Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Court Rules Non-Party Subpoenaed ESI Not Subject to 100-Mile Boundary: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues!  We had a great webcast yesterday where Tom O’Connor and I discussed key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018 – 22 cases in all!  Now, on to covering cases for the second half of 2018!  :o)

In Curtis v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. CIV-17-1076-C (W.D. Okla. June 13, 2018), Oklahoma District Judge Robin J. Cauthron, noting that the non-party “subpoena at issue does not require the travel or attendance of any witnesses and Plaintiff is requesting the production of electronic documents”, found that “there is no violation of the 100-mile limitation for electronic documents pertaining to Rule 54” and granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena directed to the non-party.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff claimed breach of contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and fraud against the defendant insurance company over the valuation of the plaintiff’s vehicles after two automobile collisions, the plaintiff served non-party Mitchell International, Inc. with a subpoena duces tecum in March 2018.  The plaintiff requested documents from Mitchell pertaining to “the correspondence, purchase, and analysis of the [computer valuation system]” Mitchell utilized to create valuations of total loss vehicles for the defendant and served Mitchell through its Oklahoma registered agent.  Within two weeks, Mitchell served written objections to Plaintiff’s subpoena.  Subsequent discussion failed to reach a resolution and the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena.

The plaintiff argued that her subpoena was valid and enforceable because “a subpoena that commands a person to travel beyond the 100-mile boundary must be quashed however, a Court retains discretion to command compliance with a subpoena for documents which requires production beyond the 100-mile limitation.”  The plaintiff also noted that “[t]he contractual nature of the relationship between Progressive and Mitchell, as well [as] the cost-savings incentives marketed to Progressive by Mitchell are relevant to the claims in this lawsuit . . . concerning the method and manner in which the system operates in creating values for Progressive’s Oklahoma insureds is the fundamental basis of Plaintiff’s claims.”  Mitchell argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s motion because Mitchell maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in San Diego and the subpoena demands compliance in Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Federal district courts enjoy broad discretion over discovery measures”, Judge Cauthron, in granting the plaintiff’s motion, stated:

“Here, Plaintiff states—and Mitchell does not dispute—that the information requested can be produced electronically. Mitchell has an Oklahoma registered agent and Progressive Northern Insurance Company continues to use the valuation system licensed and provided by Mitchell in Oklahoma to conduct business. As a result, Mitchell regularly transacts business in Oklahoma. The subpoena at issue does not require the travel or attendance of any witnesses and Plaintiff is requesting the production of electronic documents. This Court finds that there is no violation of the 100-mile limitation for electronic documents pertaining to Rule 54.”

Two weeks later, Judge Cauthron also denied the defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena.

So, what do you think?  Should there even be a 100-mile limitation for discovery?  Please let us know if 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.

Today is the Day to Learn How eDiscovery Case Law from Earlier This Year Can Guide You in Future Cases: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues during The Discovery Channel’s Shark Week (that’s the other discovery)!  Legal precedents set by past case law decisions remain one of the best ways to guide lawyers on how to do their job and avoid mistakes made by others, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?  Get up to date today!

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2018.  This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily Blog during the first half of 2018 to enable lawyers to learn from these cases — 22 cases in all! Key topics include:

  • Is there a template for how parties should cooperate in a Technology Assisted document review?
  • Should a plaintiff be allowed to email all defendant employees to see if they have responsive documents?
  • Will fabrication of text messages result in sanctions post Rule 37(e)?
  • Can Twitter be compelled to produce direct messages between their own employees?
  • Can an individual be compelled to produce private Facebook photos by the opposing party?
  • How have proportionality considerations in the 2015 Federal rules affected scope of discovery?
  • Should a receiving party be granted a quick peek at privileged documents to resolve privilege disputes?
  • Should border searches of electronic devices require a warrant?
  • Can you be sanctioned for discovery violations even after a jury verdict?

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn from past eDiscovery case law decisions, this is the webcast for you!  It’s not too late!

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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.

SCOTUS Says Warrantless Access of Cell Phone Locations Violates Fourth Amendment: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues!  We’re catching up on cases leading up to our webcast tomorrow where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, this is a key case decision that happened when I was on a family vacation last month.  Did you miss it?  In case you did, here it is.

In Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16–402 (U.S. June 22, 2018), The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

In 2011, Timothy Carpenter was arrested on suspicion of participating in a string of armed robberies at RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio. In the course of the investigation, FBI agents acquired transactional records from Carpenter’s cell phone carrier. The government sought this data pursuant to the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows law enforcement to obtain communications records by demonstrating “specific and articulable facts” that the records are relevant to an ongoing investigation, rather than probable cause that a crime has been committed. The trial court denied Carpenter’s motion to suppress the records, and a jury convicted him of firearms violations and violations of the Hobbs Act. On appeal, Carpenter maintained that the acquisition of his cellular data without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Sixth Circuit held that such a seizure did not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.  Carpenter petitioned to have the case heard by SCOTUS, which heard arguments in November 2017.

The Court issued its decision on June 22, 2018, with the court split 5–4 to reverse and remand the decision by the lower courts. In a very lengthy ruling, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with associate Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joining Roberts’ opinion. The majority determined that the third-party doctrine applied to telephone communications in Smith v. Maryland could not be applied to cellphone technology and ruled that the government must obtain a warrant in order to access historical cellphone records. Roberts argued that technology “has afforded law enforcement a powerful new tool to carry out its important responsibilities. At the same time, this tool risks Government encroachment of the sort the Framers [of the US Constitution], after consulting the lessons of history, drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent.”

Roberts also considered that “detailed, encyclopedic and effortlessly” tracking a person by cell towers was similar to that of using a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device as determined by United States v. Jones. Roberts stressed that the decision is a very narrow ruling; it does not affect other parts of the third-party doctrine, such as banking records, nor does it prevent collection of cell tower data without a warrant in emergencies or for national security issues.

Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each wrote dissenting opinions.  Justice Alito wrote in his dissent:

“I share the Court’s concern about the effect of new technology on personal privacy, but I fear that today’s decision will do far more harm than good. The Court’s reasoning fractures two fundamental pillars of Fourth Amendment law, and in doing so, it guarantees a blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”

So, what do you think?  Does this ruling appropriately limit law enforcement use of private cell phone location data without a warrant or does it hamstring the ability for law enforcement to adequately investigate suspects?  Please let us know if 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.

Court Declines to Compel Defendant to Produce Direct Messages Between its Employees: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week is here!  We got a head start on it by catching up on a case on Friday, leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss a key case regarding custody and control by Twitter of the direct messages of its employees.

In Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties, including denial of a request by the plaintiffs to order the defendants to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties.

In this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the defendant, there were six issues in dispute.  One key dispute involved a request from the plaintiffs that the defendants search Twitter private direct messages that each custodian sent and received.  The defendants had agreed to provide direct messages for individual defendants Anthony Noto and Richard Costolo only (who had consented to their production). The defendants argued that the Stored Communications Act prevents the disclosure of direct messages from anyone other than a named individual defendant.

In agreeing with the defendants, Judge Kim stated:

“’The Stored Communications Act prevents ‘providers’ of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals… Courts have held that the Stored Communications Act prevents a court from enforcing a subpoena issued to a third party ECS or RCS for the protected information.’ Crispin v. Christina (sic) Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965, 971-72 (C.D. Cal. 2010)… Plaintiffs are correct that a court can compel a party to produce information within the party’s custody and control, but they confuse the identity of the party with the identity of the individual custodians. Here, for purposes of analysis, the Court will treat Twitter as if it is separate from the individual custodians who have direct messages stored with Twitter. The individual custodians other than Costolo and Noto are not parties. In other words, because Defendants claim, without opposition, that Twitter did not require its employees to use direct messages for communications, the Court must evaluate Twitter separately from the individual custodians who have privacy rights protected by the Stored Communications Act. The two named individual defendants, Costolo and Noto, are allowing discovery of their direct messages, as Plaintiffs can issue to them requests for information pursuant to Rule 34 and obtain their direct messages… Plaintiffs merge Twitter and its individual custodians’ rights. They are not the same. If Plaintiffs issued a third party subpoena to a company—not Twitter—for direct messages that the individual custodians sent and received, there is no question that the Court could not enforce such a subpoena. Under the same reasoning, the Court cannot compel Twitter, a party in this litigation, to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties simply because Twitter is also the provider of the direct messaging service.”

Ruling on other disputes, Judge Kim: 1) ordered the defendants to search the files of an additional custodian, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and former CEO; 2) denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s request that the defendants produce documents from Falquora, Twitter’s internal message board; 3) ordered the defendants to produce documents in unredacted form that were covered by a stipulated Protective Order; 4) denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents containing terms “DAU” (daily active users) and “MAU” (monthly active users) WITHOUT PREJUDICE as potentially overbroad (allowing the plaintiffs to re-file the motion with a more specific, targeted approach if they are concerned the other requests for production are not yielding relevant documentation); 5) that the search “engag*” be conducted for documents with that term within 10 words of 20 terms proposed by defendants and up to 10 additional terms proposed by plaintiffs; and 6) denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to produce documents concerning Defendants’ efforts to “maintain, search for and preserve all documents” (which the defendants deemed to be privileged).

Despite the six issues being ruled on, Judge Kim stated “it is clear that the parties have worked hard in meeting and conferring to narrow the issues of dispute. The Court commends the parties for doing so and for presenting the remaining issues for dispute in a clear and cogent matter. The Court is confident that the parties will continue to meet and confer in good faith, narrow the areas of their dispute, and only present to the Court matters which they cannot resolve and which are significant.”

So, what do you think?  Should the direct messages of Twitter employees have been ruled out of the custody and control of Twitter?  Please let us know if 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.

Don’t Be “Chicken”! Consider Having a Good Protocol for Handling eDiscovery: eDiscovery Case Week

We’re getting a head start on next week’s shark week, er, case week here on the blog!  With that in mind, we’re catching up on a couple of cases leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss the most notable search methodology order having to do with broiler chicken litigation ever!

In the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2018), Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert appointed a special master (noted Technology Assisted Review expert Maura Grossman) to help the parties resolve eDiscovery disputes.  Judge Gilbert and Special Master Grossman issued a very detailed procedure (Order Regarding Search Methodology for Electronically Stored Information) for how the parties were to conduct TAR, including search, validation and document sourcing approaches, split into three primary sections: (1) how the parties will act, (2) what search technologies will be used, and (3) an outline of a document review validation protocol.

In this class action lawsuit filed on September 2016, the plaintiffs alleged that companies in the broiler chicken industry were colluding to limit the supply of chickens to raise, by almost 50%, the prices consumers would need to pay for chicken.  In February 2017, the plaintiffs filed their first set of requests for production.  With 3 putative plaintiff classes, nearly 30 defendants, multiple theories of liability, and activity covering close to ten years in a $20 billion plus dollar industry, Judge Gilbert appointed Special Master Grossman in October 2017 to address and resolve disputes regarding eDiscovery, which led to this order right after the first of the year.

The order set forth expectations with regard to:

  1. Transparency and the use of culling technologies prior to search, including de-duplication, email threading, email domains, targeted collections, exception reporting and other culling;
  2. Search methods, divided into “TAR/CAL” (Technology Assisted Review/Continuous Active Learning) and Keyword Search Processes;
  3. Document review validation protocol involving specifications for QC sampling, regardless whether TAR or “exhaustive manual review” was used.

The Order also included an appendix, detailing the recall estimation method for a review process involving TAR as well as the method for manual review.

In terms of a model protocol to not only cover how to conduct TAR and/or keyword search, but manage eDiscovery in general, this is a terrific protocol which will certainly be referenced for some time to come.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in a case where the court ordered a protocol for managing eDiscovery?  Please let us know if 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.

CloudNine Appoints Ellery Dyer as New Vice President of Sales, Positioning Company to Drive Continued eDiscovery Growth 

Addition of Experienced Leader Strengthens Company Revenue Generation and Customer Collaboration Capabilities

HOUSTON – CloudNine, a leader in simplifying and automating legal discovery, today announced Ellery Dyer has joined the executive team as Vice President of Sales. In this role, Dyer will lead CloudNine’s sales and business development efforts for its on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery software products and services.

Dyer joins CloudNine with more than thirty years of experience in digital technology and sales. He most recently served in executive sales leadership roles for OpenText’s Discovery (Recommind) software solutions line following prior senior sales roles at Digital Reef, Vercadia Systems, ZANTAZ (Autonomy), and Forte Systems.

“As an experienced and successful sales executive with a deep understanding of data and legal discovery, Ellery brings a unique balance of discovery domain expertise and proven revenue generation capabilities to CloudNine,” stated Brad Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer for CloudNine. “His track record of building high-performing sales teams coupled with his extensive experience in prioritizing the needs of legal professionals will be advantageous to CloudNine as we continue prioritizing growth in pursuit of our efforts to help simplify discovery for our customers. We are pleased to welcome Ellery to our team.”

Learn More

To learn more about CloudNine and how our on-premise and off-premise offerings can augment and enhance your eDiscovery workstreams, visit cloudnine.com.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine (cloudnine.com) is a legal discovery technology company with expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by more than 2,000 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 off-premise and on-premise software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

CloudNine has been highlighted by industry experts in reports, reviews, and surveys including Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a popular, trusted source for legal industry information. A leader in eDiscovery simplification and automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at cloudnine.com.

Company Contact

Doug Austin
CloudNine
pr@cloudnine.com

Media Contact

Daniel Yunger or Cathryn Vaulman
KEKST
212-521-4800

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Want to Learn More About the Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media? Check Out this Video: eDiscovery Best Practices

As we discussed earlier this month, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media, Second Edition.  Want to learn more about it without reading the 58 page PDF file?  Check out this video.

On the blog Techno Gumbo which is maintained by my buddy and colleague Tom O’Connor and the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center – “gumbo”, from New Orleans, get it? – Tom has just posted a video chat between his wife Gayle O’Connor and noted thought leader Craig Ball regarding the Primer, downloadable here.  Both Gayle and Craig have informed perspectives on the topic – Gayle, because of her experience in providing marketing assistance (including social media marketing) to attorneys and legal vendors and Craig, because of his experience as an attorney and Special Master focusing on eDiscovery issues.

Interestingly, both Craig and Gayle had high praise for the Primer.  Craig noted that he was “pleasantly surprised” and stated that it was a “very high-quality document”, “carefully thought out”, “very current”, “useful in its structure” and “tremendously balanced for the most part in terms of the interests of requesting parties and producing parties”.  Gayle noted that she was “very, very impressed in how they included everything that’s going on these days”, including updates (from the 2012 edition) to reflect the new Federal rules, the ABA guidelines regarding technical competence for attorneys and even the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  Both Craig and Gayle also particularly noted coverage of messaging and messaging apps in addition to the traditional sources of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram and they discussed the challenges and considerations associated with social media in eDiscovery in general.

I won’t be “that guy” and spoil the whole conversation; instead, feel free to check out the discussion here.  Gayle has also written an article about the Primer on the ACEDS site, which you can check out here.

TSC has scheduled a webinar on the public comment version of the Primer for Wednesday, August 8, at 1 pm EDT.  You can register for the webinar here – it’s free of charge to judges, court staff, all other full-time government employees, and to accredited law schools and a minimal charge (no more than $99) for regular folks.  As for the public comment period, it’s open for public comment through September 10, 2018. Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Do you have challenges in handling social media in litigation?  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.

Women in eDiscovery and South Texas College of Law Team Up for Another Houston Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

Last year, I was honored to participate in the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston, hosted by the Women in eDiscovery (WiE), Houston Chapter.  The event was such a success they’re doing it again this year!

On September 27, WiE Houston, in partnership with South Texas College of Law and the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), will be hosting the second annual “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference”.  The one-day technology showcase will bring together legal thought leadership, innovative technology providers, practitioners, legal support staff and law school students in one venue to network and collaborate on current legal industry trends and innovative technology products.

Thanks to South Texas College of Law, ACEDS, conference sponsors and technology exhibitors, the event is free to attend and open to all professionals within the legal industry including attorneys, litigation support and legal operations professionals, paralegals, legal IT staff, court reporters, consultants, recruiters and vendors.

The conference will feature several educational sessions (with CLE credit!) led by industry experts and thought leaders along with a full day of technology exhibits from leading legal technology providers. The event agenda includes a continental breakfast, welcome keynote, 3 educational sessions, lunch, all day exhibitions, and a post-event happy hour.  Attendees will also have the opportunity to enter in a drawing to win a CEDS scholarship courtesy of ACEDS.

The agenda and speakers will be updated as they are finalized, though a preliminary agenda and speaker list are available.

I’m excited to be one of the speakers again this year on the panel discussion AI and TAR for Legal: Use Cases for Discovery and Beyond at 2:30pm and CloudNine is also a Premier Platinum Sponsor for the event (as well as an Exhibitor, so you can come learn about us too).

The conference runs from 8:30am to 5:00pm, with a networking happy hour from 5:00pm to 7:00pm.  Both events are at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  If you’re in Houston (or could be on that day), click here to register for the event.  Based on last year’s turnout, it’s going to be BIG, so register early to save your spot!

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Houston on September 27?  If so, come join us!  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.

Public or Private Isn’t the Only Question You Should be Asking about Cloud Solutions: eDiscovery Best Practices

In yesterday’s post detailing the discussion of industry experts regarding the adoption of cloud technology within the legal industry, several points of discussion were discussed, including the differentiation between “public cloud” and “private cloud”.  It’s important to know the difference between the two implementations and why you might consider selecting one over the other (and what you need regardless of which one you select).  But, public or private cloud isn’t the only question you should be asking about a cloud solution.

To begin to understand what we’re talking about, it’s important to define three terms typically related to cloud computing: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS):

  • Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is a service model that delivers computer infrastructure on an outsourced basis to support enterprise operations. Typically, IaaS provides hardware, storage, servers and data center space or network components.
  • Platform as a service (PaaS) is a category of cloud computing services that provides a platform allowing customers to develop, run, and manage web applications without the complexity of building and maintaining the infrastructure typically associated with developing and launching an app.
  • Software as a service (SaaS) is a software distribution model in which a third-party provider hosts applications and makes them available to customers over the Internet.

This diagram, courtesy of the site virtualclouds.in, does a good job of illustrating examples of each.

As you can see, the software application residing on top of the cloud platform and infrastructure are separate and unique and don’t necessarily have to be from the same provider.  Sometimes they are, like in the case of Office 365 hosted in the Microsoft Azure platform; other times they aren’t, like in the case of Salesforce.com hosted in Amazon Web Services (AWS).

Here’s another diagram, courtesy of YourDailyTech, which illustrates the different components to the solution and what you manage in a) an on-premise implementation, b) an IaaS implementation, c) a PaaS implementation and d) a SaaS implementation.

As you can see, there’s a lot of components to manage.  A lot of organizations are managing many (if not all) of those components anyway to support various internal needs for their organizations, but many organizations are turning to IaaS, PaaS and SaaS implementations for at least some of their solution choices.  The choices they make are based on several factors, including costs and security requirements.  There’s no right or wrong answer here – each choice can be appropriate depending on the organization and its needs.

However, you know the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?  Well, that holds true for cloud solutions as well.  Whether you favor a public cloud or a private cloud approach, you still have to vet the software provider on top of that public or private cloud infrastructure.  Obviously, when evaluating comparable software solutions, it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that you should look at the features of the different solution choices and evaluate them against the needs of your organization.

But, you shouldn’t stop there.  You also want to evaluate the companies offering the different solution choices as well.  How long has each company been in business?  What’s the average tenure of their top leadership team?  What’s the average tenure of their support and services teams?  You don’t want to select a “fly-by-night” company that could be gone tomorrow or a company that has a “revolving door” in key positions where you’re continually dealing with someone new in support or services.  Familiarity breeds…comfort – not contempt (at least when it comes to a cloud SaaS provider).

So, what do you think?  How closely do you vet the SaaS company providing the solution in a cloud solution selection?  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.