Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Why On-Premise Still Matters: How CloudNine LAW Empowers Secure, Cost-Effective Data Processing

In an era where nearly every technology headline seems to focus on the cloud, it’s easy to assume that all data processing and document management solutions have moved there. For many organizations, cloud-based discovery tools have indeed brought tremendous flexibility and scalability. 

But for others, especially those managing sensitive, high-volume, or budget-conscious projects, on-premise solutions remain essential. That’s where CloudNine LAW continues to play a critical role.

The Shift to the Cloud—But Not for Everyone 

There’s no question that the cloud has transformed the eDiscovery landscape. Centralized hosting, rapid scalability, and collaboration tools make it a natural fit for many modern teams. However, the move to the cloud isn’t always seamless or suitable for every organization. 

Many legal departments, government agencies, and service providers face ongoing challenges that make on-premise solutions like LAW a better fit: 

  • Data sensitivity and security concerns: Some matters involve highly confidential information like government data, trade secrets, or privileged communications that organizations aren’t comfortable hosting externally. 
  • Regulatory and compliance requirements: Certain industries are governed by strict data-handling rules that require information to remain within a specific physical or network boundary. 
  • Cost predictability: Cloud solutions often rely on consumption-based pricing models that can fluctuate dramatically depending on data size or user activity. 
  • Infrastructure investment: Many organizations already maintain robust local infrastructure and staff capable of managing on-prem systems efficiently. 

 

The Case for On-Premise Processing and Document Scanning 

For teams that value control, cost management, and data sovereignty, CloudNine LAW delivers a comprehensive, proven platform for document imaging and eDiscovery processing and all within your own environment. 

Here’s why LAW continues to stand apart: 

  1. Total Control Over Data Security

LAW operates fully on-premise, allowing organizations to manage and secure their data within their own network. This eliminates third-party exposure and aligns with stringent privacy, compliance, and confidentiality requirements. 

  1. Cost Efficiency and Predictability

Unlike cloud-based models that charge per GB processed or hosted, LAW offers a fixed-cost licensing structure. This makes budgeting for large or ongoing matters far more predictable which is an important advantage for litigation support teams or government agencies operating under strict budgets. 

  1. End-to-End Processing and Imaging

LAW remains one of the most complete on-prem solutions available for both native file processing and document scanning/imaging. From ingestion to production, LAW empowers users to control every stage of the workflow without outsourcing or cloud dependencies. 

  1. Seamless Integration with Review Platforms

Processed data from LAW can be easily exported to review platforms like CloudNine Review, combining the best of both worlds: on-prem control during processing, and cloud flexibility for document review. 

  1. Proven Reliability

LAW has been a trusted workhorse in the eDiscovery community for decades. Its enduring presence in litigation support environments is a testament to its performance, consistency, and ability to handle massive datasets with precision. 


When On-Premise eDiscovery Makes the Most Sense 

While the cloud offers advantages in scalability and collaboration, many scenarios still call for the stability and independence of on-premise platforms like LAW: 

  • High-security investigations or government matters 
  • Matters involving data subject to local storage laws 
  • Projects requiring rapid turnaround without upload/download delays 
  • Organizations seeking long-term cost control and predictable ROI 
  • Environments where existing IT infrastructure is already optimized 

In short, on-premise isn’t outdated: it’s strategic and practical. For many teams, LAW bridges the gap between traditional control and modern flexibility, ensuring data stays secure and costs stay manageable. 


The Last of Its Kind But Built for the Future 

CloudNine LAW stands out today as one of the last and only fully on-premise document scanning and data processing platforms in the eDiscovery industry. While others have migrated entirely to the cloud, LAW continues to evolve incorporating modern file type support, performance updates, and integration with hybrid workflows. 

For organizations that can’t, or won’t, compromise on security, control, or cost efficiency, LAW remains a cornerstone technology that continues to deliver real value. 

 

Conclusion 

As the eDiscovery landscape becomes increasingly cloud-centric, it’s important to remember that choice still matters. CloudNine LAW empowers legal teams and service providers to maintain control of their data, protect sensitive information, and operate on their own terms without the unpredictability of cloud costs or third-party hosting. 

In a world rushing to only offer SaaS, LAW proves that on-premise can still be the smartest move. 

 

Interested in learning more?
See how CloudNine LAW can fit into your discovery strategy!

The Intersection of eDiscovery, Privacy, and Information Governance and Why You Need to Focus on It — Masters Conference Seattle Recap

Masters Conference: Seattle, 2025 |  Article by Sheila Sadaghiani, Regional Director of Sales, CloudNine

Speakers:

  • Doug Kaminski, Infinnium
  • Mike Russell, Expedia Group

Session Abstract:

Let’s face it, most organizations are drowning in data and struggle with gaining control. At the same time, threat actors are targeting those who hold a lot of data and especially sensitive data. Storage used to be cheap, but now we’re seeing vendors in the data ecosystem monetizing that volume to a greater degree. Add the element of GenAI and the data footprint grows exponentially as does the need to control any exposure.  Join us for this important session to learn what you can do to address this growing issue!

Why Information Governance Should Come Before AI in eDiscovery

At the recent Master’s Conference Legal in Seattle, I sat in on a powerful panel discussion about information governance and it really resonated with what I see daily in eDiscovery sales. As an account representative for CloudNine, where we offer CloudNine Review for eDiscovery document review, I often work with corporate legal teams and large law firms who are struggling under the weight of their own data.

One of the panelists, Doug Kaminski, Chief Revenue Officer at Infinnium, shared an important point: organizations are creating and duplicating data faster than they can manage it, and without a strong governance framework, they end up losing control of their information. His insight underscored what I experience firsthand, many clients simply don’t know what data they have, where it’s stored, or how much of it is redundant.

Another panelist, Mike Russell from Expedia Group, expanded on that idea by emphasizing the practical side of governance. He noted that governance isn’t just about meeting compliance obligations, it’s about enabling business agility. As Mike explained, when organizations take the time to understand their data landscape, they’re not just preparing for litigation or audits; they’re improving collaboration, reducing security risk, and setting the stage for smarter decision-making across departments.

Much of this data sits in Microsoft 365, local drives, and shared servers, sometimes duplicated multiple times across custodians. When litigation arises, the result can be overwhelming. I’ve seen organizations collect 10 terabytes of data when the actual relevant set might only be 500 gigabytes to 2 terabytes. That overcollection drives up processing, hosting, and review costs dramatically, all because no one had visibility into the data landscape beforehand.

To put the scope of the problem in perspective, several statistics were mentioned during the panel discussion:

  • Over 50% of enterprise data is considered “dark data”, information that organizations store but don’t actively use or even know exists.
  • ️ 30% to 50% of stored data in most organizations is duplicated or redundant, increasing costs and risk exposure.
  • The average enterprise holds over 10 petabytes (10,000 terabytes) of data, yet less than 10% is typically relevant for eDiscovery or compliance purposes.
  • Data storage and management costs rise an estimated 35% year over year when governance is not in place.
  • Unstructured data makes up roughly 80–90% of total corporate data, making it the hardest, and most expensive, to manage in litigation.

Doug Kaminski also emphasized that this lack of visibility doesn’t just inflate discovery costs, it creates security vulnerabilities. Disorganized, unstructured data is a prime target for threat actors. When sensitive information is stored haphazardly across systems, it’s not only harder to find for litigation but easier to exploit in a breach.

There’s also a growing misconception that AI can fix these issues. It’s true that AI has tremendous value in accelerating review and surfacing insights, but as Doug noted during the panel, “AI is only as good as the data you feed it.” I couldn’t agree more. If an organization’s data is chaotic and duplicative, AI simply amplifies that noise, leading to higher costs and less reliable results.

That’s why, in my opinion, information governance must come first. Governance creates the structure that makes AI effective. It’s proactive, not reactive. It prevents unnecessary spending, improves security, and lays the foundation for more accurate and efficient discovery when litigation occurs.

AI is an incredible tool, but it’s not the solution to poor governance. Clean, well-managed data allows AI to reach its potential. Without that foundation, even the most advanced technology becomes an expensive workaround.

When you roll these into a financial model, companies that implement governance-first strategies often realize 2× to 3× higher ROI within 12–18 months compared to those with no formal governance.

Factor Governance-First No Governance
Data Reduction 25–40% average decrease in total data volume via defensible deletion and deduplication Data sprawl grows unchecked (duplicate data often 29%+)
Operational Efficiency Faster response to DSARs, discovery, and remediation (2–5× improvement) Delays in retrieval, indexing, and review cause higher costs
Risk Mitigation Reduced breach exposure and fewer sanctions due to proactive classification Increased incident response and legal costs due to unmanaged data

Putting governance first doubles the organizational ROI by cutting waste, improving compliance, and unlocking automation potential, while ignoring governance leaves money and risk on the table.

The takeaway from the Seattle Master’s Conference was clear: before we can rely on AI to revolutionize eDiscovery, we must first reimagine how we govern data. Information governance isn’t just a compliance initiative; it’s the cornerstone of every successful discovery strategy.

 

How AI in Review Accelerates Case Strategy and Reduces eDiscovery Costs Across All Case Sizes

In today’s litigation and investigation landscape, data volumes and communication channels continue to multiply. From emails and chat platforms to mobile data and collaboration tools, legal teams face an overwhelming challenge: identifying what matters most, as early as possible. The sooner counsel can assess case merit and key issues, the better equipped they are to shape strategy, evaluate risk, and control costs.

That’s where artificial intelligence (AI) in investigations and eDiscovery review comes in.

Early Case Assessment: Finding the Signal in the Noise

Traditional early case assessment (ECA) often required broad culling strategies, search term testing, and manual review of sample sets. While useful, those methods can be time-consuming and costly, especially when data sets are massive.

AI-driven review tools like generative AI-powered analysis, allow teams to:

  • Quickly surface key evidence: AI learns from reviewer input, identifying documents most likely to be relevant far faster than linear review.
  • Spot patterns and themes: Similar to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and other workflows, AI can cluster related documents, highlight communication spikes, and uncover custodians or topics of interest that may not appear in keyword lists. AI is now the fastest way to organize and find patterns in your data, much more efficiently and effectively than other methods.
  • Assess case merit earlier: With faster access to the “hot” documents, legal teams can make informed decisions on settlement, litigation strategy, or resource allocation at the outset.

Cutting Downstream Review Costs

The benefits of AI extend well beyond ECA. By embedding AI throughout the review workflow, organizations can dramatically reduce downstream costs, which often make up the largest portion of discovery spend.

  • Smarter prioritization: AI identifies relevant material faster, ensuring that reviewers spend time where it matters most and can categorize data by issues or topics.
  • Consistent coding: AI maintains coding consistency across large reviewer teams, across every issue, by suggesting categorizations based on your specific instruction. It applies that instruction, consistently across every document, every time.
  • Eliminating redundancies: AI can detect near-duplicates, email threading, and conversation reconstruction, allowing reviewers to avoid re-reading similar documents.
  • Reducing review volumes: Accurately identifying irrelevant material and excluding those up-front results in fewer documents remaining in the costly final stages of review. Lower volumes equal lower costs.

Building Confidence with Defensibility

One of the biggest questions around AI in eDiscovery has always been defensibility. Many of the protocols for AI review are identical to those for TAR related projects and are already familiar to those in litigation. Documented protocols, validation sampling, and transparent reporting ensure that AI-powered review stands up to scrutiny while driving efficiency. Additional features like document summarization and relevancy explanation help confirm each individual coding classification.

A Smarter Path Forward

For legal teams balancing speed, accuracy, and cost, AI is no longer optional it’s becoming essential for cases of ALL sizes. Leveraging AI during review not only accelerates the path to critical evidence and early case insight, but also dramatically reduces the burden of downstream review.

The result?

  • Faster decisions on case strategy.
  • Lower overall discovery costs.
  • Greater confidence in outcomes.

In an era of ever-expanding data, those who integrate AI into their review workflows will be best positioned to gain the competitive advantage in litigation and investigations and isn’t limited to large cases as the economics of the technology and services align with cases of all sizes.

CloudNine & eDiscovery AI Partnership Article

Why Two Best-in-Class eDiscovery Tools Beat All-in-One Platforms

Legal teams today face increasingly complex data from emails and documents to mobile and collaboration platforms. While many vendors offer all-in-one eDiscovery solutions, these often sacrifice flexibility and performance for convenience.

That’s where CloudNine and eDiscovery AI stand out.

CloudNine delivers fast, scalable, and defensible review and production across diverse data types. eDiscovery AI brings cutting-edge analytics and AI-powered Early Case Assessment (ECA), helping teams gain clarity faster and with greater accuracy.

Together, we offer:

  • Specialized excellence at each stage of the eDiscovery process
  • Flexible workflows that adapt to your case needs
  • Cost efficiency by paying only for what you use
  • Scalability to handle data growth without overpaying
  • Future-readiness with faster innovation and support for emerging data types

Instead of being locked into a rigid platform, legal teams get the freedom to choose, integrate, and evolve.

Want to see how this partnership transforms your eDiscovery outcomes? Read the full article from eDiscovery AI:

Why CloudNine and eDiscovery AI Deliver Better ECA, Analysis, Review and Production than “All-in-One” Platforms

The State of eDiscovery: Case Law and Hot Topics — Masters Conference Philadelphia Recap

Masters Conference: Philadelphia, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

The 2025 Masters Conference in Philadelphia kicked off with a powerhouse panel tackling one of the most anticipated topics in the industry: “The State of eDiscovery: Case Law and Hot Topics.” Moderated by Nicole Marie Gill of CODISCOVR, the session brought together thought leaders Nicholas Berenato (CODISCOVR), Doug Austin (eDiscovery Today), and Jerry Bui (Purpose Legal) to explore recent case law shaping discovery practice and emerging trends redefining how organizations manage modern data. 

From possession, custody, and control disputes to the challenges of deepfake evidence and AI-generated content, the discussion offered a timely look at how courts and practitioners are adapting to rapid technological change. 

Possession, Custody, and Control: The Continuing Challenge 

Several recent rulings highlighted the nuances of control over electronically stored information (ESI), especially as new data types proliferate. 

  • Vaughn v. Solera Holdings addressed the discoverability of Slack messages. Because the company’s Slack configuration lacked an export license, the court ruled that Solera wasn’t obligated to produce those messages. 
  • Bui noted that this decision underscores the need for litigation-ready platform configurations, adding that he was surprised by the outcome. 
  • Austin observed that the requesting party missed an opportunity to argue the opposing side’s capability to obtain that data. 
  • In Allergan Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, a dispute over mobile device data raised questions about possession and control in a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) environment. 
  • Berenato emphasized that organizations should explicitly address collection rights in their BYOD policies while respecting employee privacy. 
  • Austin added that corporations are increasingly avoiding mobile device discovery which is a trend he expects to continue as many corporate communications are being advised in policies to avoid such communications via text or mobile chat apps that are non-sanctioned by the organization. 


Hyperlinked Files, Attachments, and Accessibility 

Cases such as Hubbard v. Crow and Young v. Salesforce, Inc. highlighted the growing complexity around hyperlinked documents and data accessibility. 

In Hubbard, the plaintiffs were sanctioned when they couldn’t produce a four-minute segment of a podcast linked via a broken hyperlink. 

  • Bui pointed out that many organizations rely on platforms that maintain content access, and hyperlinks should ideally lead to the underlying documents. 
  • Austin noted the importance of data archiving practices that preserve contemporaneous versions, including metadata that shows who edited what, and when. 


ESI Protocols and Judicial Oversight 

In Hall v. Warren, when the parties couldn’t agree on ESI protocols, the judge imposed one instead. The panel agreed that this case reinforces the need for collaboration and early agreement on discovery protocols to avoid court intervention. 


Deepfakes: The Next Frontier of Evidentiary Risk 

A standout discussion centered on Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield Inc., where much of the evidence turned out to be deepfake video content. 

  • Bui described how poor lip-syncing and mismatched audio made the deepfakes obvious this time. But he cautioned that synthetic media is improving quickly, and future cases may be far harder to detect and require experts to help validate. 


Emerging Technologies and the Information Governance Connection 

Turning to the “left side” of the EDRM, Gill asked how emerging technologies are influencing information governance (IG) and discovery readiness. 

  • Berenato stressed the need for AI frameworks, governance training, and data minimization strategies to manage risk. 
  • Bui highlighted the value of preservation-in-place strategies and the importance of involving corporate IT early, leveraging tools like Microsoft 365 and Purview to make IG data more searchable. 
  • Austin cautioned that as data organization shifts away from solely custodians, in-place preservation can become problematic, expanding the scope of legal holds. 


Chat, Collaboration Apps, and Generative AI Data 

When the conversation turned to Slack, Teams, and AI-enabled platforms, Bui noted the emergence of a “third category” that is AI-generated data created by digital agents, such as Microsoft Co-Pilot.
He suggested that metadata models may need to evolve to include a new “author” field identifying AI agents. 

Austin added that while technology isn’t perfect, consistent processes and defensible procedures remain key to managing risk as AI becomes embedded in workflows. 

Strategies for Cost, Risk, and Compliance 

Across the panel, a common theme emerged: less data equals less risk. 

  • Berenato urged organizations to minimize retained data to only what’s necessary for business or legal reasons. 
  • Bui noted that Microsoft 365’s labeling and categorization features can simplify IG planning and retention. 


What’s Next for eDiscovery? 

Looking ahead, the panelists agreed that privacy, AI, and cross-border data will drive the next phase of eDiscovery transformation. 

  • Berenato predicted that diverging state privacy laws will complicate compliance but noted that technology is evolving to keep pace. 
  • Bui highlighted ongoing tensions between privacy and forensic collection, especially in global matters. 
  • Austin forecast that linear review is sunsetting faster than expected as AI accelerates review workflows. He also referenced the upcoming EDRM 2.0 model, which aims to modernize frameworks for modern data types. 
  • Bui closed by reminding practitioners that the pace of change demands continuous learning, as data types, threats, and technologies evolve faster than ever before. 


Key Takeaways 

From Slack messages and mobile data to deepfakes and generative AI, today’s eDiscovery landscape is expanding beyond the traditional boundaries of ESI. This session underscored that litigation readiness now depends on proactive governance, defensible processes, and a firm grasp of emerging technologies. 

As Austin aptly summarized: “We’re in a modern data era and the types of data we haven’t even anticipated yet will soon be part of discovery.” 

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.