Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Here’s a Chance to Learn How Recent eDiscovery Case Law Has Affected Your Organization: eDiscovery Trends

The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that truer than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?

On Wednesday, July 26 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017.  This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog related to eDiscovery for the first half of 2017, what the legal profession can learn from those rulings and whether any of the decisions run counter to expectations set by Federal and State rules for civil procedure. Topics include:

  • How should objections to production requests be handled?
  • Are you required to produce subpoenaed data stored internationally?
  • Should there be a limit to fees assessed for discovery misconduct?
  • When is data stored by a third party considered to be within your control?
  • Should courts dictate search terms to parties?
  • How can you make an effective proportionality argument to address burdensome requests?
  • Can the requesting party dictate the form of production?
  • Does storing data on a file share site waive privilege?
  • If data is intentionally deleted, should Rule 37(e) apply?
  • Is circumstantial evidence of intentional spoliation good enough to warrant sanctions?
  • Should keyword search be performed before Technology-Assisted Review?

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Julia Romero Peter, General Counsel and VP of Sales at CloudNine AND Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services for CloudNine.  To register for the webcast, click here.

Also, if you’re going to be in Houston on July 20, Women in eDiscovery (WiE) Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law, will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  I will be participating as a panelist on the “State of the Industry” panel and my colleague, Karen, will be moderating the “Legal Operations and Litigation Support” panel.  Click here for more information about the conference, including how to register!

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  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.

Sure, No Keyword Before TAR, But What About Keyword Instead of TAR?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Last month, we discussed whether to perform keyword search culling before performing Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and, like many have concluded before (even a judge in FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc.), we agree that you shouldn’t perform keyword search culling before TAR.  But, should TAR be performed instead of keyword search – in all cases?  Is TAR always preferable to keyword search?

I was asked that question earlier this week by a colleague, so I thought I would relay what I essentially told him.

Many attorneys that I have observed over the years have typically tried to approach keyword search this way: 1) Identify a bunch of potentially responsive terms, 2) string them together with OR operators in between (i.e., {term 1} OR {term 2}, etc.), 3) run the search, 4) add family members (emails and attachments linked to the files with hits) to the results, and 5) begin review.

If that’s the keyword search methodology you plan to use, then, yes, a sound TAR approach is preferable to that approach pretty much every time.  Sure, proportionality concerns can affect the decision, but I would recommend a sound approach over an unsound approach every time.  Unfortunately, that’s the approach a lot of attorneys still use when it comes to keyword search.

However, it’s important to remember that the “A” in TAR stands for “Assisted” and that TAR is not just about the technology, it’s as much about the process that accompanies the technology.  A bad approach to using TAR will generally lead to bad results with the technology, or at least inefficient results.  “Good TAR” includes a sound process for identifying training candidates for the software, reviewing those candidates and repeating the process iteratively until the collection has been classified at a level that’s appropriate to meet the needs of the case.

What about keyword search?  “Good keyword search” also includes a sound process for identifying potentially responsive terms, using various mechanisms to refine those terms (which can include variations, at an appropriate level, that can also be responsive), performing a search for each term, testing the result set (to determine if the term is precise enough and not overbroad) and testing what was not retrieved (to determine what, if anything, might have been missed).  We covered some useful resources for testing and sampling earlier this week here.

Speaking of this week, apparently, this is my week for the “wayback machine” on this blog.  In early 2011, I described a defensible search approach for keyword search for which I created an acronym – “STARR”.  Not Ringo or Bart, but Search, Test, Analyze, Revise (if necessary), Repeat (the first four steps until precision and recall is properly balanced).  While you might think that “STARR” sounds a lot like “TAR”, I coined my acronym for the keyword search approach well before the TAR acronym became popular (just sayin’).

Regardless whether you use STARR or TAR, the key is a sound approach.  Keyword search, if you’re using a sound approach in performing it, can still be an appropriate choice for many cases and document collections.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that keyword search still has a place in eDiscovery?  If not, why not?  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 Declines to Impose Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Web History: eDiscovery Case Law

In Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017), North Carolina Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., among other rulings, denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting a jury instruction in response to the defendant’s failure to preserve certain internet web browser and search histories, concluding that the plaintiff “is not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1)” and that the plaintiff “is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2).”

Case Background

In this case involving alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff in an investor presentation, two weeks after the complaint was filed in February 2016, the defendant issued an internal litigation hold notice related to the plaintiff’s claims in this case which defined documents to include electronically-stored information and advised employees to err on the side of preservation if there was a question as to whether material qualified as documents, but did not explicitly reference internet browser histories, internet search histories, or internet sites visited.  In May 2016, approximately 120 days after the publication of the investor presentation, counsel for the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant’s counsel requesting that the defendant preserve, among other things, the “web browser histories” of individuals involved in the drafting of the January 7, 2016 presentation.  The plaintiff reiterated that request in its document requests in June 2016.

Counsel for the defendant responded that the defendant uses Google Chrome as an internet browser, which deletes web browser history after 90 days, and accordingly, the web browser history information sought in the discovery requests no longer existed and did not exist at the time of the May letter, leading to the motion filed by the plaintiff seeking “a jury instruction to mitigate the harm caused by the defendant’s failure to preserve electronically stored information.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Jones initially observed that “while the plaintiff states that he seeks a jury instruction to mitigate the harm caused by the defendant’s failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”), the plaintiff does not define the particular instruction sought.”  Considering Rule 37(e)(1) and Rule 37(e)(2), Judge Jones determined the following:

Observing that “the plaintiff has not established one of the threshold elements of Rule 37(e)—namely, that the lost ESI ‘cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. . . .’”, Judge Jones stated that “other avenues of discovery are likely to reveal information about the searches performed in advance of the investor presentation. For example, the plaintiff could seek information about the internet searches performed by the individuals who prepared the investor presentation through deposition testimony.”  Judge Jones also stated that “the plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice to support relief under Rule 37(e)(1). In order to impose a sanction under Rule 37(e)(1), the court must have some evidence regarding the particular nature of the missing ESI in order to evaluate the prejudice it is being requested to mitigate.”  As a result, Judge Jones determined that “the plaintiff is not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1).”

Judge Jones also ruled that “the plaintiff has also failed to show that the defendant acted with the requisite intent to deprive him of the ESI in order to support the imposition of an adverse jury instruction under Rule 37(e)(2),” noting that “[a]t most, the circumstances indicate the ESI was lost due to the defendant’s negligence, but do not suggest the presence of intentional conduct. Negligence, however, will not support an award of sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2).”  As a result, Judge Jones determined that “the plaintiff is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2).”

So, what do you think?  Should internet histories be a standard form of ESI to be preserved in litigation?  Or does it depend on the case?  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

With Ample Evidence of Bad Faith, Court Sanctions Defendant for Failure to Produce Documents: eDiscovery Case Law

In CrossFit, Inc. v. Nat’l Strength and Conditioning Assn., No. 14cv1191 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017), California District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the plaintiff’s motion for several issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions, but denied the plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions due to the defendant’s bad faith that resulted in the defendant’s failure to produce documents.

Case Background

In this case between competing fitness training organizations where the plaintiff argued that the defendant published a false study regarding the plaintiff’s program and injury rates of its participants, the defendant filed a separate suit in state court against the plaintiff alleging trade libel, defamation, and unfair business practices.  The plaintiff received discovery during the state-court action that appeared to either directly respond to discovery or contradict assertions the defendant deponents had made in this case. The plaintiff then deposed the defendant’s Education Coordinator in the state-court case, during which he admitted that several of the statements in his federal-action declaration, submitted under penalty of perjury, were false.  The plaintiff then “ran several controlled searches in the state-court production” which “yielded hundreds of documents material to the issues in this action and that the defendant should have produced in response to the plaintiff’s discovery requests in this case.

Given that pretrial proceedings were only several weeks away at the time the plaintiff discovered these documents, the plaintiff simultaneously moved to continue the pretrial proceedings and for sanctions against the defendant, including terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Sammartino, indicating that the documents withheld “are too numerous to comprehensively catalog”, provided several examples in her order, including various emails, a 2013 executive summary and “[d]ocuments that affirmatively demonstrate Mr. Clayton’s perjury”.  Judge Sammartino indicated that Rule 37 “authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions” and that district courts have inherent power to “impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal… However, because dismissal is such a severe remedy it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, and “only where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.’”

Detailing several of the defendant’s transgressions, Judge Sammartino stated that “the Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is ample evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or fault.”  Judge Sammartino also noted that “nearly every factor weighs in favor of imposing terminating sanctions” and concluded that the Court “is well within its discretion to award terminating sanctions”, but declined to do so, opting for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions instead.  However, before even getting to those, Judge Sammartino awarded these sanctions to address concerns regarding whether the defendant had produced all relevant documents:

“(1) Plaintiff SHALL commission a neutral forensic analysis of the the defendant’s servers and Defendant SHALL pay all costs relating to such forensic analysis;

(2) Defendant SHALL within fourteen days, under penalty of perjury, acquire declarations from all relevant the defendant personnel either (a) assuring or reaffirming that no documents relevant to this litigation have been destroyed or (b) admitting to any destruction;

(3) If at the conclusion of the neutral forensic evaluation it appears that documents have been destroyed, or that the discovery misconduct is substantially greater than the scope of which Plaintiff is currently aware, Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO RENEW its Motion for Terminating Sanctions and present the newly discovered evidence; and

(4) Defendant SHALL LODGE within fourteen days a copy of the document referenced in Plaintiff’s Sanction Motion Exhibit A so that the Court may conduct an in camera review of the document. Additionally, Plaintiff SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to the neutral forensic analyst so that she may search for other instances of the document referenced in Exhibit A—or its deletion—and any surrounding context.”

The plaintiff supplied a list of thirty potential issue and adverse inference sanctions and Judge Sammartino awarded 17 of them in her order.  In addition, Judge Sammartino, while deducting some costs, awarded $73,550.83 in fees to the plaintiff in connection with its Sanctions Motion and ex parte Continuance.

So, what do you think?  Should the judge have gone ahead and ordered terminating sanctions based on the defendant’s actions to date?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts on Wednesday, July 5.  Happy Independence Day!

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.

For Those in Houston, Here’s a Terrific Conference Coming Up From WiE: eDiscovery Trends

Whee!  If you’re in Houston or will be on July 20 (three weeks from today), the Women in eDiscovery (WiE), Houston Chapter in partnership with South Texas College of Law will be hosting an all-day eDiscovery conference you can check out.  Even better, it’s free to attend!

On that day, WiE Houston will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  The one-day event brings together legal thought leadership, innovative technology providers, practitioners, legal support staff and law school students and will be open to anyone with interest in checking out some of the available eDiscovery technology solutions available and hearing some interesting discussions regarding a variety of eDiscovery topics.

The conference will feature a keynote address by Casey Flaherty, former in-house counsel at Kia Motors and creator of the service Delivery Review.  Additional panel sessions will be held on the following topics (schedule included below):

  • State of the Industry: Data and insight from industry leaders on the latest trends and advances in technology.
  • Legal Operations and Litigation Support: Global perspectives from corporate legal and law firms.
  • How the Internet Of Things (IOT) Impacts Forensics and Data Collection: The developing scope of data collection and intersection of technology.

The total course curriculum has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 3.5 credit hours.  So, it’s free AND you get CLE credit, to boot.  And, the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS) is giving away a $2,000 scholarship, so you could earn CEDS certification for free!

CloudNine is one of several sponsors of the event and I’m delighted to be participating in the “State of the Industry” panel, along with Lana Schell from ONE Discovery (who will be moderating), Michele Lange of KrolLDiscovery, Lynn Frances Jae of iCONECT and Richard Dilgren of Fronteo.  My CloudNine colleague, Karen DeSouza (a WiE member herself) will be moderating the second panel session, with Blaine Edwards of Superior Energy Services, Gail Foster of Baker Botts, LaTonya Warner of Waste Management and Thom Wisinski of Haynes and Boone.  The third panel will be moderated by Scott Zimmerman of Haynes and Boone, with Paul Price of Beyond IT, Sheryl Falk of Winston & Strawn and David Greetham of Ricoh USA.  Quite a knowledgeable collection of speakers!

In between sessions and the keynote, there will be exhibit hall time to check out the exhibitors and their offerings.  And, there is a happy hour in the evening, as well, to network with the folks who attend.

Attendance is limited, so you’ll want to register sooner rather than later to make sure you can get in.  Here is the link to the site for more information and to register for the event.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Houston on July 20?  Then, come join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Today’s the Day to Learn Why There Has Never Been a Better Time to Embrace eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

State of the art eDiscovery technology used to be only available to the largest law firms and corporations. Smaller firms and organizations were essentially priced out of the market and couldn’t afford the solutions that could be used by the “big boys” to manage their discovery workloads. Thankfully, times have changed – thanks to cloud-based, software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) automated solutions that have made full-featured eDiscovery solutions affordable for even small and solo firms.  Today, you have an opportunity to find out how to take advantage of that.

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms.  This one-hour webcast will discuss how SaaS automation technology has revolutionized eDiscovery for solo and small firms today and why there has never been a better time for those firms to embrace eDiscovery.  Examples of topics being discussed include:

  • How Automation and the Cloud is Affecting All Industries, including eDiscovery
  • Drivers for the eDiscovery Automation Revolution
  • The Impact of Automation and the Cloud on the Lawyer Job Market
  • The Evolution of eDiscovery Technology
  • Whip Me, Beat Me, Call Me EDna: Two Challenges, Seven Years Apart
  • Key Components of a SaaS eDiscovery Automation Solution
  • Cost Alternatives for SaaS eDiscovery Automation Solutions
  • Can Automation Really Disrupt the eDiscovery Industry?

I’ll be presenting today’s webcast, along with Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services at CloudNine, and we will discuss why there has never been a better time for small firms to embrace eDiscovery, as well as how to simplify discovery for any firm or organization.  To register for today’s webcast, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you a small firm struggling to get control of eDiscovery, at a price your firm can afford?  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.

Anthem Agrees to Pay Over $100 Million to Settle Data Breach Lawsuit: Cybersecurity Trends

One of the most notable data breaches in recent years was the one suffered by health insurer Anthem involving the personal information of nearly 80 million individuals.  It looks like they are going to pay up big to make the class-action lawsuit that was filed in response to that massive data breach go away.

MedCity News (Anthem to pay record $115 million to settle data breach lawsuit, by Erin Dietsche), reports that the settlement must still be approved by a court, but if it is, it will stand as the biggest data breach settlement in history.

Back in 2015, the Indianapolis, Indiana-based insurer was the victim of a cyberattack that involved the Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses and healthcare ID numbers of 78.8 million people. At that time, Anthem said in a statement, it provided two years of credit monitoring and identity protection services to all impacted individuals.

Nonetheless, more than 100 lawsuits were filed against Anthem that were eventually consolidated.

As part of the $115 million settlement, Anthem will give data breach victims at least two years of credit monitoring and provide cash compensation for individuals who already enrolled in credit monitoring. The health insurer will also cover the out-of-pocket expenses victims have incurred as a result of the data breach.

On top of that, Anthem has to allocate a certain amount of money for security purposes and make specific changes to its data security systems.

In a statement, the insurer said the settlement “does not include any finding of wrongdoing.” Anthem added that it “is not admitting any wrongdoing or that any individuals were harmed as a result of the cyberattack.”

Anthem continued: “Nevertheless, we are pleased to be putting this litigation behind us, and to be providing additional substantial benefits to individuals whose data was or may have been involved in the cyberattack and who will now be members of the settlement class.”

In a related article by the same author, it appears that Google has begun removing people’s private medical records from its Search results.  Maybe it will soon be more difficult to find (intentionally or inadvertently) someone’s medical records online.

So, what do you think?  Is this the start of a trend?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check tomorrow’s webcast!

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

Legal Right Supersedes Physical Possession When It Comes to Control of ESI, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law

In First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., et. al., No. 15-638 (E.D. La., May 24, 2017), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Reasonable Expenses against one of the defendants in “substantial part” with regard to interrogatories and requests for production of ESI within physical possession of the former owners of the defendant company, but denied “in limited part” with regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, because “neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court”.

Case Background

In this case regarding damages the plaintiff allegedly incurred as a result of “deficient and defective” software design, manufacture and hosting of software products for use by plaintiff in processing cash advance and check cashing at casinos, the plaintiff served discovery requests, including document requests upon one defendant – Smart Business Technology, Inc. (Smart).  After determining Smart’s responses and objections to be lacking, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses to obtain additional responses to certain interrogatories and certain document requests.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Wilkinson granted the motion with regard to the plaintiff’s Interrogatories, overruling all objections and stating that “defendant has offered nothing sufficient to support or establish its objections on grounds of disproportionality and undue burden and expense outweighing the likely benefit of this highly relevant discovery.”

With regard to the defendant’s objections to producing requested ESI because it “does not have possession of the requested data” because it “is no longer a going concern” and, upon its business demise, the materials “remained in the hands of [its] former owners and top officers, co-defendants Fuente and Romero”, Judge Wilkinson stated that “[t]his argument is unpersuasive for two reasons… First, because defendant did not assert this argument in its Rule 34(b) written responses, the objection has been waived… Second, a party’s obligation to produce materials in the Rule 34 production and inspection process extends beyond mere possession. Defendant’s obligation is to produce such materials or electronically stored information (“ESI”) that are within its possession, custody or control…Rule 34’s definition of possession, custody, or control, includes more than actual possession or control of [documents]; it also contemplates a party’s legal right or practical ability to obtain [documents] from a [non-party] to the action.”

With regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, Judge Wilkinson stated that the “motion is denied, at least at this time”, noting that “[u]nlike the discovery that is the subject of the interrogatories and requests for production addressed above, neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court.”

So, what do you think?  What does “possession, custody or control” mean to you?  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.

We Get By With a Little Help From Our Friends: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in or near my age bracket, you probably remember the similarly titled song by The Beatles (though I actually like the Joe Cocker version better – a rare Beatles re-make that could be argued to be better than the original).  Feel free to debate me on that – after you’ve watched his Woodstock rendition.  Anyway, for any provider working in eDiscovery today (whether law firm or eDiscovery software/service provider), there are instances where working with a partner just makes sense.

The LegalTech News article (Partnering for Success: The Role of the Partnership in Legal Tech, written by Gabrielle Orum Hernández, free subscription required), profiles the expansion of CloudNine’s partner program with our recently announced Alliance Partner Program expansion.  The program allows qualified and approved organizations to enrich the business value and technology competitiveness of their eDiscovery solutions through the integration, referral, and resell of CloudNine software and services.

CloudNine CEO Brad Jenkins told Legaltech News that the partner program is an attempt to leverage some of the strong loyalties and connections that exist within the legal sphere by essentially paying to develop relationships. “Probably the biggest reason [for the partner program expansion] is we have found that in this industry it very much falls into relationship-selling a lot of times,” he said.

The CloudNine Alliance Partner Program consists of three categories of partners:

  1. Technology Partners: Data and legal discovery developers who work with CloudNine to develop, integrate, and deploy solutions leveraging CloudNine technology. The business benefit for technology partners is the extension of their capability to access new customers and new markets.
  2. Referral Partners: Data and legal discovery consultants and providers who recommend CloudNine software and services to their customers. The business benefit for referral partners is direct compensation for the introduction and acceptance of CloudNine by end users.
  3. Channel Partners: Data and legal discovery service providers who sell CloudNine software and services to their customers as part of their portfolio of offerings. The business benefit for channel partners is the ability to resell CloudNine software and services as part of their solutions. CloudNine has long had an extensive channel partner network.

In her article, Hernández mentions several other companies that have made use of the partner model, including kCura (which is a CloudNine technology partner), Neota Logic and HighQ, and Discovia and Brainspace.

In noting that the partnership model allows eDiscovery adjacent companies to offer legal organizations the option of unbundling pieces of their service, Jenkins said “It’s a value-add, a way to meet the needs of the market that’s shifting to the self-service model…What we’ve been able to do is augment the tools that these companies have because now they can still leverage Relativity or their own product, but they have tools like ours which significantly reduce the cost and time of getting those smaller data sets, the day-in, day-out type of projects, in.”

So, if you’re a provider of eDiscovery services today, large or small, sometimes you get by with a little help from your friends.

To schedule a discussion about the CloudNine Alliance Partner Program or to sign up for a free trial of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform, contact us at 713.462.3885, info@cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Does your organization work partner with other companies to provide software or services?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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