Institute says it does not collect or share your information with third parties under any circumstances.

There are several excellent eDiscovery blogs out there and it would be great to see at least one or two receive enough votes to be recognized as a top legal blog in legal tech.  So, if there’s one you like, feel free to vote for it!  And, if that blog that you vote for happens to be eDiscovery Daily, even better!  ;o)

So, what do you think?  Do you have a favorite legal blog?  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.

Here’s a Webcast to Help The “Luddite” Lawyer Learn to Embrace Technology: eDiscovery Webcasts

Technology Assisted Review (TAR) has been court approved for nearly seven years now and other technologies and approaches have been proven to save time and money while even improving quality within the discovery process. Yet, many lawyers still have yet to embrace these new technologies and approaches. Why, and what needs to happen to change things?  Here’s a webcast that will take a look at what needs to happen to help the “Luddite” legal professional learn to embrace technology.

Wednesday, November 28th at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast The “Luddite” Lawyer: Will Lawyers Ever Embrace Technology?. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss a lawyer’s ethical duty to understand technology, how to address today’s challenges and embrace approaches for addressing those technologies, pertinent case law regarding the use of technology and resources for more information. Topics include:

  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Understanding Technology
  • Addressing Discovery of Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Understanding the Goals for Retrieving Responsive ESI
  • Considerations and Challenges for Using Technology Assisted Review
  • Considerations for Form of Production
  • Key Case Law Related to Technology Challenges
  • Resources for Expanding Your Technical Expertise
  • Recommendations for Becoming Technology Competent
  • Resources for More Information

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn how to become competent working with the latest technologies, this webcast is for you!

So, what do you think?  Are you a technology “Luddite” or do you work with one?  If so, please join us!  And, as always, 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.

Court Orders Defendants to Sample Disputed Documents to Help Settle Dispute: eDiscovery Case Law

In Updateme Inc. v. Axel Springer SE, No. 17-cv-05054-SI (LB) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered the defendants to review a random sample of unreviewed documents in dispute and produce any responsive documents reviewed (along with a privilege log, if applicable) and report on the number of documents and families reviewed and the rate of responsiveness within one week.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff, creator of a news-aggregator cell-phone app, claimed that the defendants “stole” their platform and released a copycat app, learned that the defendants used the code name “Ajax” to refer their product.  The defendants determined that there were 5,126 unique documents (including associated family members) within the previously collected ESI that hit on the term “Ajax”, but they had not reviewed those documents for responsiveness.  The plaintiff asked the court to order the defendants to review those documents and produce responsive documents within two weeks.

The defendants claimed that the term “Ajax” is a project name that they created to refer to the plaintiff’s threatened litigation, not the product itself and claimed that “a sampling of the `Ajax’ documents confirms that, in every responsive document, the term `Ajax’ was used to refer to the dispute itself.”  But, the plaintiff cited 93 produced documents generally and two documents in particular (which the defendants were attempting to clawback as privileged) that referred to their product.  However, the defendants also claimed that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to review the “Ajax” documents at this stage of the litigation and also argued that the term “Ajax” was not included in the ESI Protocol that the parties agreed upon months ago and should not be added at this late stage.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Beeler observed this: “Whether ‘Ajax’ refers to Updateme or only the defendants’ dispute with Updateme is in some sense a distinction without a difference. Either way, the search term ‘Ajax’ is likely to return documents that are responsive to Updateme’s request for “[a]ll communications . . . concerning Updateme or the updaemi® application[.]” Documents concerning the defendants’ dispute with Updateme are likely documents concerning Updateme.” 

Judge Beeler also noted that “even if ‘Ajax’ refers to the dispute, that does not mean that documents that contain ‘Ajax’ are necessarily more likely to be privileged or protected from disclosure”, using a hypothetical scenario where two non-lawyers might discuss the impact of the “Ajax” dispute on profits.  She concluded her analysis with this statement: “To the extent the defendants are suggesting that if ‘Ajax’ purportedly refers to their dispute with Updateme, ESI containing ‘Ajax’ should remain outside the scope of discovery, the court is not convinced.”

As a result, Judge Beeler ordered the defendants to “randomly select 10% of the unreviewed documents {in dispute}, review them (and their associated family members) for responsiveness, produce responsive documents (and a privilege log for any responsive documents that are withheld), and provide a chart listing the number of documents and families reviewed and the rate of responsiveness” within one week.  Judge Beeler stated that the parties should then meet and confer if they continued to have disputes regarding these documents.

So, what do you think?  Should random sampling be used more to settle proportionality disputes or should it be a last resort?  Please let us know if 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.

Results of the Microsoft Office 365 eDiscovery Challenge Survey: eDiscovery Trends

Remember the Microsoft Office 365 eDiscovery Challenge Survey that Tom O’Connor and Don Swanson were conducting?  The results are in!

The results were published on Bob Ambrogi’s LawSites blog last week.  The survey was conducted over seven weeks using both an online SurveyMonkey tool and telephone interviews. Tom and Don received a total of 75 survey responses from corporations, government agencies and law firms, with the estimated breakdown of respondents mostly being from corporate legal (69 percent of the total respondents).  Law firms were a distant second at 20 percent, followed by government respondents at 10 percent.  Vendors constituted just 1 percent of the responses.  1 percent!

Of all respondents, approximately 30 percent were attorneys. The remainder were litigation support professionals, paralegals and IT staff.

As for the questions, here are some notable results:

What was your first reaction to Microsoft offering eDiscovery features within Office 365?: Nearly two-thirds of respondents said their initial reaction was either very positive and promising (37 percent), or somewhat positive (29 percent).  Thirteen percent of respondents did not know that O365 offered eDiscovery functionality.

Does your organization run Microsoft Office 365? Version?: Just over 3/4 of respondents said they were running O365, with version E3 (G3) the leader at 32 percent.  22 percent did not know what version they use.  Only 7 percent had no plans to move to O365.

Which EDRM activities can be/have been performed within Office 365 eDiscovery? (check all that apply): Generally, the phases on the left side of the EDRM model were considered to be the most likely to be performed within O365, with Preservation the leader at 73 percent, closely followed by Identification at 72 percent.  However, only 46 percent and 41 percent of respondents (respectively) had actually used it in those phases.  40 percent of respondents had never used any of O365’s eDiscovery capabilities.

Are Microsoft Office 365’s eDiscovery features helpful?: Over 4 out of 5 respondents indicated that they would definitely need (53 percent) or probably need (29 percent) O365’s eDiscovery capabilities.  Only two percent of respondents indicated that they probably don’t need or definitely don’t need O365’s eDiscovery capabilities (1 percent each).

Click here for a complete set of results on Bob’s blog.  In early 2019, Tom and Don will be publishing their findings and observations.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of the finding?  As always, 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.

Court Rules on Dispute over Native File Format Production and Metadata: eDiscovery Case Law

In Metlife Inv’rs. USA Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, No. 2:16-CV-97 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 25, 2018), Indiana Magistrate Judge John E. Martin granted the motion of the defendants/counter plaintiffs (defendants) to compel the plaintiff/counter-defendant (plaintiff) to produce all responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business (i.e., native files with metadata) and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff sought rescission of a life insurance policy issued to one of the defendants based on her alleged misrepresentations during the application process.  Throughout written discovery, the plaintiff generally produced documents in non-searchable PDF format, which it claimed is the “most usable format” appropriate for the information. The defendants repeatedly objected, arguing that the plaintiff was obligated to produce the documents as they are maintained in the normal course of business, i.e., in their “native” format.

The defendants identified several electronic platforms in which the plaintiff kept its documents in the usual course of business, but the plaintiff indicated that the additional data that the defendants would receive from production in native format was irrelevant, and claimed that it was not obliged to produce it, leading to the defendants’ motion.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “MetLife concedes that the method in which it produced the documents is not how they are kept ‘in the usual course of business,’ as required by Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)” and that MetLife “cites no authority showing that this satisfies its obligations under Rule 34”, Judge Martin also stated that “MetLife’s production was not consistent with what the parties discussed at the beginning of discovery. On July 28, 2016, the parties filed their Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting, which stated: ‘The parties anticipate making a preliminary production of ESI by hard copy…All ESI produced electronically will be produced in native format to the extent possible.” (emphasis added). After MetLife made its initial production in response to Defendants’ first requests for production, Defendants objected to the format of the documents, but MetLife apparently ignored the objections and continued to produce in PDF format.”

Judge Martin also stated: “MetLife says that production in native format would not yield relevant information, because in its view the ‘only remaining issue’ in the case is whether it had a duty to investigate the information in the policy application prior to issuing it. However, MetLife has not shown that the requests fall outside of the legitimate scope of discovery… If the Court were to apply this standard, information about who accessed the application information – which might be visible in native form – could be relevant to whether that person should have investigated further.”

As a result, Judge Martin granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce all responsive documents in native format and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.  However, Judge Martin also said this:

“Finally, although Defendants are entitled to the previously produced documents in native form, the Court clarifies that they are not entitled to all metadata. Some of Defendants’ filings could be interpreted to argue that Defendants are entitled to all metadata related to the documents previously produced. In general, metadata must be specifically requested in advance, and Defendants did not do that…While production in native format will inevitably result in the exchange of some metadata, Defendants are not entitled to all metadata generally, except to the extent it appears with the documents as kept in the usual course of business.”

Hmmm…

So, what do you think?  Should metadata be requested in advance or does the request for “responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business” assume the inclusion of metadata (assuming that involves production of native format documents)?  Please let us know if 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.

It’s Fall! Has eDiscovery Business Confidence Fallen?: eDiscovery Trends

The Complex Discovery eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is in the last quarter of its third year and the results are in for the Fall 2018 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey!  As was the case for the 2016 Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall surveys, the 2017 Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall surveys and the 2018 Winter, Spring and Summer surveys, the results for the Fall survey are published on Rob Robinson’s terrific Complex Discovery site.  How confident are individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem in the business of eDiscovery?  Let’s see.

As always, Rob provides a complete breakdown of the latest survey results, which you can check out here.  As I’ve done for the past few surveys, I will provide some analysis and, this year, I’ll take a look at all surveys conducted to look at trends over time.  So, this time, I will look at the results for all twelve surveys to date.

The Fall 2018 Survey response period was initiated in early October and continued until registration of 85 responses by the beginning of this week.  As Rob notes, this limiting of responders to 85 individuals is a change from previous surveys and reflective of an adjusted survey participant listing based on GDPR implementation by Complex Discovery and sensitivity to the increasing number of industry surveys.

As Usual, Providers are the Largest Group of Responses: Software and/or Services Provider respondents stayed on top, accounting for 37.6% of all respondents.  Law Firm respondents were close behind at 35.3% and Consultancy respondents were again third at 17.6%.  So, once again, if you count law firms as providers (they’re technically both providers and consumers), this is a very provider heavy survey with 90.6% of total respondents.  Here’s a graphical representation of the trend over the twelve surveys to date:

Not surprisingly, this is another provider heavy survey.  So, how confident are providers in eDiscovery business confidence?  See below.

Over 62 Percent of Respondents Consider Business to Be Good: Now that’s a bounce back!  This time, 62.4% of respondents considered business to be good, over 9% (9.2%, to be exact) more than the 53% we had last quarter.  And, 7.4% more than last Fall (55%).  Only 3.5% of respondents rated business conditions as bad, a record low!  Last Fall, it was 5.5% higher (9%).  So, current business conditions appear to be strong, based on the respondents’ results.  Here is the trend over the twelve surveys to date:

So, how good do respondents expect business to be in six months?  See below.

However, Revenue and Profit Expectations Are Mixed: While nearly all respondents (96.5%) expect business conditions will be in their segment to be the same or better six months from now (one percentage point better than last quarter’s 95.5%), but the percentage expecting business to be better dropped to 44.7%.  Revenue (at combined 94.1% for the same or better) is 1.7 points higher than the last quarter.  Profit expectations (combined 87.1%) dropped nearly a point from last quarter, but with those expecting higher profits dropping another 4.3 points from last quarter (which was already a 7.5 point drop from the previous quarter).  And, the percentage of those expecting higher profits is lower than than either of the last two years during the Fall.  Here is the profits trend over the twelve surveys to date:

Still, the overall profit sentiment average is stronger than the past two years, for what that’s worth.

Increasing Types of Data Considered to Be Most Impactful to eDiscovery Business: For only the second time, Increasing Types of Data was top impactful factor to the business of eDiscovery at 20%.  Increasing Volumes of Data was second at 18.8%, followed by Lack of Personnel at 17.6% and then Data Security at 15.3%.  Amazingly, Budgetary Constraints and Inadequate Technology brought up the rear at 14.1% (which was the lowest ever result for Budgetary Constraints by far – and it’s budget season!).  The graph below illustrates the distribution over the twelve surveys to date:

With all of the emphasis on various data sources, it’s not surprising that increasing types of data is trending upward over the past few quarters.

Executive Leadership is still, um, the Leader: The Executive Leadership respondents were on top again at 41.2%. Operational Management respondents were second at 30.6% and Tactical Execution respondents brought up the rear at 28.2% (still higher than last time).  Here’s the breakdown over the twelve surveys to date:

The variance in distribution continues each quarter, demonstrating that it’s not the same people giving the same answers each time.

Again, Rob has published the results on his site here, which shows responses to additional questions not referenced here (including three brand new questions asked for the first time!).  Check them out.

So, what do you think?  What’s your state of confidence in the business of 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.