Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

When Chat Becomes Evidence: Legal Cases Involving Slack, Teams, Texts, and Messaging Apps

The rapid rise of collaboration tools and smartphone messaging has transformed the way people communicate in business and personal life. Unsurprisingly, courts are now grappling with whether and how to treat chats, texts, and ephemeral messages as discoverable evidence. Below is a collection of well-known cases where such data played a central role, shaping discovery obligations, admissibility, and even case outcomes from various companies and educators in the eDiscovery Community.

When do YOU need to go above and beyond the normal email and corporate documents for discovery?

Corporate Chat (Slack, Teams, Google Chat) – Are you collecting the right data?

Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp. (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2023)
The court ordered IBM to produce targeted sets of Slack and Microsoft Teams messages, requiring production of all messages in smaller threads and “10 before/10 after” in larger ones. Blog summary: https://www.x1.com/blog/court-decision-in-lubrizol-vs-ibm-provides-important-guidance-on-ms-teams-discovery/

Charter Communications Operating, LLC v. Optymyze, LLC (Del. Ch., Jan. 4, 2021)
Optymyze attempted to produce Microsoft Teams chats as 87,000 one-line “emails.” The court rejected this, ordering native chat productions.
Case recap https://www.innovativedriven.com/blog/new-cases-on-hot-discovery-trends-collaboration-tools-categorical-privilege-logs-and-iot-evidence/

Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc. (C.D. Cal., 2021)
Slack surfaced in this patent case when a motion to compel forced production of relevant Slack communications.
Case note: https://ediscoverytoday.com/2021/03/15/court-gives-plaintiffs-no-slack-in-producing-collaboration-app-data-ediscovery-case-law/

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2021)
In this landmark crypto enforcement case, the court granted the SEC’s motion to compel production of Ripple employees’ Slack messages.
Coverage: https://www.bayarea-criminaldefense.com/blog/2021/10/securities-exchange-commission-v-ripple-labs-inc-the-case-that-may-decide-the-fate-of-cryptocurrency/

Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC v. Bia Capital Mgmt. (D. Mass., Sept. 8, 2022)
After Red Wolf failed to produce corporate chat data, the court imposed severe sanctions, citing bad faith discovery conduct.
Case analysis: https://www.sidley.com/en/-/media/uploads/ediscovery/2022/red-wolf-energy-trading-llc-v-bia-capital-management-llc–f-supp-3d–2022-wl-4112081-sept-8-2022.pdf

Epic Games v. Google / In re Google Play Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal., 2023–24)
Internal Google Chat messages became a flashpoint after revelations that Google employees routinely toggled “history off.” The court sanctioned Google for spoliation.
Analysis: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/newsletters/epic-games-v-google-lessons/

RIG Consulting, Inc. v. Rogers (W.D. Pa., May 8, 2025)
The court compelled the defendant to produce Microsoft Teams account messages and emails within 28 days, awarding fees against the resisting party.
Case summary: https://ediscoverytoday.com/2025/06/17/teams-account-messages-and-emails-must-be-produced-says-court-ediscovery-case-law/

DOJ/FTC reinforced preservation duties for Slack/Signal/Chats given recent spoliation rulings.  (Related agency guidance)
Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-and-ftc-update-guidance-reinforces-parties-preservation-obligations
Federal Trade Commission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/competition-matters/2024/01/slack-google-chats-other-collaborative-messaging-platforms-have-always-been-will-continue-be-subject

 

Smartphone Texts, WhatsApp, and Signal – What other data are you missing?

Twitter, Inc. v. Elon Musk (Del. Ch., 2022)
In the litigation over Musk’s attempt to terminate the $44 billion Twitter acquisition, dozens of text/iMessage conversations between Musk, investors, and advisors were unsealed as trial exhibits.
Coverage: https://time.com/6218578/elon-musk-texts-twitter

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 2017–18)
Waymo alleged that Uber encouraged executives to use Signal and ephemeral messaging to conceal trade secrets. The court allowed Waymo to present evidence of disappearing messages.
Case coverage:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._United_States_%282016%29

Vardy v. Rooney (UK High Ct., 2022)
Nicknamed the “Wagatha Christie” case, this UK libel battle turned on WhatsApp messages (and missing messages) between Rebekah Vardy and her agent.
Coverage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagatha_Christie

 

Practical Takeaways

  1. Chats are discoverable: Courts increasingly treat Slack, Teams, and Google Chat as core ESI, not optional add-ons.
  2. Context matters: Producing chats as one-line “emails” or without threading loses meaning and may be rejected.
  3. Ephemeral risks: Use of disappearing-message apps (Signal, WhatsApp, Google Chat “history off”) is drawing spoliation sanctions.
  4. Texts are fair game: From high-stakes M&A to defamation, smartphone conversations often provide the “smoking gun.”

As modern communication expands, litigants must anticipate that judges expect proportional but meaningful production of chat and text data. Ignoring or mishandling this evidence can cost cases, sanctions, or billions in settlement leverage.

Streamlining eDiscovery in Construction and Intellectual Property Law with CloudNine Review

When it comes to eDiscovery, no two practice areas are alike. Attorneys working in construction law and intellectual property (IP) law face unique data challenges that make efficient review and case preparation difficult without the right technology. CloudNine Review was built to simplify these complexities, helping legal teams save time, reduce costs, and stay ahead of the curve.

The Challenges of eDiscovery in Construction Law

Construction law cases often involve highly complex disputes from contract disagreements to defect claims and delay litigation. These cases typically require the collection and review of:

  • Massive volumes of communication: Contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, and project managers often rely on text messages, project management tools, and emails to track progress and resolve issues.
  • Multiple data formats: Building information models (BIM), CAD drawings, PDFs, spreadsheets, and photos all become relevant in construction disputes.
  • Multiple stakeholders: Large projects mean a wide swath of custodians, each producing different data types.

The result? A mountain of unstructured data that needs to be reviewed quickly and accurately to uncover timelines, communications, and responsibilities.

The Challenges of eDiscovery in Intellectual Property Law

IP litigation, whether involving trade secrets, patents, or trademarks, presents another layer of complexity. These cases often include:

  • Highly technical documents: Source code, product designs, research data, and scientific reports.
  • Global data sources: Custodians may be spread across international teams, with data stored in different locations and subject to varying privacy regulations.
  • Confidential and sensitive information: IP cases require careful handling of proprietary information to avoid exposure.

IP attorneys must sift through vast amounts of technical and confidential material while ensuring compliance with protective orders and discovery protocols.

How CloudNine Review Simplifies the Process

CloudNine Review is designed to tackle the modern data challenges of both construction law and intellectual property law:

  • Support for all communication types: Review text messages, emails, chat platforms, and project management data in one platform. This is critical for construction cases, where texts and emails often hold the key evidence.
  • Scalable review for large datasets: Whether you’re dealing with terabytes of project documentation or years of technical research, CloudNine Review scales to handle cases of any size.
  • Advanced search and filtering: Narrow down to the documents that matter most with powerful filtering and metadata search capabilities, speeding up fact development.
  • Data security and confidentiality: CloudNine’s secure cloud platform ensures sensitive IP assets and proprietary data are protected throughout the discovery lifecycle.
  • Flexible workflows: Tailor review sets to your case needs, whether you’re prioritizing communication timelines in a construction case or reviewing technical documents in IP litigation.

The Bottom Line

Both construction law and intellectual property law demand a streamlined approach to eDiscovery. With vast data volumes, multiple custodians, and unique file types, legal teams in these areas can’t afford inefficiency. CloudNine Review makes it possible to organize, review, and analyze evidence with confidence—helping attorneys focus less on managing data and more on building winning strategies.

Tackling the Mobile Data Deluge: Lessons from Masters Conference NYC 2025

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

At the 2025 Masters Conference in New York City, one panel dug deep into one of the most pressing issues in modern litigation and investigations: mobile data overload. In the session titled “The Mobile Data Deluge: How to Tackle it for eDiscovery,” a powerhouse panel of experts from Cellebrite, CloudNine, and Sandline Global shared strategies for managing the growing complexity of data in digital investigations and legal discovery.

Panelists:

  • Eric Seggebruch, Account Executive, Cellebrite Enterprise Solutions
  • Rick Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing, CloudNine
  • Rob Fried, SVP, Forensics & Investigation, Sandline Global
  • Andy Jacobs, Solutions Engineer, Cellebrite Enterprise Solutions

Together, they brought a mix of field expertise and technical insight, offering a roadmap for legal teams grappling with the explosion of mobile and messaging data.

Data is Everywhere And It’s Getting Heavier

The numbers tell the story:

  • 97% of eDiscovery cases now include at least one mobile device
  • The average investigation involves 275 GB of data
  • Many cases start with at least five custodians
  • Growing use of social media, messaging apps, and BYOD environments further expands the digital evidence footprint

The trend is clear: mobile data isn’t just part of an investigation; it’s often the core of the case.

The Tangled Web of Mobile Messaging

Gone are the days of simple SMS and email discovery. Today’s legal teams must sift through a complex web of communications from apps like:

  • WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Viber, Wire
  • iOS and Android devices
  • Cloud storage platforms
  • Enterprise messaging apps like Slack and Teams

Andy Jacobs emphasized the need to understand the types of collections available from logical and advanced logical to full file system acquisitions and what each can reveal. “It may be not just about extracting messages,” he explained. “It’s about finding deleted data, encryption keys, application metadata, and cross-platform context.”

Getting to the Truth with Smart Tools

The panel encouraged a toolkit mindset which is one that equips legal professionals with versatile options to handle diverse devices and apps.

Key insights included:

  • Full file system collections can uncover data missed by surface-level scans
  • Database and keychain access is essential for encrypted apps
  • Automation can reduce examination time without compromising defensibility
  • Parsed and unparsed data review enables deeper understanding of how, when, and where communications occurred

Rick Clark emphasized the importance of integrating mobile data into the broader review ecosystem, noting that tools like CloudNine support a seamless flow from mobile collection to hosted review and analytics.

Modern Challenges Require Modern Collaboration

Rob Fried reminded attendees that no single approach works for every matter. “You need to meet your custodians where they are,” he said, pointing to the importance of hybrid collection capabilities that include cloud-based platforms, remote devices, and even deleted or hidden data.

Whether the investigation is rooted in financial fraud, corporate disputes, or regulatory audits, success requires a balance of technical skill, strategic thinking, and client communication.

Revolutionizing eDiscovery Workflows

The session concluded with a call to reimagine the traditional eDiscovery model:

  1. Mobile Device Collection – Go beyond email and docs; get the full story
  2. Seamless Processing – Automate and standardize for speed and accuracy
  3. Streamlined Review – Centralize diverse data types into a unified platform
  4. Powerful Insights – Use visual analytics and filtering to spotlight what matters

This modern workflow not only reduces time to resolution, but also enhances transparency, compliance, and defensibility in court.

Final Thoughts: Embrace the Deluge, Don’t Drown in It

The explosion of mobile data in legal matters isn’t a crisis, it’s an opportunity. With the right tools, strategies, and collaboration between forensic experts and legal teams, organizations can cut through the noise, focus on what matters, and tell the real story behind the data.

As Eric Seggebruch said during the panel, “It’s not just about collecting data anymore, it’s about collecting the right data, in the right way, and delivering it in time to make a difference.”

From the Frontlines of Resolving Disputes: Real Talk on AI (and Not AI) Tools in Modern Investigations

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

At The Masters Conference NYC, held July 22–23, 2025, legal professionals, investigators, and technologists gathered at Morgan Lewis to share not only the promise of AI but also its limitations. One standout session, “From the Frontlines of Resolving Disputes: Bringing the Right Combination of AI (and Not AI) Tools,” delivered just that: real-world stories from financial disputes, fraud investigations, and litigation matters where the right mix of human expertise and tech-savvy strategy made all the difference.

Moderated by seasoned veterans with experience discussing AI with clients, the panel featured:

  • Mike Gaudet – Managing Director, J.S. Held
  • Ken Feinstein – Senior Managing Director, J.S. Held
  • Arnold Blair – Discovery Counsel, MoloLamken
  • David Carney – Partner, Robinson+Cole

Their message was clear: there is no silver bullet to addressing eDiscovery issues.  Success often comes from striking a balanced approach between traditional methods and modern tools, including AI-powered tools

The Data Have Changed. Have You?

“Five years ago, the conversation was: Should we get the phones and chats? Now it’s: We always get the phones and chats,” said Mike Gaudet, summarizing the evolution of data sources in disputes.

Arnold Blair noted that many still forget that short message communications, including texts and messaging apps are discoverable, they  often reveal more candid insights than formal emails. “People are more cavalier in what they say, and that makes it a goldmine for investigators if you can afford to get to it.” The cost and time required to sift through hours of “24-hour document” style reviews have created new pressure on teams to be smarter in how they collect and analyze modern communications.

Ken Feinstein emphasized that while the foundational steps of discovery (identification, collection, review) have not changed, how we interact with the data has. “Visualization tools and AI-assisted platforms now help teams make sense of communication patterns, transaction timelines, and relationships across structured and unstructured data.”

AI Is a Tool. Not the Answer

Throughout the session, panelists reiterated: AI should augment human decision-making, not replace it.

David Carney offered a reality check for those eager to deploy emerging tech: “It starts with the client. What’s their comfort level with innovation? Some are eager to experiment; others are skeptical, especially with riskier tech like generative AI.” He cited “hallucinations” in legal research which is false or fabricated cases from tools like ChatGPT as a cautionary tale. Validation, he stressed, must be baked into every AI-enabled workflow.

Arnold Blair added that the type of case should be a factor to consider what technology to use . A construction litigation case doesn’t need the same toolkit as a high-profile healthcare fraud matter. Flexibility and creativity are essential.

Navigating the Tech Landscape: Practical Considerations

Choosing the right approach means balancing multiple factors:

  • Suitability and defensibility of the technology
  • Client comfort level with AI or advanced platforms
  • Timeline and budget constraints
  • Risks related to data privacy, accuracy, and trust
  • Ongoing need for human oversight

Carney described implementing some AI tools, particularly those that help with data interaction and visualization, as a way to “dip your toe in the water.”. These tools create a technology-assisted, human-led review model, helping teams get to the truth faster and with better precision.

The Role of AI in Investigations and Disputes

Ken Feinstein focused on one of AI’s most valuable applications: normalizing semi-structured data into analyzable formats. When messages, emails, transactions, and timelines are layered into a cohesive dataset, patterns emerge and stories are revealed.

“Every matter is different,” Feinstein said, “so your approach needs to be innovative and case-specific.” He encouraged professionals to explore hybrid models and layered approaches, where AI enhances, but doesn’t overtake, traditional methodologies.

Mike Gaudet added that the future lies in layered AI that adapts to complex cases with real-time inputs and cross-data references. In litigation involving healthcare mergers or construction disputes, layered approaches allow investigators to correlate internal messages with financial triggers, project delays, or compliance gaps.

Trends on the Horizon

The panel also spotlighted key litigation technology trends:

  • Technology is moving further upstream – directly behind the client’s firewall
  • Faster adoption rates as AI becomes part of broader corporate strategies
  • A surge in irrelevant data means culling tools must evolve rapidly
  • Data reviewed all together as a stream, not just in siloed document batches
  • Human focus is shifting to more strategic and interpretive tasks

According to Carney, clients are warming up to these changes especially when a previous success story or proof of concept is available. “If we’ve used it before in a similar case and it worked, that helps get buy-in.”

Conclusion: The Truth Takes a Team; Both Human and Machine

In the end, this session from The Masters Conference reminded attendees that there’s no shortcut to the truth in legal disputes. AI and advanced tools are incredibly powerful allies, but they’re not miracle workers. Thoughtful professionals, strategic planning, and contextual judgment remain irreplaceable.

Every case demands its own approach. Sometimes that means deploying cutting-edge AI tools. Other times, it’s about asking the right questions, using visualization platforms, and staying grounded in defensible, client-focused strategies.

Because whether it’s AI, chat messages, financial records, or family law disputes, the mission remains the same: Find the truth. Tell the story. Defend the process.

The Future of Legal Practice: A Look Ahead from Masters Conference NYC 2025

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

On July 22–23, 2025, The Masters Conference returned to New York City with a bold theme: “Welcome to the Masters 2035.” Hosted at the offices of Morgan Lewis, this two-day event gathered legal professionals, technologists, investigators, and industry thought leaders to explore how emerging technologies and workplace changes will reshape eDiscovery, investigations, and information governance over the next decade.

Forecasting the Legal Landscape of 2035

The session “Welcome to the Masters 2035” sponsored by Morgan Lewis, featured a lively and forward-thinking panel:

  • Elizabeth Marie Gary – Sr. Associate, eData Practice Group, Morgan Lewis
  • Bansri M. McCarthy – Associate, Morgan Lewis
  • Babette Orenstein – Associate Counsel, Con Edison
  • Salomon Louis – Program Owner, eDiscovery, MassMutual Financial Group

This thought-provoking session pushed attendees to imagine what legal discovery and team dynamics could look like in 2035 with just the right blend of realism and science fiction.

2035: Rethinking Workplace Communication and Discovery

The panelists acknowledged the rapid evolution in workplace communication tools and what that means for discovery. Traditional emails are already being replaced by chat platforms like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and embedded comments within live documents that continue conversations that could be linked to Microsoft Teams or email. Salomon Louis noted that “mediums are becoming more fluid,” requiring legal professionals to navigate cross-channel communication in many different ways while in discovery.

Bansri McCarthy pointed to how document hyperlinks and comment trails are reshaping the way we communicate in real time via the content in the hyperlinks themselves.

With a nod to virtual reality, Elizabeth Gary joked that we’d all be wearing headsets and communicating via brain chips, but then seriously predicted that VR-powered collaboration could become normal by 2035. “Gen Z is already pushing us toward more streamlined, tech-first ways of working,” she said.

Babette Orenstein summarized the current pain point: “It’s difficult to remember where a conversation happened. Was it in a comment, Teams message, or email?” As transcription tools become more integrated into our workflows, these ambiguities may fade, but only if legal teams can keep pace with tech.

AI on the Legal Team: The Rise of Legal Tech Agents

One of the most exciting discussions revolved around the evolution of legal teams to include AI engineers and researchers. Louis emphasized that these roles will be essential to help teams properly prompt large language models (LLMs) and mine insights from massive client datasets.

Elizabeth Gary pushed the boundary further: “Will we even consider AI agents as part of the legal team? Will we one day take testimony from an AI Agent?” While the courtroom may not be ready for that just yet, it’s clear that AI is becoming more than just a tool, it’s a teammate.

Gary also highlighted that her practice already integrates technologists with attorneys, stressing the growing importance of tech fluency within legal teams.

The New eDiscovery Stack: Streamlined, Unified, AI-Driven

The next ten years will see significant simplification and unification of eDiscovery tools. According to Louis, standardization across toolsets will normalize how data is exported and interpreted, making cross-channel communications easier to review.

McCarthy projected that firms will finally break down data silos, bringing together privacy, compliance, disposition and litigation considerations to determine how to best handle company data throughout its lifecycle. In the future, eDiscovery will be an element in the overall health and maintenance of data necessary for business operations.

From the audience, Cat Casey of Reveal delivered a compelling insight: “Ten years from now we will have full-fledged AI agents on case teams that will put the pieces together faster and more efficiently than humans.” In this future, technical analysis will happen before a human even lays eyes on the data.

What We Leave Behind. And What Stays the Same

Some predictions bordered on the radical. The Bates label? “Gone,” said Gary. Even the concept of a “document” might disappear as communication shifts from static files to fluid, embedded conversations.

Cat Casey affirmed this, declaring that documents, as we know them, have already started to die off.

Yet, the panel agreed: the human element won’t go away. In Gary’s words, “People will always have to take responsibility for the end result. They will still need to put their stamp of approval on it.” This reminder grounded the discussion in a legal truth: accountability cannot be automated.

Bold Predictions for 2035

The panel closed with some of their boldest predictions:

  • Everything is discoverable! Even whispers. “Nothing is deleted and we just keep it all,” said Gary.
  • Virtual courtroom reenactments could allow jurors to experience the scene in VR based on evidence.
  • And perhaps most provocatively: AI agents as de facto case team members.

Final Thoughts: The Masters of the Next Decade

The Masters Conference NYC didn’t just forecast where legal tech is going it painted a vision of how attorneys, investigators, and eDiscovery professionals must evolve alongside it. The future of law is not about replacing people with machines, but about using machines to amplify human judgment, creativity, and ethics.

In 2035, we may no longer recognize today’s inbox or review platform, but we’ll still recognize the core of legal practice: trust, accountability, and thoughtful advocacy.

Welcome to the future. Welcome to the Masters 2035.

How AI Is Reshaping Courts, Legal Practice, and the Justice System

AI in the Courtroom: Insights from Judge Braswell | Masters Conference: Denver June 24, 2025 |  Article by Sheila Sadaghiani

At the Masters Conference in Denver, Co on June 24th, Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell laid out a powerful framework for how courts are grappling with AI today. Judges are no longer on the sidelines, they’re gatekeepers, educators, and even users of AI tools. And the questions they’re asking today will shape the law for years to come.

Let’s be honest, many of us can’t help but roll our eyes when AI comes up (again). It’s not that it’s unimportant, quite the opposite. AI is a game-changer. But at this point, it’s everywhere: panels, webinars, conferences, articles…and yet, we’re still seeing more talk than real-world action.

I almost skipped this session, thinking, what could I possibly hear about AI that I haven’t already heard? Then my second thought was, well, I haven’t heard it from a judge. And Judge Braswell did not let us down. When she wrapped up her talk, the person behind me said exactly what I was thinking: “Wow, this was the best session!”

What made this discussion stand out is that it wasn’t centered on the usual “here’s a new tool” or “you need to catch up” narrative. Instead, it felt grounded in real-life impact and human responsibility. Judge Braswell didn’t talk at us about AI, she walked us through how it’s already reshaping courtroom decisions, legal ethics, and day-to-day operations. She reminded us that it’s up to us, judges, lawyers, and professionals to shape how AI is used, not just react to it. It felt less like hype and more like a thoughtful, honest conversation about what’s actually happening, what’s at stake, and how we move forward with intention.

Simple answer? Just start.

  • Draft a basic AI policy. Build from there.
  • Appoint an “AI Committee” to guide your team.
  • Encourage responsible use.
  • Try AI in your everyday life: make a grocery list, plan a trip, rewrite a tough email.

For me, AI is like a super-smart, non-judgy best friend. It sharpens my thoughts, challenges my blind spots, and makes me better at what I already do.

Here’s the truth: If you’re worried AI might replace jobs, consider this; those who learn to use it will replace those who don’t. Judge Braswell delivered some great insights, relying a framework developed by the Federal Judicial Center:

  1. Judges as Evidentiary Gatekeepers

Key Insight: AI-generated content is creating deep uncertainty around what’s real. Judges must now determine what evidence is trustworthy, without clear precedent on deepfakes.

  • Deepfakes are top of mind for some judges.
  • Thomson Reuters + NCSC offer tools to categorize AI evidence: acknowledged vs. unacknowledged.
  • Maura Grossman has offered the following 3-part inquiry to help surface a potential unacknowledged AI issue:
    1. Is it too good to be true?
    2. Has the source disappeared?
    3. Is the explanation for its absence overly complex?
  • Judges are relying on gut instinct, legal experience, and honesty from professionals.
  1. Judges as AI Communicators

Key Insight: Judges must now explain AI to lawyers, jurors, and the public, relying heavily on the legal community for clarity.

  • Clear jury instructions and simplified language are essential.
  • Experienced and knowledgeable lawyers, eDiscovery experts, and paralegals are more vital than ever.
  • Communication shapes understanding, and outcomes in court.
  1. Judges as Guardians of the Law

Key Insight: In the absence of sweeping AI laws, judges and legal professionals are the ones building the rules.

  • Balancing legal precedent with emerging AI innovation is tricky.
  • Example: Amazon’s AI hiring tool prioritized male resumes, a red flag.
  • The courts will help define what should be done with AI, not just what can be done.
  1. Judges as AI Users

Key Insight: Judges are cautiously testing AI tools in their own workflows, with strong guardrails.

  • AI is helping streamline court tasks (seen in Florida, Texas).
  • Ethical dilemmas arise. For example, what considerations come into play when AI avatars speak for victims?
  • Other uses: a judge entered a crime scene simulation using VR, in Arizona AI avatars explain rulings.

Judge Braswell’s Framework When Using GenAI:

  • Inputs: What info is going into the system? Is it confidential, protected, otherwise problematic to upload/ disclose/use for training data, etc.
  • Outputs: What info is coming out of the system? Does it appear laden with bias, hallucination/etc.
  • Use: How will this be used? Low risk or high risk? Low risk example- back and forth w/ LLM for brainstorming. High risk example- unverified reliance in work product.
  1. Resources & Education for Judges

Key Insight: Judicial education is still catching up, but collaboration is key.

  • Judges lean on bench cards, frameworks, and peer discussions.
  • Sedona Conference offers a helpful 8-page AI judicial guide.
  • Judicial conferences and ongoing education
  1. The Role of Case Law in AI

Key Insight: Every AI-related case builds the legal AI playbook.
Lawyers educating the bench today are writing tomorrow’s rules.

  1. AI in Public Institutions

Key Insight: Courts, DAs, and police are already leveraging AI for real results.

  • San Francisco City Attorney used AI to clean up outdated/duplicative requirements in municipal code, manually impossible.
  • Police in Oklahoma and other states using AI to generate reports from bodycam footage.
  1. Forecast: 2025–2028

Key Insight: We’re moving from personal use to full-on transformation.

  • 2024: AI use was personal, quiet, and behind the scenes.
  • 2025: Companies are starting to learn. AI committees are forming.
  • 2026: Governance structures and policies start solidifying.
  • 2027–28: Roles are reinvented. Legal workflows are redesigned, not just automated.
  1. Recommendations for Legal Leaders

Key Insight: It’s not about layering AI on top of existing frameworks and systems. It’s about reimagining how services are delivered, and work gets done.

Start here:

  • Form cross-functional AI committees.
  • Write and update your AI policies.
  • Encourage honest, cross-generational dialogue.
  1. Advice for Legal Professionals

Key Insight: Learn by doing. Stay transparent. Stay curious.

  • You don’t need to be technical, just thoughtful, curious, and responsible.
  • Soft skills, emotional intelligence, and communication still matter most.

Final Thought

Judge Braswell said it best: AI can enhance what we do if we approach it ethically, and with an open mind.

This isn’t a call to fear. It’s a call to lead.

Mobile Data Matters: Because Your Phone Might Be the Star Witness

Insights from the Masters Conference – Denver | June 24, 2025 | Hosted by Fennemore Craig PC  | Article by Sheila Sadaghiani

Last week at The Masters Conference in Denver, I sat in on a session that felt less like a legal panel and more like group therapy for those of us trying to tame the chaos of mobile data in eDiscovery. The message was clear: if you’re not thinking about mobile data, you’re already behind.

This panel was moderated by Chip Koons, CEO at Veracity Forensics and the panelists were Rick Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing at CloudNine, Melinda Redenius, Forensic Consultant at Veracity Forensics and Sean Solis, Counsel at BakerHostetler. This panel rounded out the perspectives of technology, forensics and the practice of law with the focus on smartphones in investigations and litigation.

Let’s face it, our smarty pants devices know everything. Who we texted, where we were, what we Googled at 2 a.m., and whether we really did hit our step count (thank you, Apple Watch). So, when a case lands on your desk and a smartphone or device is involved, and it always is, it’s time to get serious.

Phones Aren’t Just Phones Anymore

The session kicked off with a reminder that mobile devices are no longer simple communication tools. They are digital diaries overflowing with location data, app activity, messages, and maybe even a TikTok or two. That also means they are goldmines in investigations, but getting to that gold, not so easy.

Challenge #1: Privacy in a BYOD World

The ever-present Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) issue came up fast. The consensus? If you don’t have a crystal-clear policy in place, you’re setting yourself up for a compliance migraine.

Policy isn’t just a formality, it’s your defense. Require consent. Explain what’s being collected. And for the love of litigation, communicate with custodians. People get weird when you ask to peek into their phones, and can you blame them? Some even back up personal data to their iClouds, which just adds another layer of “fun.”

Also, heads up; board members are not always thrilled about handing over their devices. Shocking, I know.

One story shared involved a chemical plant incident where investigators suspected employees were texting during the event. They requested phone data leading up to and during the incident. The court said nope, calling it a fishing expedition. Moral of the story? Narrow your scope or risk reeling in an empty net.

Challenge #2: Ephemeral Everything

Next up: ephemeral data. Think Snapchat, disappearing messages, and auto-delete features that make forensic teams want to throw their phones into the nearest river.

But don’t lose hope. You can still get creative. One clever tactic mentioned was collecting data from other people the custodian communicated with. Deleted texts? Rebuild them from the other side of the conversation. Like digital duct tape.

Also, this is a big one, the Department of Justice is now specifically calling out the need to preserve ephemeral messages. So yes, your compliance program better have something to say about that.

Oh, and when you’re issuing a legal hold, spell it out. Literally. Include instructions on how to turn off auto-delete features. No assumptions.

Challenge #3: Geo-Location (aka “Where Were You Really?”)

Geo-location came up as both a powerful tool and a slippery slope. Every photo you take, some apps you open, it’s all tagging your location to the same database on the device. But here’s the twist: geo data is tied to the phone, not necessarily the person using it. So, you might know where the phone was, but can you prove who was holding it?

Still, if used wisely, location data can help build a compelling narrative. It just needs to be paired with the right context and a bit of tech wizardry.

Real Talk: No Easy Buttons

The overall vibe? There’s no magic wand here. But there are technologies that can help make sense of the chaos. Whether you’re threading messages across multiple platforms or using targeted collection tools like ModeOne, Oxygen, or Cellebrite, the key is to know your case and tailor your collection strategy accordingly. Then, review platforms like CloudNine Review will make the review experience MUCH easier than traditional document review platforms.

One case even hinged on data from a wearable fitness device. Yep, turns out those calories burned were worth more than expected in court.

Final Takeaways:

  • Your mobile data strategy should be locked and loaded before discovery starts.
  • Communication with custodians isn’t optional; it’s critical.
  • Don’t just collect, preserve intentionally.
  • And finally, get a service provider in early. This isn’t a solo mission.

So, the next time someone shrugs off mobile data as “just texts,” remind them: your phone might be the most honest (and unforgiving) witness in the room.

P.S. If you think mobile discovery is scary now, just wait until someone subpoenas your smart fridge.

AI in eDiscovery: What Was, What Is, and What’s Coming

Insights from the Masters Conference – Denver | June 24, 2025 | Hosted by Fennemore Craig PC

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer an emerging idea in legal discovery, it’s the present reality. At The Masters Conference in Denver, Fennemore Craig PC hosted an insightful session titled “AI in eDiscovery: What Was, What Is, and What’s Coming,” led by Adrian D’Amico, Director of Emerging Technology and Innovation, and Dean Seiveno, Chief Enterprise Officer. The session offered a sweeping view of how AI has evolved in the eDiscovery space and where it’s heading next.


The Evolution: From Automation to Insight

AI began reshaping eDiscovery by doing what humans couldn’t which is rapidly processing vast volumes of data. Early adoption focused on the automation of time-consuming processes like email and chat message review, issue identification, and document summaries. These tools gave legal teams the ability to cut through digital noise faster and more efficiently than ever before.

However, D’Amico pointed out that what we’re seeing now is a far cry from basic automation. The AI landscape and the technologists creating solutions is growing at an quick pace, leaving many overwhelmed and uncertain on which solutions, workflows and platforms should be considered.

D’Amico urged attendees to recognize that the real threat to your position or practice isn’t AI itself, it’s a lack of training in how to use it effectively. “AI doesn’t replace people,” D’Amico said. “A lack of AI training is what replaces people.”


Current Capabilities: Beyond Data Culling

Today’s AI-powered eDiscovery extends well beyond initial data sorting. It now plays a role across the entire EDRM spectrum:

  • Identification & Preservation of sensitive data like PII
  • Collection and early data analysis strategies that surface discoverable and relevant information early
  • Processing and Analysis that leverage smart clustering and thematic analysis
  • Review & Production tools that can visualize communication patterns, changes in sentiment, and emerging narratives that plug into traditional review and production workflows

One significant advancement is the shift from Continuous Active Learning (CAL) to Continuous Active Prompting (CAP). Unlike CAL, which trained models based on document coding decisions, CAP relies on natural language prompts. This allows legal teams to iterate prompts, create storyboards, uncover deeper context, and even analyze audio and video files and all through conversational interfaces.

Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT can now assist in:

  • Drafting correspondence
  • Extracting or testing legal arguments
  • Modeling damages using curated eDiscovery datasets

But, D’Amico emphasized, only use firm-approved AI tools and never use a public tool for sensitive or proprietary information to maintain compliance and security.

 

The Future: Agentic AI and Multimodal Discovery

Looking ahead, both panelists predicted the rise of AI agents: automated systems that act like digital assistants within the eDiscovery workflow. These “Agentic AIs” will perform tasks like:

  • Drafting privilege logs
  • Reviewing batches of documents
  • Monitoring quality control across platforms
  • Create summaries of the documents, case arguments and organize data by topic

While these agents will still require human oversight, they represent a dramatic leap in efficiency and scalability.

Another exciting frontier is Multimodal Discovery which is the ability to connect and contextualize data across formats and cross channel communications. For example, searching for a keyword or concept could simultaneously pull in emails, Slack messages, call transcripts, and IoT data from wearables. This “search one, find all” approach has the potential to uncover layers of meaning and interconnectivity that were previously invisible.

 

Intent, Sentiment, and the Challenge of Ephemeral Data

Modern communications are rife with nuance like emojis, memes, GIFs, and slang interspersed throughout all textual conversations. Interpreting these requires more than a keyword search; it demands contextual intelligence. D’Amico described the importance of eDiscovering intent which is the ability of AI to read between the lines and identify tone, sentiment, or potential misconduct embedded in these short-form, symbolic messages.

Wearable technologies and IoT devices also present emerging data sources that, when analyzed correctly, can provide additional context around behavior, location, and anomalies tied to key events.

 

Adoption Trends and Practical Guidance

Citing the ILTA 2024 eDiscovery Survey, Seiveno noted that:

  • 76% of large law firms and 46% of midsize firms are already using AI in some form for their practice
  • Adoption varies across roles: 40% legal support, 22% attorneys, 63% paralegals

Legal professionals are at varying stages of their AI journey. “Just get started somewhere,” Seiveno advised. “Even small steps create momentum.”

He offered three core recommendations:

  1. Engage Clients – Create a one-page explainer to secure informed consent and highlight AI’s value.
  2. Offer Training – Ensure both legal and support teams are informed on emerging tools and workflows.
  3. Oversee Workflows – AI needs human oversight. Establish governance to validate outcomes and improve models.

 

Ethics and Compliance: Start with Policy

As AI becomes more embedded in legal practice, ethical boundaries and regulatory obligations must remain top of mind. The panel referenced several key sources:

  • ABA Opinion 512 – Emphasizes duty to disclose the use of AI
  • FRCP 11 – Requires “reasonable inquiry” in representations made to the court
  • FRCP 37 – Addresses consequences for failing to disclose methods used
  • In re Google Play Store Antitrust – A recent case highlighting the significance of transparency in AI use

Building policy starts with assessing existing tools, incorporating ABA guidance, promoting firm-wide enterprise AI solutions, and ensuring client data is kept fully siloed from other matters.

 

Final Thoughts

AI in eDiscovery is evolving from a helpful tool into a strategic advantage. But with this evolution comes the responsibility to educate, govern, and ethically apply these innovations. As D’Amico put it, “AI can surface things people wouldn’t even think to look for.” And that’s the key: not replacing human judgment, but enhancing it.

Whether you’re new to AI or already using it daily, one thing is clear: the future of discovery isn’t just data-driven—it’s AI-enabled, ethically informed, and client-focused.

 

Collaboration in Action: Solving eDiscovery Challenges with the Right Partners

With continued data challenges impacting investigations and discovery, Richard Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing at CloudNine, sits down with Adam Shirley, President of Legal Eagle, for a candid conversation on the evolving landscape of eDiscovery in the age of modern data. Together, they explore how consulting with clients has become more complex and more critical as communication channels diversify and data volumes explode.

From mobile devices and collaboration tools to social media and cloud storage, Richard and Adam discuss the growing demands placed on legal teams to manage, review, and produce non-traditional data types. They share insights into how legal service providers and technology partners can work together to guide clients through these challenges, emphasizing practical strategies for defensible collections, streamlined review, and cost control in a fast-moving digital world.

Whether you’re in legal ops, litigation support, or corporate legal leadership, this episode offers valuable perspectives on adapting to the new normal in eDiscovery.

 

 

 

Integrating Data Law: Bridging eDiscovery, Privacy, Cyber, Records, Analytics, AI Advisory, and Beyond

Insights from The Masters Conference Chicago – May 20th, 2025

In a dynamic and data-driven legal environment, the once-separate domains of eDiscovery, privacy, cybersecurity, records management, and AI legal advisory are converging into a single, multifaceted discipline: Data Law. At The Masters Conference in Chicago, a diverse legal professional panel explored how law firms and corporations can adapt by building integrated teams and workflows that reflect this evolution.

Panelists:

  • Jay Carle – Seyfarth Shaw
  • Jason Priebe – Seyfarth Shaw
  • Natalya Northrip – Medallia
  • Amanda Metts – Baxter
  • Paul Noonan – United Airlines
  • Jenny Hamilton – Exterro

The End of the Siloed Approach

Jay Carle (Seyfarth Shaw) opened the discussion by noting that traditional silos are breaking down. “These disciplines are starting to overlap more and more. The siloed approach doesn’t work when it comes to managing risk. Everything needs to be interconnected.” This theme resonated throughout the session, with each panelist emphasizing how integration enhances control, efficiency, and legal defensibility.

Cross-Functional Collaboration in Action

Paul Noonan (United Airlines) illustrated how information governance and eDiscovery are aligning more closely, particularly in understanding and managing the corporate data footprint. Noonan mentioned that they have a suite of approved applications for oversight, but there are always rogue apps like WhatsApp. That’s where internal education and policy enforcement become critical.

Amanda Metts (Baxter) highlighted the necessity of clear, enforced preservation and collection policies within legal departments, and noted that being in legal, preservation is inevitable so policies must be enforceable and aligned across departments.

Jenny Hamilton (Exterro) provided a unique perspective from both the legal and tech sides, explaining that while a law firm might benefit from separate departments, corporations need cross-departmental alignment. Hamilton said that litigation and IT need to work hand-in-hand. Identify the greatest risks, but also accept that some risk is inevitable.

AI, Privacy, and Cybersecurity – Managing the Convergence

Jason Priebe (Seyfarth Shaw) noted the growing complexity with generative AI (GAI). He said that some clients are exploring GAI models cautiously, while others are saying no entirely. Regardless, there must be centralized command and control over which apps are used, how data is retained and secured, and how discovery protocols are enforced, especially when working with opposing counsel.

He stressed the importance of having clear protective order templates and requiring outside parties to adhere to the same security standards when handling data.

Natalya Northrip (Medallia) reinforced that even if GAI policies are in flux, organizations should have internal panels that shape them across departments, ensuring responsible innovation.

Building Governance That Works

The conversation turned practical when the audience asked how to effectively enforce policies. Noonan suggested publishing policies company-wide and performing regular audits. He emphasized that litigation is also a great check and that employees subject to legal holds are more aware of the policies. Carle added that repetition is key: Constant messaging keeps data policies top of mind.

Priebe recommended leveraging technology solutions that analyze data throughout an enterprise to support classification and governance across various data law functions.

On change management, Noonan emphasized structured rollouts and company-wide communication. He said that they already have change management processes in place to ensure employees understand and follow new policies.

The Takeaway: Integration is the Future of Data Law

All panelists agreed: modern legal matters require a holistic, integrated approach to data. Whether it’s a litigation hold, responding to a regulatory inquiry, or deploying new AI tools, legal teams need to understand how privacy, cybersecurity, records, and discovery intersect, and be prepared to respond cohesively.

For both law firms and corporate legal departments, the challenge is to build multidisciplinary teams, foster internal alignment, and ensure everyone from technologists to litigators knows how to navigate today’s overlapping data risks.

As Carle aptly concluded, that at the very least, attorneys need to know who to call internally. That kind of awareness is the minimum standard in today’s legal landscape.