Electronic Discovery

Understanding and Managing eDiscovery Costs

For a medium-sized lawsuit, eDiscovery costs can range anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 million dollars. [1] This price has been exacerbated by the effects of COVID-19 on communication data. According to the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), the pandemic has created a data explosion by encouraging frequent usage of chat applications. Meanwhile, the levels of email and other data types have remained constant. [2] As time passes, the list of communication types will continue to expand with new collaboration tools and social media platforms. On one hand, these changes have made communicating with loved ones and coworkers easier than ever. On the other hand, the influx of modern data types has created an expensive headache for legal teams.

Current Approaches to the Problem

To handle litigation costs, companies often try to cut labor costs, increase review rates, and group documents together. However, each of these approaches can only do so much. For instance, it’s risky for companies to save money through temporary attorneys or LPO companies. Though the strategy is cost-efficient, it creates new challenges surrounding logistics, data security, attorney-client privilege, and oversight. The second method was increasing the speed of review. This method holds some promise, but its efficiency depends on the type of review. Automated review is great at accelerating the process, but human review speeds are harder to manage. At best, an expert review can review 100 documents per hour. Yet, the benefit of speed comes at the chance of comprehension errors. Grouping documents isn’t an efficient solution either. The technique uses computerized technology to categorize similar documents together. Though this method is good for organizational purposes, it does nothing to minimize the volume of data. [3]

Cost-Saving eDiscovery Strategies

  1. Don’t spend too much time on search term negotiations. It’s easy for opposing parties to lose time and money while fretting over each search term; however, this practice forces counsel to work overtime to meet deadlines. Consequently, companies will have to pay higher attorney fees. The best solution would be to agree on a handful of search terms and run the data through machine learning systems for review.
  2. Avoid overusing issue coding. Though issue codes are useful for organizing documents, excessive issue coding makes the review process slower and more expensive. Consider limiting the codes to 8-10 per document.
  3. Eliminate unnecessary attachments from important documents (i.e. company logos and icons). These attachments can be eliminated manually or through a modern data processing system. [4]
  4. Engage in the discovery process as soon as possible. By contacting legal counsel early on, companies can reduce the time and money needed for processing and review.
  5. Stay prepared for the possibility of litigation by instructing employees on storing and accessing important documents. This method will save time and money by making the documents easier to find. [5]

 

[1] “Reducing eDiscovery Costs” Whitepaper, Canon Discovery Services, 2018.

[2] Sarah Gayda, “How Law Firms Can Proactively Reduce eDiscovery Risk & Cost,” Iltanet, May 21, 2021.

[3] Nicholas M. Pace, Laura Zakaras, “The Cost of Producing Electronic Documents in Civil Lawsuits,” RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2012.

[4] Lisa Prowse, “Review is Not the Most Expensive Part of E-discovery,” KMWorld, October 29, 2020.

[5] Scott Carvo, Madelaine C. Lane, and Janet Ramsey, “Creative Ways to Cut Down on E-discovery Costs,” Grand Rapid’s Business Journal, September 4, 2020.

How COVID-19 Has Reinforced the Need for Comprehensive BYOD Policies

Even before the pandemic started, working from home was on the rise. The trend allowed employees to be both productive and comfortable. Like any change, the transition to remote work was met with some skepticism. Many worried that limited in-person interaction would negatively impact work relations and company culture. Another concern was that employees wouldn’t get their work done at home. Though the research is mixed, several studies suggest that working from home greatly improves productivity. Amid the controversy, remote work skyrocketed as quarantine guidelines were set in the United States. This shift boosted the popularity of BYOD policies in the workplace. BYOD is shorthand for “bring your own device,” a practice in which businesses allow employees to conduct work activities on personal devices.

From both the employer and employee perspectives, BYOD policies come with a list of pros and cons. Employees typically enjoy the change, grateful that they don’t have to carry two phones everywhere. BYOD allows them to conveniently handle business and personal affairs from the same device. Through this system, an employee can work from anywhere at any time. From the employer’s standpoint, BYOD practices can be a money saver. Companies that supply and maintain work phones are expected to foot the bill. BYOD, however, eliminates those business expenditures.[1] In terms of ediscovery, BYOD poses significant privacy and security concerns. Now more than ever, companies should reevaluate their BYOD policies, ensuring that sensitive data is well-protected.

Questions to Consider

Before drafting or revising BYOD policies, there are several questions that a company should ask itself. Below is a list of sample questions to get the ball rolling:

BYOD Recommendations

  • Ask new employees about the BYOD policies at their former jobs. If the employee previously used their personal device for business matters, their device could still contain competitor data. Detecting and eliminating competitor data early on reduces the risk of lawsuits. [2]
  • Pay particular attention to securing data from your legal department. Legal departments, specifically, are a popular target for hackers because they manage large amounts of sensitive information.
  • Consider setting time limits on employee access to highly sensitive material.
  • Consider an employee’s position in the company before allowing them to operate through a personal device. If their position requires consistent interaction with confidential information, it’s safer to supply them with a work phone. [3]
  • Outline any software and applications that employees should not use.
  • Establish protocols for litigation holds and employee departure. [1]
References

[1] Russell Beets, “BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policies and Best Practices,” LitSmart E-Discovery, November 17, 2017.
[2] Will Kelly, “BYOD and the danger of litigation” TechRepublic, November 3, 2015.
[3] Frank Ready, “When Should Companies Refresh BYOD Policies? With COVID-19, It’s Now” Legaltech News, July 16, 2020.

The Discoverability of IoT Devices

What are IoT Devices

The Internet has transformed the way we conduct daily chores. Simple objects such as fridges, watches, doorbells, and washing machines can now be connected to secure networks. This technology is quick, efficient, and the perfect replacement for manual tasks. Whenever the user is within range and connected to WiFi, IoT devices can be used to turn on the lights, preheat the oven, and more. But what exactly is the definition of an IoT device? IoT is shorthand for the Internet of Things, a term used to describe physical objects that transmit data through wireless networks. [1] Fortunately for legal teams, IoT devices are effective in the courtroom as well as the home.

IoT Devices in Court

  • Four years ago in Arkansas, data from an Amazon Echo was used to investigate the death of Victor Collins. When Collins was found dead in his hot tub, his friend James Bates was charged with first-degree murder and evidence tampering. The charges were later dismissed due to reasonable doubt amongst the court. Unfortunately, news sources haven’t disclosed what the voice recordings revealed. [2]
  • After Timothy Burke was accused of shooting his brother, the prosecutor requested the admittance of audios from a Ring doorbell. The defendant objected to its admittance, claiming that it violated New York’s wiretapping and eavesdropping law. The objection was overruled. [3]
  • In an aggravated arson and insurance fraud case, Ross Compton’s guilt was proven by his pacemaker. The man claimed that he packed up his belongings and threw them out the window after discovering the fire. Medical examiners concluded that the pacemaker’s heart rate and cardiac rhythm data disproved Compton’s claims. [4]
  • In State of Wisconsin v. Burch, the defendant was accused of killing her boyfriend. However, the charges were dropped after Fitbit data revealed that Burch had only taken 12 steps in the hours before the death. [5]

Key Considerations

  • Legal teams should explain the significance of IoT data to their clients and evaluate any IoT devices that might be useful.
  • During (or in the prospect of) litigation, disable auto-deletion features on IoT devices.
  • Investigate the reliability of the device’s data.
  • Assess the accessibility of IoT data and the cost of its production. [6]

Conclusion

IoT devices are too valuable to be overlooked in litigation. As demonstrated by the aforementioned court cases, IoT data is quite useful in criminal cases. However, its utility doesn’t stop there. IoT data can also play a significant part in personal injury claims, family law, IP litigation, and more. It would be remiss of litigants to ignore IoT devices during the discovery process. Instead, litigants should consider the relevance and proportionality of IoT devices when drafting their ESI protocol.

 

[1] Brian Morrison and Joann Militano, “E-Discovery for IoT Devices: Primer for Representing Individual Clients,” New York Law Journal, February 1, 2021, https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=legalnews&id=urn:contentItem:61X0-8FG1-JBM3-R471-00000-00&context=1516831.

[2] Erik De La Garza, “Charges Dropped in Amazon Echo Murder Case,” Courthouse News Service, November 29, 2017, https://www.courthousenews.com/charges-dropped-in-amazon-echo-murder-case/

[3] Kimberley Haas, “Judge: Audio from Ring doorbell can be used as evidence in Rochester shooting case,” New Hampshire Union Leader, March 5, 2020, https://www.unionleader.com/news/crime/judge-audio-from-ring-doorbell-can-be-used-as-evidence-in-rochester-shooting-case/article_ee1ddcd1-b193-5ec9-ad9b-08c22fbcdc2f.html

[4] Debra Cassens Weiss, “Data on Man’s Pacemaker Led to His Arrest on Arson Charges,” ABA Journal, February 16, 2017, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/data_on_mans_pacemaker_led_to_his_arrest_on_arson_charges

[5] Greg Goth. “Can Wearables Testify Against Their Owners?” IEEE Spectrum, Sept. 27, 2021, https://spectrum.ieee.org/wearable-data-court

[6] Briar Morrison and Joann Militano, “E-Discovery for IoT Devices: Primer for Representing Individual Clients.”

What Happened in Vegas? It’s No Secret – Read the Buzz

With many reasons to celebrate, CloudNine is still enjoying the excitement of our time Vegas last week. Visiting with valued customers and meeting new contacts are always fortunate opportunities. As an enhancement to those already fruitful conversations, we were thrilled to announce our expanded capabilities through the acquisition of ESI Analyst. Adding modern communication formats such as mobile, chat, social media and more to CloudNine’s powerful and proven applications, fills the market need to manage eDiscovery more effectively, with both modern and traditional data types, on a single platform.

The buzz of our expansion reached the news feeds across multiple social media channels.  A few highlights include:


 

Demonstrations are being scheduled now to debut CloudNine’s new technology – click to request a time to speak and a member of our team will be in touch to schedule.

 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Release Preview LAW 7.6

As data volumes grow, fortunately so has computer processing power.  CloudNine LAW and Explore 7.6 will take advantage of this power boost to amplify your speed to review and production.  The import technology behind both LAW’s Turbo Import and Explore uses a computer’s multiple processing cores more efficiently, making processing faster.

The application updates will include over 200 enhancements to build upon the already strong, import speeds of LAW and Explore.  The most notable improvement in LAW will be the introduction of a Turbo Imaging that can be used in parallel with existing imaging.  Turbo leverages near-native imaging technology to create static images of native files without relying on the native application.  This saves time while imaging, because the files don’t have to be opened, printed to image, and then closed.  The module can also take advantage of multiple processing cores, if available.  With imaging speeds up to eight times faster than the traditional imaging license, Turbo Imaging generates production-ready images quickly and easily.

In Explore, users will benefit from improved reporting capabilities.  This builds on Explore’s email threading, near duplicate detection, advanced filtering and integration with Relativity to provide a first-class, early case assessment experience, allowing clients to reduce the volume of data promoted for review by as much as 70%.  The import and ECA processes are all done without creating additional copies of the data until the client is ready to commit an export of potentially responsive content for further review.  This saves clients from storing copies of data that they don’t need, reducing cost and risk associated with managing multiple identical files.

To learn more about these and other enhancements coming in CloudNine LAW and Explore 7.6, please reach out to your account manager, or email us at info@cloudnine.com to schedule an overview and demonstration.  We’re excited to give you a preview of these updates and plan a wider release in the week of September 13th, 2021.

 

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

Answer the Unknown Challenges of eDiscovery Review

When it comes to document review in electronic discovery, choosing a solution can be a daunting task. To make an informed decision, you need to know what challenges await you and how to overcome them. 

The three biggest challenges to address when looking for a document review platform are:

  • Security
  • Volume 
  • Cost

By better understanding these challenges and their impact on your operations and bottom line, you’ll be in a better position to choose the best eDiscovery software solution for your business.

Is My eDiscovery Data Safe and Protected?

The benefits of storing eDiscovery data in the cloud are many but, digital security and remote access top the list of concerns among legal teams and legal service providers (LSPs) for these reasons:

  • Lack of control over their data
  • Concerns about handing data over to a third party
  • Worried about their data integrity

Utilizing a company dependent on public cloud solutions like Azure or AWS, means you can’t specifically tell your client where your data actually is as it can be stored across multiple cloud locations.

Another topic, more relevant since the COVID-19 pandemic, is security for remote document review. Creating additional access points can cause worry about your network being vulnerable to data breaches.

Can My eDiscovery Software Handle the Volume and Variety of Records?

Investigations and litigation can create a lot of digital records, often soaring into the terabytes. This is compounded by the variety of digital records being used as evidence in legal proceedings, including:

  • Emails
  • Instant messages
  • Digital images
  • Videos
  • Audio files
  • Text messages
  • Social media posts
  • Websites

This volume and variety of data can have a detrimental impact on your operation if you don’t have the digital space to process or store it all. 

The more documents you have, the more infrastructure you need to support it. This can compromise your software performance which could affect your ability to navigate, search, report, export, or produce required information, in a timely manner.

If that happens, new eDiscovery projects could be delayed or canceled outright while you complete your current project. Delays could also lead to missed deadlines which could cause your clients to be sanctioned or fined by the courts.

Are eDiscovery Tools Cost-Effective?

Simply put, some eDiscovery software can be expensive. Many include a lot of features and functionality you may not even need but, you are charged generously for it. 

When looking for an eDiscovery solution, it is important to take the following into consideration in order to get the most cost-effective solution:

  • Is the pricing flexible, allowing you to pay only for what you need?
  • How much archived data is stored on the cloud vs. on-prem? Often a hybrid solution will provide you with the most cost savings. 
  • What support is included within your contract? In order to reap the most cost-saving benefits, it’s important to have your team well-versed in the eDiscovery tool.

The eDiscovery Solution – CloudNine Review

Secure, powerful, and cost-effective, CloudNine Review simplifies eDiscovery enabling you to upload documents quickly and to begin reviewing data within minutes. 

CloudNine Review utilizes a private cloud environment so you know where your data is at all times, giving you better audit controls and the assurance your data is intact. To protect client data, CloudNine cybersecurity safeguards are always up-to-date and constantly monitored.

Another safeguard to protect your data on the CloudNine platform are access controls allowing only authorized staff to review specific documents:

  • User-based permissions
  • Project-based rights
  • Document-level rights

By utilizing our private cloud platform, you have access to all of your data anywhere, anytime, without having to log into your network VPN. 

Also, CloudNine Review carries greater bandwidth so you’re able to get your data much faster. As an example, the first day for a new project can look like this:

  • Registered online and began uploading data
  • Uploaded 27 GB of PST email files
  • Processed 300,000 documents (emails and attachments)
  • A reduced document set by 61% with deduplication and irrelevant domain filtering

Imagine being able to accomplish all of that in just the first 24 hours. 

The best part is you get what you pay for. CloudNine’s transparent pricing model includes multiple pricing methodologies so you’re never caught off-guard.

Beginning with a predictable upfront cost and low storage fees, CloudNine pricing models are designed to keep your costs down while providing the essential services you need.  To learn about our flexible pricing options, click here to speak to one of our eDiscovery experts.

  • All-in Model – one ‘all-in’ price with no hourly rates for self-service
  • Flex Model – low monthly storage costs for long-running litigation

Plus, you only pay for what you use if your case ends or becomes dormant. Older, dormant case data can be archived and saved at your own location using CloudNine Concordance to help you keep costs low and your data safely archived for the future. 

Focusing on speed, security, simplicity, and services, CloudNine is dedicated to empowering our law firm and LSP clients with proven eDiscovery software solutions for litigation, investigations, and audits. 

Ready to try it out for yourself?  Request a free demo and see how CloudNine can help you.

eDiscovery Daily Blog

Convenience and Catastrophes of Self-Collection

Navigating through discovery to find affordable and time-saving efficiencies is now more important than ever.  As the number of employees working remotely has dramatically increased during the COVID-19 Pandemic, attorneys are looking to alternative solutions for data collection amid challenges of reduced budgets and limited access to workplace assets and staff.  In this scenario, a compelling alternative might lead one to custodial self-collection.  Consider the benefits of self-collection against the risk of compromising potentially admissible data and jeopardizing court-defined responsibilityand the answer becomes evident:  the high cost of the short-cutting discovery far outweighs any potential for convenience or cost savings. 

Experts have declared their warning on the risks of self-collection and judges have issued sanctions for abuse, or mishandling over the process, for years.  Still, attorneys continue to make the same mistakes of assigning the task to self-interested employees; failing to supervise the process; delivering corrupted metadata because of the way it was collected, and the list goes on. 

Whether the attorney asks the client’s employees to preserve, search, identify and collect their own data, or the internal IT staff performs the final step, self-collection remains questionable practice.  The process of preservation and collection roll-up to a matter of competence, ethics, and duty of candor in their “obligation to have knowledge of, supervise, or counsel the client’s discovery search, collection and production.”1

Court Response:

These issues were demonstrated clearly in the recent case of EEOC v M1 1500 GroupPresiding Judge Matthewman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, reprimanded the defense attorney for his oversight of the collection process, citing their failure to exercise the requisite supervision.  According to the Court, the surmounting concerns over self-collected discovery are validated through incomplete discovery productions and the destruction of responsive information.”  

Fortunately, Judge Matthewman extended another opportunity to collect the data but, also suggested the defendants hire a legal service provider to remedy the problems caused by self-collection and deliver a valid dataset to the plaintiffs.  Further, the Court advised its intention to “closely supervise the discovery process” to ensure counsel complies with all discovery obligations. 

All things considered, cutting corners at any phase of discovery can be a compromise of catastrophic proportions.  Without the proper actions in place to support self-collection process, one is subject to judicial sanctions, ethical violations, or the invalidation of potentially responsive records.  A prudent and more practical approach would be to leverage the right technology early in the process and streamline your workflow or, entrust service professionals with existing tools and certifications to complete collections confidently and thoroughly. 

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1); ABA Model Rule 3.3; and, commentary about Rule 26(g) from the Advisory Committee Notes, case law, and the Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Production.

10 Years of eDiscovery Daily – Thank You For Your Support

Thinking today about the scores of eDiscovery professionals we’ve had the privilege of connecting with daily to share insights on industry news, analysis and educational tips.  The very first eDiscovery Daily Blog published on September 20, 2010 and in these past 10-years, we’ve seen our industry encounter and overcome many challenges.  From legislative amendments raising standards on ESI preservation to penalties for non-compliance, flexibility and responsive technology has been essential to support the ever-evolving needs of the eDiscovery industry.

As business and commerce around the world face the impact of COVID-19, the legal community is not immune to the adaptations required by local mandates to shut down physical work locations.  Without a doubt, an “on-premise”, remote work environment can produce its own challenge, especially when the “new office” is occupied with children or pets and their own unique approach to get through the workday.

However, despite temporary closures of court systems throughout the country, our clients are reporting a steady stream of business and are projecting a consistent rise to help their clients navigate the inevitable onset of new legal issues.  In parallel, the dependency on cloud-based technology to support secure, remote review is stronger than ever and essential to fill the needs of a remote-centric workforce.

As the eDiscovery Daily always concludes each blog with a question, we’d love to hear your observations.  Please share your comments in the discussion fields below.  Or, if you’d like to learn more about CloudNine, let’s talk.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Did the Plaintiff Send a Letter to Confer with Defendants? It’s Anybody’s “Guess”: eDiscovery Case Law

See what I did there?  ;o)

In Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al., No. 3:18-cv-547-J-39PDB (M.D. Fla. March 20, 2020), Florida District Judge Brian A. Davis ruled on several motions from both the plaintiff and defendants, including denying the defendants’ motion for sanctions over whether the plaintiff sent a letter to confer with defense counsel about the motion to compel.

Case Background

In this case by a prisoner proceeding pro se alleging use of excessive force by six correctional officers, the Court ruled on the plaintiff’s motion to compel, the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s request to strike a declaration of defense counsel and the defendants’ request for sanctions up to dismissal of the action.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for an extension of time, the defendants responded that three officers had no records of discipline, and three others had no records of discipline for use of excessive force on an inmate.  But, Judge Davis stated, in granting both motions: “Contrary to the defendants’ argument, records of discipline are relevant even if the discipline was for something other than use of excessive force on an inmate…In responding to the discovery request, the defendants made no objection about proportionality, instead focusing on relevancy, inadmissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and confidentiality and now provide no analysis about proportionality using the pertinent factors.”

However, Judge Davis denied the plaintiff’s request to strike a declaration of defense counsel, stating: “Accepting a lawyer’s representation that his client has no responsive documents is commonplace in civil litigation absent evidence of misrepresentation beyond conjecture. Matters about discovery collection and review will not be part of the trial as matters merely collateral to the claims tried before the jury. There is no risk defense counsel will be called to testify at trial.”

With regard to the defendants’ motion for sanctions, the plaintiff declared (under penalty of perjury) he tried to confer with defense counsel about the motion to compel by letter (and included a copy of the letter), but received no response.  Conversely, defense counsel declared (under penalty of perjury) he received no letter from the plaintiff and contended the plaintiff was “a liar and a fraudster who has maligned defense counsel’s character”.  There was a dispute over whether the prison logs outgoing mail from prisoners, but Judge Davis said:

“The declarations create material issues of fact on facts immaterial to the merits of the claims and defenses: whether the plaintiff lied when he said he mailed the letter, whether defense counsel lied when he said he never received the letter, whether no one lied because the letter was sent but not received due to inadvertent misplacement or loss at the prison, the post office, or defense counsel’s office, and whether defense counsel misled the Court by suggesting the log would reflect outgoing mail. In the interest of the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action…the Court declines to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these collateral issues or otherwise divert limited resources to trying to resolve them and thus denies the defendants’ request for sanctions…But to confront an alleged but unaddressed misrepresentation by a lawyer, the Court directs defense counsel to inform the Court whether any log actually would reflect outgoing mail sent by the plaintiff…The information must be provided by April 30, 2020.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff be given the benefit of doubt under the circumstances?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

No Fooling! It’s Time for the 2020 Internet Minute Infographic!: eDiscovery Trends

This is not an April Fool’s Joke!  With all of the craziness of the past few weeks, it slipped up on me, but here is the 2020 Internet Minute infographic!

Hard to believe that we’ve been looking at internet minute infographics each year for the past five years, but time flies – minute by minute (see what I did there?).  ;o)

The updated graphic shown above, once again created by Lori Lewis, illustrates what happens within the internet in a typical minute in 2020.  As always, there are a couple of different categories tracked in this graphic than last year’s, but most are the same and those that are carried forward are, once again, (almost) all up compared to last year – some more than others.  For example, people “Tweeting” is up nearly 2.5 times last year and Instagram scrollers nearly twice as much.  No word whether the current craziness (I’m not going to say the “C” word today) was factored into the Netflix increase of 10% (my guess – not), or what percentage of those Netflix viewers were tuned into the  Tiger King limited series (trust me, you can’t stop watching it).

Regardless, here is a comparison between 2019 and 2020 (we previously published the graphic for 2016, 2017 and 2018):

In her post, Lori also goes through some of her observations on the trends.  As always, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the numbers, so take them for what it’s worth.  Nonetheless, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but an infographic is worth one blog post topic (at least once a year).   ;o)

Speaking of trends, Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site has published its list of eDiscovery Mergers, Acquisitions, and Investments in Q1 2020.  As you can imagine, with the current climate having unfolded as the quarter progressed, M&A+I activity is down significantly in 2020 (nine total events, five of those in January) vs Q1 2019 (fifteen total events) and vs. Q1 2018 (fourteen total events).  As always, Rob provides a list of M&A+I events between November 2001 and current (419 of them), so feel free to check those out — they are always interesting.

So, what do you think?  How have the challenges of various sources of data affected your organization?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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