Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Three Ways that eDiscovery is Safer in the Cloud: eDiscovery Trends

I missed this article when it was published a couple of weeks ago (and have actually presented in a CLE program with the author since), but it still seems timely to cover especially in light of our post on Monday regarding lawyers’ use of the cloud and their concerns about security…

In the article 3 Ways E-Discovery is Safer in the Cloud than On-Premise, David Greetham discusses how, often, cloud service providers have stronger security options than those at law firms.  He notes three reasons in particular as to why that is the case:

  1. Sophisticated encryption: The ability for providers to encrypt data at rest (i.e., in storage), in transit and intra-application (i.e., moving data from one application to another) is something that most firms don’t provide.  As David notes, this means that they not only protect sensitive business data, but also ensure compliance with HIPAA, HITEC and other regulations designed to protect personally identifiable information (PII).
  2. Security experts on staff: Cloud service providers employ a sizeable team of security experts which proactively monitor their cloud environment 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  3. First access to emerging technologies: The cloud is where emerging technologies will be implemented first, because that’s where more and more data is being stored and processed.

David states that “Many firms have the mistaken impression that their data is safest where they can ‘touch’ it and are hesitant to move it from on-premise to the cloud (which conjures up images of data freely floating through the air). Yet, law firms aren’t actually that confident about their own security. In the 2016 ILTA/Inside Legal Technology Purchasing Study, 67 percent identified security management as their top IT challenge. Meanwhile, professional cloud services providers are offering an alternative approach, in which they promote increased security services around e-discovery.”

From a business standpoint, the cloud model simply makes sense, both for providers and consumers.  Providers are able to provide state of the art security because multiple clients pay for it, which is the same reason that it also makes sense for consumers – the ability to afford a secure, state of the art infrastructure without having to foot the entire bill.  It amazes me that more lawyers aren’t open to the possibility of the cloud.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that cloud solutions are more secure than on-premise solutions?  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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Defendant Sanctioned for Failing to Preserve Text Messages and Failing to Produce Native Format Data: eDiscovery Case Law

In First Financial Security, Inc. v. Freedom Equity Group, LLC, No. 15-1893 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2016), California Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued permissive adverse inference instruction sanctions against the defendant for deleting relevant text messages “with the intent to deprive” the plaintiff of the use of those text messages and for failing to produce native-format data that it was repeatedly ordered to produce.  Judge Lloyd declined to sanction the defendant for spoliation of phone records or employment applications.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for intentional interference with contract and related violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), alleging the defendant induced approximately 1,400 sales contractors to leave the plaintiff and join the defendant “en masse”.  The parties filed a Discovery Dispute Joint Report after the defendant had “concededly” failed to produce requested discovery materials, including: (1) text messages possessed by defendant principals; (2) employment applications submitted by former plaintiff contractors; (3) native-format copies of digital data related to the circumstances in which the defendant hired the former plaintiff contractors; and (4) phone records. The court, based on the defendant’s conceded failure to comply with its discovery obligations and absent any substantive opposition, ordered the defendant to produce the discovery materials requested.

After the defendant still failed to produce all of the above, the plaintiff filed its sanctions motion.  The defendant conceded in its opposition brief that the texts “were deleted”, but argued that these texts were “innocently” deleted by people who did not understand their discovery obligations. The defendant also asserted: (1) the phone records were deleted by the phone company because those records “are kept only for a year”; (2) there is no native-format data to produce, because the data “is a data base” that can be reviewed through “a query”; and (3) the defendant never possessed any employment applications, because the information in any given employment application is digitally submitted directly to a “data base” and no application document is separately retained.

After oral arguments where the defendant conceded it produced a physical spreadsheet instead of producing native-format copies of the underlying data; the court ordered the defendant to produce, instead, the native-format data.  In response, the defendant issued a declaration stating that it did not have possession of the data because it relied upon third party software service providers to receive and store the data, that it has changed providers and the original provider had no obligation to turn over the data without a court order.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Lloyd, ruling that the duty to preserve evidence arose no later than January of 2014 (when the defendant warned its employees that there would be a lawsuit), was “persuaded that FEG had an obligation to preserve text messages in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, that FEG took no reasonable steps to preserve text messages,…that those messages cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery and that FEG’s agents acted with the intent to deprive FFS of the use of the deleted text messages.”

Also, noting that “[t]he court twice ordered FEG to produce the native-format data sought by FFS”, Judge Lloyd determined that “FEG has misled and prejudiced FFS in the course of FFS’s attempts to discover native-format copies of electronically stored data” relating to the case, further noting that the defendant had raised the claim that it lacks possession, custody, and control of the data “far too late.”

As a result of the deletion of text messages and the failure to produce the native-format data, Judge Lloyd issued permissive adverse inference instruction sanctions against the defendant, “because mandatory inferences are not necessary to remedy the prejudice FFS has suffered.”  Judge Lloyd declined to issue sanctions with respect to the phone records and the employment applications, failing to find intent to deprive for the former and finding that actual documents were not created in the latter.

So, what do you think?  Was a permissive adverse inference instruction a severe enough sanction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

If you’re in Houston, don’t forget that tonight is “Drinks with Doug” at The Tasting Room – CityCentre.  Click here to find out how to RSVP.  Hope to see you there!

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.

Do Lawyers Actually Realize When They’re Using the Cloud?: eDiscovery Trends

In his LawSites blog last week, Bob Ambrogi reported on results from the 2016 Legal Technology Survey Report by the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center.  One of the more notable statistics from the report is that just 38 percent of lawyers use cloud computing for law-related tasks.  But, is that really true?

In the report, 53 percent of lawyers say they have not used cloud computing and 10 percent do not know whether they have or not, according to the survey, which the LTRC conducts annually.

Bob goes on to report that of the lawyers who say they do not use cloud computing, 7 percent say they plan to use the cloud within the next 12 months, 3 percent say they plan to within the next two years, 17 percent say they will use it “sometime in future,” and 42 percent say they do not plan ever to use it.

When lawyers who do not use the cloud were asked why, the top reason they gave was “Confidentiality/security concerns at 63 percent.”  But, in-house solutions may not necessarily be more secure. Earlier this year, I covered an article by Daniel Garrie and Yoav M. Griver of Zeichner, Ellman & Krause, who made several observations, including this one:

“Almost every e-discovery platform in the marketplace today requires some sort of connectivity to the Internet to obtain software updates, be it for the platform or the solution operating the platform. Consequently, law firms that elect to avoid cloud-driven solutions with the intention of offering clients greater security may not actually be providing greater security. Odds are that your security isn’t bulletproof, you don’t have 100 percent systems uptime, and you may not have the necessary amount of staff resources dedicated to IT management.”

Anyway, back to the idea of lawyers not using the cloud.  Are that many really not using the cloud?

Bob raised doubts about that himself a couple of days later, referencing a 2012 Citrix survey on cloud computing in which 54 percent of Americans claimed never to have used cloud computing, when, in fact, 95 percent actually did use it – for things such as banking and shopping online, social networking and file sharing.  And, that was four years ago.

So, do lawyers actually realize when they’re using the cloud?  In some cases, maybe not.  And, if they don’t know when they’re using it, do they really understand its benefits?

So, what do you think?  Do you think that most attorneys have used the cloud for law-related tasks?  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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Orders Forensic Examination of Key Custodian Computers: eDiscovery Case Law

In Davis v. Crescent Electric Company et. al., No. 12-5008 (D. S.D., Oct. 12, 2016), South Dakota District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol ruled that a non-disclosure agreement would sufficiently protect any and all confidential and/or privileged information of the defendant that may be uncovered during the forensic examination for key custodians and that the information being requested by the plaintiff was relevant and not overly broad.

Case Background

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the defendant (her former employer) in August 2015 to produce Outlook PST files from the defendant’s server, from the plaintiff’s work computer and from the defendant’s Outlook archives to learn “how Julie Skinner/Stienstra had access to Lisa A. Davis’ email in order to print them.”  The court granted the motion in April 2016, and in August 2016, the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide access to the key custodians’ computers for a forensic examination.  The defendant refused, citing concerns that “unfettered investigation” on the computers “may provide access to confidential information and privileged communications, and it is beyond the scope of the Court’s Order and the relief requested.”  That same day, counsel for the plaintiff suggested having the forensic examiner execute a non-disclosure agreement and further requested that the defendant’s internet technician contact the forensic examiner as soon as possible “so this matter can be resolved without further court intervention.”

The defendant’s technician provided only of the email data requested, indicating that was the only data he was told to provide and that any other email data would have to be requested from counsel. The plaintiff’s counsel did just that, but the defendant’s counsel refused, reiterating the position that the information was beyond the scope of the order and the data may contain confidential and privileged information. As a result, the plaintiff filed a supplemental Motion to Compel.

Judge’s Ruling

Referencing Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), Judge Piersol noted that, ultimately “[c]ourts consider the prior efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute, the relevance of the information sought, and the limits imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C) when deciding whether to grant a motion to compel.”  With regard to the plaintiff’s counsel effort to resolve the issue by offering to have the forensic examiner sign a non-disclosure agreement and the defense counsel’s refusal of that offer, Judge Piersol stated:

“First, CESCO does not explain how or why a non-disclosure agreement would not quell its fears of disclosure of confidential and/or privileged information. CESCO simply makes general claims concerning the disclosure of such information. Second, the computer that Davis seeks to examine is a business computer that is unlikely to contain any personal information. Therefore, without more of an explanation by CESCO as to what it seeks to protect and why it seeks to protect it, the Court finds that a non-disclosure agreement executed by Mr. Sevel will sufficiently protect any and all confidential and/or privileged information that may be uncovered during the forensic examination of Julie Stienstra/Julie Skinner’s computer and associated export logs.”

With regard to the relevance of the information sought, Judge Piersol noted that the plaintiff sought a forensic examination to determine the authenticity of a claimed fake email and that the plaintiff’s forensic examiner stated that “printed versions of emails, or email threads, cannot be considered to be forensically sound unless the original digital version can be examined for authenticity. In this situation, a review of the PST file containing the original emails and emails threads, with their associated metadata, is needed”.  Finding also that the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s request was overly broad to be “without merit”, Judge Piersol granted the plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for an Order to Compel with the plaintiff’s forensic examiner to execute a non-disclosure agreement prior to his examination.

So, what do you think?  Should the forensic examination have been ordered?  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.

According To This New Report, eDiscovery Market Expected to Nearly Triple in Five Years: eDiscovery Trends

According to a new market research report, the eDiscovery market is estimated to grow from $7.89 Billion (US) in 2016 to $22.62 Billion by 2021, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 23.4% from 2016 to 2021.

The report titled E-Discovery Market by Solution (Legal Hold, Early Case Assessment, Data Processing, Data Production), Service (Consulting, Implementation, Training & Support, Managed), Deployment Type (Cloud, On-premises), and Vertical – Global Forecast to 2021 is published by MarketsandMarkets (who apparently did not have a title size limit when determining the report title).

Here are a couple of notable trends in the report over the forecast period with respect to TAR and cloud adoption:

  • TAR Adoption: Technology assisted review and data production is expected to show significant adoption rate in the E-Discovery Market. Technology assisted review and data production is “gaining traction among E-Discovery solutions as these solutions empower organizations by reducing risk and saving the time and money spent on managing & reviewing large sets of documents effectively and efficiently”.
  • Managed Services Growth: The managed services segment is expected to witness the fastest CAGR during the forecast period from 2016 to 2021, owing to organizations’ focus on decreasing costs associated with E-Discovery document storage infrastructure maintenance. With the help of managed services, users become free from establishing and maintaining infrastructure, uncertainty over compliance adherence, and developing scalable and capable technologies for E-Discovery use, owing to which, this service type has the highest adoption rate.
  • Cloud Deployment: The cloud deployment type is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period; the cloud deployment type is also projected to witness the highest demand due to increased cost reduction as compared to on-premises solution deployment, as cloud E-Discovery solutions help customers to maintain a conservative legal department budget by slashing costs associated with data storage infrastructure maintenance.

As noted in the report description, the ecosystem of the E-Discovery market consists of on-premises solution providers such as IBM Corporation, FTI Technology LLC, kCura LLC, and ZyLAB; cloud solution providers such as cicayda,LLC, CloudNine, Logikcull, and Lexbe; and service providers such as Ernst & Young Global Limited, Advanced Discovery, D4 LLC, and Navigant Consulting, Inc. Stakeholders of the market include litigation service providers, legal analytics vendors & consultants, and law firms.

Click on this link here for more information about the report, including pricing and how to buy a single-user or corporate license.

So, what do you think?  Are you feeling “bullish” about the eDiscovery market?  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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Defendant Not Required to Use Predictive Coding by Court: eDiscovery Case Law

Regardless how the election turned out last night, eDiscovery case law marches on…

In the case In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation, 16-02691 (N.D. Cali., Oct. 14, 2016), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, noting that other courts had declined to force a party to use predictive coding, denied the plaintiff’s motion to force the defendant to use predictive coding instead of its preferred approach using search terms.

Case Background

In this multi-district litigation (MDL) against drug company Pfizer regarding its highly popular drug Viagra and alleged correlations to incidences of melanoma, the plaintiffs urged the Court to order the defendant to use predictive coding with the plaintiffs’ input to identify the locations of relevant information and the responsive ESI from those locations. The plaintiffs argued that TAR and/or predictive coding is a more sophisticated tool than the traditional search term or search query approach, that using that suggested approach would save time and money for both sides and indicated that they wanted representatives from both parties to participate in process of creating and working with the search process in this iterative process.

The defendant offered stiff opposition to the plaintiff’s request (sorry, I couldn’t resist) proposing instead that it use search terms to identify potentially relevant documents. The defendant described its preferred methodology as an iterative process – though not the same iterative process as TAR and/or predictive coding – where the defendant tests search terms and validates them using rigorous sampling of potentially responsive documents, verifying that the search terms yield high rates of response. In the defendant’s proposed process, the parties would exchange lists of proposed search terms and the defendant would agree to run any search terms that appeared on both parties’ lists.

The defendant pointed out that the plaintiffs did not cite to any case law in support of their proposal to require the defendant, over its objection, to use TAR and/or predictive coding. At the hearing on the matter, the plaintiffs conceded that no court has ordered a party to engage in TAR and/or predictive coding over the objection of the party.

Judge’s Ruling

Adding to the plaintiff’s concession, Judge Kim noted that “[t]he few courts that have considered this issue have all declined to compel predictive coding”.  Judge Kim cited Hyles v. New York City, stating:

“As the court reasoned in Hyles, the responding party is the one best situated to decide how to search for and produce ESI responsive to discovery requests.  The responding party ‘can use the search method of its choice. If [the propounding party] later demonstrates deficiencies in the . . . production, the [responding party] may have to re-do its search. But that is not a basis for Court intervention at this stage of the case…[I]t is not up to the Court, or the requesting party . . ., to force the . . . responding party to use TAR when it prefers to use keyword searching. While [the propounding party] may well be correct that production using keywords may not be as complete as it would be if TAR were used . . ., the standard is not perfection, or using the ‘best’ tool . . ., but whether the search results are reasonable and proportional.”

In denying the plaintiffs’ motion, Judge Kim concluded: “The Court finds Hyles well-reasoned. Even if predictive coding were a more efficient and better method, which Pfizer disputes, it is not clear on what basis the Court could compel Pfizer to use a particular form of ESI, especially in the absence of any evidence that Pfizer’s preferred method would produce, or has produced, insufficient discovery responses.”

So, what do you think?  Should a court ever require a party to use a particular method to search for and produce ESI?  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.

ELECT to Have Drinks Again With Me – On Me!: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in Houston, you have a big decision to make today.  No, not that decision!  I’m talking about whether or not to have drinks with me!  I’m buying!

*Well, technically, my boss is buying, but we won’t quibble…

After making a big “splash” back in September with our last “drinks with me” event at the ARMA Live! Conference & Expo for Records Management and Information Governance professionals (mostly because there was a torrential downpour at the start of that happy hour), we’ve decided to do it again in Houston, home of the headquarters of CloudNine.

“Drinks with Doug” is a sporadic gathering of information technology, business, and eDiscovery professionals in various cities who casually meet and discuss all things eDiscovery over a few drinks with me.

This iteration of “Drinks with Doug” will be held at The Tasting Room – CityCentre, 818 Town and Country Blvd #100, Houston, TX 77024 next Tuesday, November 15 from 6:00-8:00pm.  The Tasting Room offers a variety of exquisite wines for guests to enjoy.  It also has a special place in my heart as it’s where my wife and I spent several of our early dates when we first started dating.  :o)

Space is filling up quickly, so if you plan to be in Houston that day and would like to attend, please send your RSVP ASAP to Jessica Moore at jmoore@cloudnine.com.  To improve your chances to be included, please send the email from your work email address, not from a “gmail” or other personal account.

Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Do you like eDiscovery?  Do you like wine?  Are you in Houston?  If you answered “yes” to all three questions, then you should attend!  Regardless, 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 Where You Can View Last Week’s Webinar and More: eDiscovery Trends

Last week, I participated in a presentation, conducted by ACEDS and sponsored by CloudNine, which provided an overview of the evolution of electronic discovery technologies and also included a short demonstration of two tools within this growing category of offerings: Heureka and CloudNine.  If you missed the webinar, here is where you can still check it out.

Heureka Founder & Chairman of the Board Ron Copfer and I presented the webinar, where we illustrated the latest in discovery automation technology from data creation through defensible destruction.  Click here to view the webinar and also to download the slides.

It’s been a busy few days for me.  Thursday was the above mentioned webinar.  On Friday, I spoke at the Texas Bar CLE program eDiscovery in Your Case in Austin, participating in the luncheon presentation eDiscovery Software for Solo and Small Firms with Kathy Owen Brown of DLA Piper and Gene Albert of Lexbe.  As I noted on Friday, I wrote an article titled How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms to tie in with our session.

The article covers how we’re in the age of automation and cloud based discovery, how eDiscovery technology has evolved, takes a comparative look at Craig Ball’s small firm Edna challenge of 2009 and his reprise from earlier this year and how the emergence of cloud-based automation has given small firms much more complete solution choices than were available in 2009.  It also covers key components of a SaaS automation solution and typical pricing options for such a solution.  The end result is better options than ever before for solo and small firms looking for a full-featured eDiscovery solution that fits with their budget.

If you would like to check out the article, feel free to contact me and request a copy.  Simply send an email to me at daustin@cloudnine.com and say that you’d like a copy of the SaaS automation article that I wrote for the Texas Bar (or words to that effect) and I’ll be happy to send you a copy.  My pleasure.

Today, I’ll be participating in an interview with Sharon Nelson and John Simek on a podcast for the Digital Detectives program on the Legal Talk Network.  I’m a big fan of their program and a big fan of both Sharon and John personally (and, if you read our blog regularly, you know that Sharon’s blog Ride the Lightning is a regular source for interesting stories about cybersecurity in the legal industry).  I’m looking forward to participating and hope you all will check out the interview.

So, what do you think?  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.

How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms: eDiscovery Trends

I’m in Austin today, speaking at the Texas Bar CLE program eDiscovery in Your Case.  I’m excited to be included in the program, participating in the luncheon presentation eDiscovery Software for Solo and Small Firms with Kathy Owen Brown of DLA Piper and Gene Albert of Lexbe!

As a precursor to the session, the Texas Bar asked that we write an article for the session (and by “asked”, I mean that they told us that articles are mandatory for each session) and they suggested that the article be 10-30 pages in length.  So, because I don’t write enough (apparently), I accepted the challenge and wrote an article titled How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms to tie in (nicely, I hope) with the session we’re presenting.

The article covers how we’re in the age of automation and cloud based discovery, how eDiscovery technology has evolved, takes a comparative look at Craig Ball’s small firm Edna challenge of 2009 and his reprise from earlier this year and how the emergence of cloud-based automation has given small firms much more complete solution choices than were available in 2009.  It also covers key components of a SaaS automation solution and typical pricing options for such a solution.  The end result is better options than ever before for solo and small firms looking for a full-featured eDiscovery solution that fits with their budget.

The 15 page article (right in the middle of the suggested range – no need to show off, right?) will be provided to the attendees of today’s CLE, but if you would like to check it out, feel free to contact me and request a copy.  Simply send an email to me at daustin@cloudnine.com and say that you’d like a copy of the SaaS automation article that I wrote for the Texas Bar (or words to that effect) and I’ll be happy to send you a copy!  Enjoy!

So, what do you think?  Do you think that solo and small firms have better choices for eDiscovery solutions than before?  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.

Join Us for Today’s Webinar – Simplified eDiscovery Automation: From Evolution to Revolution!

As we mentioned last week, we’re presenting a webinar today at 1pm ET.  Come join us!

Today’s presentation, conducted by ACEDS, will provide an overview of the evolution of electronic discovery technologies and also share with attendees ways that they can consider and compare technology offerings from the large ecosystem of providers supporting litigation, investigations, and audits. This webinar will also include an overview of the attributes of fourth generation eDiscovery automation technology as well as a short demonstration of two tools within this growing category of offerings: Heureka and CloudNine.

Heureka Founder & Chairman of the Board Ron Copfer and I will be presenting today’s webinar, where we will differentiate data discovery from legal discovery and illustrate the latest in discovery automation technology from data creation through defensible destruction.  Click here to register for the webinar!

So, what do you think?  How do you choose your eDiscovery technology solution?  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.