Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Thanks to ACEDS, Today’s the Day to Learn Whether an On-Premise or Off-Premise Solution is Right For You: eDiscovery Best Practices

When consumers are considering their eDiscovery technology choices, there are more factors to consider today than ever. In addition to considering the functionality of the software application, you now also have to consider whether to buy or “rent” the application, how the software is delivered to you and whether it’s required to be within your firewall or can be an off-premises solution.  Thanks to ACEDS, you can learn today how to sort out those factors and make an educated solution selection.

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the ACEDS conducted webcast On Premise or Off Premise? A Look at Security Approaches to eDiscovery.  This one-hour webcast will discuss different on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solution options and considerations for each. Topics include:

  • Drivers for eDiscovery Technology Solution Decisions Today
  • eDiscovery Industry Market Trends and Their Relation to General Industry Trends
  • What Law Firms are Saying about the Technology
  • What Industry Analysts are Saying about the Technology
  • The Cloud vs. No Cloud Debate
  • Why Not All Cloud Solutions Are the Same
  • A Comparative Approach to eDiscovery Technology
  • Putting a Face on Solutions and Risks
  • Key Components of an eDiscovery Technology Solution

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor, who is a Special Consultant to CloudNine  If you follow our blog, you’re undoubtedly familiar with Tom as a leading eDiscovery thought leader (who we’ve interviewed several times over the years) and I’m excited to have Tom as a participant in this webcast!  To register for it, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you use on-premise, off-premise or a combination for your eDiscovery solution(s)?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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 and Compliance Enable eDiscovery Automation and Acceleration for Fortune 200 Client

Combination of Outpost for Relativity Technology and Discovery-as-a-Service Platform Simplifies Discovery for Leading U.S. Company

Houston, Texas (PRWEB) October 10, 2017

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com), partnering with Compliance Discovery Solutions, today highlighted the successful delivery to a leading U.S. company of a jointly developed solution that combines the speed and efficiency of self-service eDiscovery with the power and precision of the industry’s leading legal review platform.

Born of the technology partnership announced between CloudNine and Compliance in early 2017, the joint solution integrates CloudNine’s Outpost for Relativity technology with Compliance’s Discovery-as-a-Service (DaaS) platform featuring Relativity, to provide self-service ingestion and processing of data directly into an optimized hosted Relativity environment. Delivered from the security of a private, protected cloud environment, a unique attribute amongst the different types of cloud offerings, this solution automates and accelerates the complete discovery process, saving the Fortune 200 client time and money while increasing the power and precision of the legal department’s processing, analytics and review capability.

“Today’s corporations are actively examining how to automate and accelerate their eDiscovery efforts while at the same time protecting their investments in technology and training,” shared Marc Zamsky, COO of Compliance. “Our jointly developed solution with CloudNine was recently deployed by a Fortune 200 legal department to help automate much of their eDiscovery process with the attributes of self-service capability while continuing their use of Relativity. This solution protected the company’s financial and institutional knowledge investment in eDiscovery while adding additional workflow and economic efficiencies, allowing the company to increase in effectiveness while reducing costs. This win-win proposition is one our clients are increasingly asking for, and we are excited to be able to meet their needs through our efforts with CloudNine.”

“Facing the challenge of increasing volumes of data coupled with omnipresent budgetary constraints, corporations are many times caught between a rock and a hard place as they seek to increase eDiscovery capability while decreasing costs,” noted Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine. “Integrating our automation technology with Compliance’s proven discovery platform is helping clients manage needs and budgets while still being able to take advantage of advanced technologies that can help them improve eDiscovery efficiencies.  The recent successful deployment of our jointly developed solution with Compliance within the legal department of a Fortune 200 company truly validates the need for the solution and our ability to jointly deliver such an important offering to the market.”

The CloudNine and Compliance Solution

The joint CloudNine and Compliance eDiscovery technology solution consists of three key elements:

+ CloudNine’s Outpost for Relativity Technology
+ Compliance’s Discovery-as-a-Service Platform
+ Compliance’s Hosted Relativity Environment

CloudNine’s Outpost eDiscovery automation integration with Relativity provides users with a tool that accelerates the upload, ingestion, and processing of electronically stored information (ESI). This capability allows users to ingest ESI directly from their desktops immediately and automatically move it into Compliance’s DaaS Managed Services Platform, streamlining workflows for corporate and law firm eDiscovery practitioners.

Compliance’s integrated DaaS platform delivers a complete eDiscovery technology and infrastructure solution. The platform allows customers to gain and maintain control of their eDiscovery efforts with best-of-breed technology without the need for additional investment in software, hardware, infrastructure, or dedicated internal resources.

Compliance’s Hosted Relativity Environment provides clients with the power and precision of Relativity for legal review from an optimized hosting environment.

The comprehensive solution is delivered from the security of a private, protected cloud, providing the access and economic efficiencies of a public cloud deployment with the added protection of a private data center environment. This added level of security enables clients to know exactly where the data is at all times from both a virtual and physical perspective and is an industry differentiator given the proliferation of pure public cloud eDiscovery platform deployments that are challenged by the increasing legal and regulatory requirements around data privacy and security.

Learn More

To learn more about the joint CloudNine and Compliance solution, its pricing, and how it is helping leading corporations and law firms economically and securely extend their eDiscovery effectiveness, visit CloudNine at cloudnine.com or Compliance at www.complianceds.com.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine (cloudnine.com) is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

About Compliance

Compliance Discovery Solutions (www.complianceds.com) is a state-of-the-art integrated eDiscovery services and managed review provider. Through a combination of cutting-edge technology, secure SSAE 16 SOC certified data centers and a national footprint of document review space; Compliance helps AmLaw 100 and Fortune 1000 clients manage critical and complex legal matters. Compliance is a division of System One (www.systemone.com).

For more information contact:

Rob Robinson, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Avoiding Glittering Generalities in Selecting eDiscovery Software – Considering Complexity: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: If you read our blog regularly, you know that we frequently reference my friend and CloudNine colleague Rob Robinson’s excellent blog, Complex Discovery for various industry information, including quarterly business confidence surveys, eDiscovery software and service market “mashups” and information about industry mergers and acquisitions (among other things).  We’ve been discussing aspects of on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery offerings quite a bit lately (including this recent webcast conducted by Tom O’Connor and me a few weeks ago) and Rob has written a terrific article on the subject which he has graciously allowed me to publish here.  This is the fourth part of his multi-part article (parts 1, 2 and 3 here, here and here) – we will publish it in a series over a couple of weeks or so.  Enjoy! – Doug

Considering Complexity

“Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.” Alan Perlis

The ability of eDiscovery software to deal with data complexity such as being able to ingest and process an increasing number of data formats is one of the most important challenges faced by eDiscovery professionals today. In fact, according to the Summer 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey, almost 22% of 101 eDiscovery ecosystem respondents highlighted that the challenge of increasing types of data would have the biggest impact on their business during the next six months.

In facing this challenge, many organizations have employed a combination of software offerings, integrated through workflow, to address both non-complex and complex data in their discovery efforts. One example of this combinatorial approach to solving this specific challenge is to employ an off-premise, SaaS-based offering using a private cloud approach based on emerging technology and then leveraging an on-premise, mature eDiscovery processing engine to address volume and file format challenges not able to be addressed by the off-premise platform. This combination approach takes advantage of the speed and cost benefits of the cloud to deal with a majority of eDiscovery volume and file format challenges and the robustness of a mature on-premise offering to address complexity challenges presented by high volumes of data and an increasing number of file formats. While many software providers highlight the fact that their specific offering can handle all eDiscovery challenges, their assertion may have limits. Those limits being that it may take much more time to complete high volume and non-mainstream file format related requests than with the prudent approach of a combination of on-premise and off-premise offerings offering a balance of emerging and technology.

Quick Takeaway: With the complexity of many eDiscovery challenges, a combination of software solutions may be required to accomplish certain complex task requirements satisfactorily. These combinations of solutions may include on-premise and off-premise offerings working in a complementary fashion. Given that most organizations will face a degree of complexity at some point that cannot be solved by a single eDiscovery solution, it seems reasonable to make offering selections that do not prevent efficient interoperability with other platforms.

Thursday, we will address the last area of evaluation, providing a consideration of cost.

So, what do you think?  What factors do you consider when evaluating and selecting eDiscovery software?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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.

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Washington DC This Week: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re going to be in the Washington DC area this Thursday and/or Friday, October 12th and 13th, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Master’s Conference 2017 DC event.  It’s a day and a half of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

The Master’s Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing eDiscovery and the information life cycle.  This year’s Washington DC event covers topics ranging from privacy to cybersecurity to predictive coding and AI, among other things.

The event will be held at The National Press Club, 529 14th St NW, Washington, DC 20045.  It’s about a block and a half away from the White House.  Registration begins at 8am each day, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session On Premise or Off Premise? A Look At Security Approaches to eDiscovery at 2:45pm on Thursday, October 12th.  I will be moderating a panel that includes Kelly Twigger, Principal with ESI Attorneys, James Zinn, Director of Channel Management with Relativity and Sean Weppner, Managing Director of Operations at Nisos Group.

Our panel discussion will discuss on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solutions and considerations for each.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  If you’re a non-vendor, you can save $125 by registering before Wednesday for the entire conference or $100 by registering before Wednesday to attend one day.  So, if you plan to attend and haven’t registered yet (why not?), now is the time to do it.

This year, The Master’s Conference still has one more event scheduled for Orlando.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Washington DC this Thursday and Friday?  If so, come join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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

Court Denies Motions to Compel Against Various Defendants, For Various Reasons: eDiscovery Case Law

In Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., et al., No. C17-5243 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 19, 2017), Washington District Judge Benjamin H. Settle settled this dispute for now between the plaintiffs and three defendants over discovery disputes by denying the plaintiffs’ motions to compel against all three defendants, two of them without prejudice.

Case Background

In this case by the plaintiffs against several defendants alleging liability resulting from exposure to asbestos, the plaintiffs filed motions to compel against three defendants in July 2017, with all three defendants responding in August 2017, followed shortly by plaintiffs’ reply to each response.

With regard to defendant Weir, the parties’ dispute stemmed over Weir’s search of its electronic database.  The plaintiffs sought information on “any and all Atwood-Morrill valves on the Kitty Hawk and the Peleliu at any time, as well as any of its valves and replacement parts sent to PSNS in 1976 and 1977 when Mr. Blosser was working there”, but Weir contended that its database is not searchable by ship name or hull number and that doing a manual review would be “incomprehensible.”

With regard to defendant William Powell, the plaintiffs moved for an order (1) striking the boilerplate objections, (2) compelling William Powell to fully produce relevant documents, and (3) produce a 30(b)(6) deponent (the parties ultimately resolved the 30(b)(6) issue, so the Court denied this portion of the motion as moot).  Regarding the request for production, William Powell asserted that “it has no documents responsive to [the Blossers’] requests”, but the plaintiffs submitted deposition testimony from 2009 and asserted that William Powell must have relevant documents because its website “makes clear that it has an available database from which to mine information.”

With regard to defendant Flowserve, the dispute existed over determining a date for the 30(b)(6) deposition as well as the date for Flowserve to produce documents.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to defendant Weir, Judge Settle observed that “it is unclear whether the parties conferred or attempted to confer to resolve this dispute without Court action”, noting that the plaintiffs’ attorney threatened a motion to compel regardless of Weir’s attempt to comply with the discovery requests (“we would be filing a motion to compel regardless because our document requests were broader than the limitation Weir had unilaterally imposed.”) and citing an email exchange from Weir that included the exact same threat to file a motion to compel without any indication of a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute.  To this, Judge Settle said “This failure alone is sufficient to deny the motion to compel.”

However, briefly addressing the merits of the dispute anyway, Judge Settle indicated that he “agrees with the Blossers that the information it seeks seems relevant and readily identifiable” and noted that “Weir’s response seems rather illusive in that it asserts there is only one possible way to electronically search its database.”  So, Judge Settle denied the motion without prejudice and ordered the parties “to meet and confer on the issue of searching Weir’s database.”

With regard to defendant William Powell, Judge Settle denied the plaintiffs’ motion, stating: “The Court cannot compel a party to produce that which its attorney certifies it does not have in its possession. Stale testimony and speculation based on website advertisements do not overcome an attorney’s certification to the Court.”

With regard to defendant Flowserve, Judge Settle stated that “the Blossers have failed to show that a dispute exists that requires Court intervention”, noting that the plaintiffs’ attorney acknowledged that several dates had been proposed by both sides on the 30(b)(6) deposition and that Flowserve contended that it informed the plaintiffs that it will “make responsive documents available at a mutually agreeable time and location” and that the “invitation remains outstanding.”  So, Judge Settle denied the plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

So, what do you think?  What should parties be required to do to demonstrate to the court that their opponent has responsive data it’s not producing?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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.

Avoiding Glittering Generalities in Selecting eDiscovery Software – Considering Capability: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: If you read our blog regularly, you know that we frequently reference my friend and CloudNine colleague Rob Robinson’s excellent blog, Complex Discovery for various industry information, including quarterly business confidence surveys, eDiscovery software and service market “mashups” and information about industry mergers and acquisitions (among other things).  We’ve been discussing aspects of on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery offerings quite a bit lately (including this recent webcast conducted by Tom O’Connor and me a few weeks ago) and Rob has written a terrific article on the subject which he has graciously allowed me to publish here.  This is the third part of his multi-part article (parts 1 and 2 here and here) – we will publish it in a series over the next couple of weeks or so.  Enjoy! – Doug

Considering Capability

“Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master.” Christian Lous Lange

Once the security of a potential solution has been considered, the next reasonable area of examination and evaluation is that of capability. Assessing capability is just determining whether or not a solution can accomplish the necessary tasks required in an eDiscovery effort. While there are not always discernible differences in the capabilities of on-premise and off-premise offerings, there are some characteristics to consider as they may be indicators of the ability of a solution to meet actual needs as opposed to perceived needs. Some of these characteristics include maturity, integration, and automation.

The maturity of an offering is important as it helps inform one on how long an offering has been in the market and if it might or might not contain the latest and most efficient technology to accomplish eDiscovery tasks. However, maturity becomes a factor only when it contributes to the inability of a solution to perform the task for it is being asked to complete. If a mature solution is incapable of completing a task today based on lack of functionality or in the near-term based on discontinued support, then it might not be the most appropriate solution from a purchase protection perspective. On the other hand, if it works today and will be maintained in the future, it seems reasonable that the mature offering should not be excluded as a potential choice solely based on the time it has been available on the market.

When discussing maturity, many eDiscovery professionals often and wrongly categorize maturity as legacy and equate legacy with insufficiency. This generalization may be true in some cases. However, some of the most mature offerings in the marketplace today are still the most effective at accomplishing specific tasks. Given that some of the most mature offerings are on-premise, there may be situations where the most appropriate choice for a particular task might be accomplished with an on-premise solution. It is easy to react to the glittering generality of considering all mature technology as legacy and therefore not as good as newer offerings. However, make sure that judgment on capability is first and foremost on the ability of the offering to complete required tasks and not on the time an offering has been in the marketplace.

Integration of an offering is also an important selection characteristic as it may indicate the potential for time and cost efficiencies lacking in non-integrated solutions. For example, offerings that have internal or external technology integration points for ingestion, processing, and review tasks might be more desirable than non-integrated offerings. However, integration without appropriate capability is not acceptable as one cannot be successful in eDiscovery if one cannot perform required tasks.

Automation in eDiscovery should be considered in the same way integration is considered. If automation is available, then it may be desirable over non-automated solutions based on time and cost savings delivered in task completion. However, automation ceases to be important if the tasks being automated are unable to complete required tasks. An example of this would be the automation of ingestion and processing in an offering. Automation of these tasks may be beneficial for certain data types, but if the data types that need to be processed cannot be processed due to lack of system capability, then the time efficiencies of automation may be negated by the time required for manual processing.

Additionally, not all offerings are created equal in their capability to accomplish tasks on large volumes of data. This volume limitation on an offering’s capability is not one usually found in a provider’s software marketing materials or user’s guides, but it is usually well known by those who have implemented specific solutions that fall short in this capability. In fact, even some of the newer, cloud-based off-premise offerings fall short in this area, so short that they position their offering for best use in small and medium cases sizes.  This type of data volume capability limitation is becoming increasingly important as the challenge of increasing volumes of data is regularly noted as one of the top concerns of eDiscovery professionals.

Quick Takeaway: In examining the capability of an offering, the first focus should be on its ability to accomplish required tasks. If it can complete required tasks, then it is reasonable to consider its maturity, integration, and automation as selection data points for comparison. Integration, especially external integration points with other offerings, should be a key consideration in offering selection as very few eDiscovery platforms can handle all eDiscovery challenges without the use of complementary platforms.

Next week, we will address the last two areas of evaluation, providing a consideration of complexity and cost.

So, what do you think?  What factors do you consider when evaluating and selecting eDiscovery software?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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.

Here’s a Chance to Learn from the Epic Mistakes of Other High Profile Organizations: eDiscovery Best Practices

The recent eDiscovery failures at Wells Fargo and at the Department of Justice show that eDiscovery mistakes and failures happen even at the largest corporations and government agencies.  Here’s your chance to learn from their mistakes.

On Wednesday, October 25 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Lessons Learned from Recent eDiscovery Disasters. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss the various issues that occurred in these high-profile cases and what to do to avoid them in your own cases.  Topics include:

  • Attorney Duty of Competence
  • Managing Communications: Attorney Responsibilities
  • Managing Communications: Vendor Responsibilities
  • Recommended Workflows for Tracking Review
  • Common Redaction Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
  • Checking for Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
  • Key Takeaways for Better eDiscovery Project Management

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor, who is now a Special Consultant to CloudNine!  If you follow our blog, you’re undoubtedly familiar with Tom as a leading eDiscovery thought leader (who we’ve interviewed several times over the years) and I’m excited to have Tom as a participant in this webcast!  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).  It just might keep you from being mentioned in The New York Times – not in a good way.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

So, what do you think?  Do you know any other eDiscovery “epic fail” stories?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Avoiding Glittering Generalities in Selecting eDiscovery Software – Considering Security: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: If you read our blog regularly, you know that we frequently reference my friend and CloudNine colleague Rob Robinson’s excellent blog, Complex Discovery for various industry information, including quarterly business confidence surveys, eDiscovery software and service market “mashups” and information about industry mergers and acquisitions (among other things).  We’ve been discussing aspects of on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery offerings quite a bit lately (including this recent webcast conducted by Tom O’Connor and me a few weeks ago) and Rob has written a terrific article on the subject which he has graciously allowed me to publish here.  This is the second part of his multi-part article (part 1 here) – we will publish it in a series over the next couple of weeks or so.  Enjoy! – Doug

Considering Security

“Distrust and caution are the parents of security.” Benjamin Franklin

The security of data is fast becoming one of the most prominent and visible areas of concern in the selection of eDiscovery software solutions. With public examples of data security failures increasing in regularity and impact, it behooves any discovery solution decision maker to carefully consider how they manage this important risk factor and make decisions based on facts.

Control of data, applications, servers, storage, and network connectivity behind an organization’s firewall has traditionally been viewed as the most secure of available eDiscovery solution deployment options. In this on-premise security approach, an organization has complete control of data and all the elements that might act on the data in the course of eDiscovery. For organizations that have an established security infrastructure, on-premise offerings appear to be a safe approach to eDiscovery security as they minimize security risk through the exercise of direct control of data.  The on-premise approach also seems highly desirable to many organizations sensitive to data transfer regulations and privacy requirements as it ensures they maintain a direct understanding of the physical location of data and have the ability to act on that data at all times.  From an acceptance standpoint, according to a recent eDiscovery industry report from the Aberdeen Group (covered by us here), organizations are 50% more likely to have an on-premise eDiscovery solution than a cloud-based one.  With these facts in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that an on-premise approach to security is a safe method that is and should continue to be used by many organizations as part of their eDiscovery solution even in the face of growing acceptance of off-premise alternatives.

With the mainstream acceptance of cloud computing, the off-premise approach to delivering eDiscovery software is experiencing increasing in acceptance. This acceptance is based on many attributes, one being the evidence that off-premise offerings delivered via SaaS may be able to satisfactorily address many of the security requirements previously only achievable in on-premise offerings.  Reasons for this growing acceptance of cloud-centric eDiscovery solutions as secure on-premise alternatives include but are not limited to the following security elements:

  • Sophisticated Encryption: The ability to encrypt data in various states of movement and rest.
  • Security Experts on Staff: The availability of experts to continuously monitor and address security requirements.
  • First Access to Emerging Technologies: The access to emerging technologies based on size and centralization of data.

These elements of security are increasingly available in cloud offerings and are helping make the use off-premise eDiscovery solutions acceptable when viewed through the lens of security.

There are also different types of cloud implementations that may contribute to the overall security of a particular cloud-centric solution. There are pure public clouds that operate exclusively on a public cloud infrastructure and are delivered by companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. There are also private cloud solutions that combine the economic and access benefits of pure public cloud solutions with the added security of provider-owned resources that allow for determination of the exact physical location of data at any time. This ability to reach out and physically locate client data is a desirable security attribute of private clouds, especially in light of increasing regulatory and legal requirements around the disposition and disposal of personally identifiable information.

Given the current state of security of most public and private cloud eDiscovery offerings, it seems reasonable to suggest that there are many appropriate cloud-based offerings from a solely security-centric perspective.

Regardless of on-premise or off-premise approach, there are always some areas of security concern that transcend delivery approach. One example of this type of security concern is the transfer of productions outside of the firewall or cloud-secured environment to requesting parties. However, there are also many ways to mitigate even this risk through the use of secure transfer protocols, encryption, and shared access to secure servers managed with role-based access. In fact, some vendors present this concern of data transfer security argument as a reason not to consider a solution when in fact the real reason the vendor highlights this risk is that getting data out of their system is incredibly time-consuming and they want to direct users to proprietary approaches that mitigate data transfer speed deficiencies. Said differently, when evaluating software provider arguments and objections to differing security concerns, make sure you accurately understand the cause of the concern as it may be more related to performance deficiencies than security deficiencies.

Quick Takeaway: Both on-premise and off-premise offerings may be sufficient to meet organizational security requirements. However, some approaches may mitigate security risk more comprehensively than others, so it is important to understand current and potential future security requirements when selecting eDiscovery software.

Thursday, we will address the next area of evaluation, providing a consideration of capability.

So, what do you think?  What factors do you consider when evaluating and selecting eDiscovery software?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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.

It’s a “Fest” of Us, For the “Best” of Us: eDiscovery Trends

See what I did there?  Frank Costanza would be proud.

We’re about three weeks out from this year’s Relativity Fest conference, conducted every year by Kcur, uh, Relativity (sorry, old habits die hard).  Relativity Fest is an annual conference designed to educate and connect the eDiscovery community and features over 160 panel discussions, as well as hands-on labs, breakout sessions, and insights from Relativity staff, Relativity users, and industry leaders.  It’s a big show with over 2,000 attendees and a lot going on.

This year, Relativity Fest is October 22 through 25 in Chicago at The Hilton Chicago (where the final scenes of the 1993 movie The Fugitive, with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, was filmed).

As a development partner in the Relativity ecosystem, CloudNine will be the conference and will be there to provide demonstrations of our Outpost for Relativity that automatically ingests and loads data into Relativity based on your specified criteria.

Also, I will be covering the show for eDiscovery Daily, and I’m delighted to say that I will also be speaking at a session at the conference.  My session is e-Discovery in the Cloud, on Tuesday, October 24 at 11:00 am, moderated by David Horrigan, e-Discovery Counsel and Legal Content Director at Relativity and we will be joined by Rachi Messing, Senior Program Manager at Microsoft, Ari Kaplan, Principal at Ari Kaplan Advisors and Kelly Twigger, Founder of ESI Attorneys.

In addition to that session, there are several other interesting looking sessions at the conference, including:

  • Beer and Basics: e-Discovery 101 and Relativity Fundamentals, Sunday (10/22) at 5:30pm with David and Michael Quartararo, Director of Litigation Support at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP – what goes better with eDiscovery than beer and wine?
  • e-Discovery in Asia, Monday (10/23) at 11:00am, a panel discussion with eDiscovery providers and practitioners from China, Korea, and Japan to discuss the eDiscovery legal framework in their respective countries.
  • The Judicial Panel, Monday (10/23) at 1:00pm, with David (again – he’ll be quite busy that week), along with Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Andrew Peck of the Southern District of New York, Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas and (all the way from Australia) Justice Peter Vickery of the Supreme Court of Victoria (and the recent landmark TAR decision in that country) to discuss the latest legal developments in eDiscovery.
  • It’s a Small World After All: Solving Challenges in Multilingual Reviews, Monday (10/23) at 3:30pm and Tuesday (10/24) at 8:30am, experts from McDermott Will & Emery will discuss various best practices in dealing with various challenges associated with foreign language data.
  • A Practical Roadmap for EU Data Protection and Cross-Border Discovery, Tuesday (10/24) at 1:30pm, with GDPR and other cross-border challenges emerging, this should be an interesting session.
  • Plaintiffs Can Use Technology, Too!, Wednesday (10/24) at 8:30am, perspectives from a judge, a lawyer, and a technologist on successful use of technology on large received productions (and the judge is retired Judge Shira Scheindlin!).

To register to attend Relativity Fest, click here.  It’s not too late!  And, the Cubbies may still be in the baseball playoffs then(!) – though the Astros are going to win it all this year, just sayin’… :o)

So, what do you think?  Are you attending Relativity Fest this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I’m excited to report that eDiscovery Daily has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the Legal Tech category!  Thanks to whoever nominated us!  If you enjoy our blog, you can vote for it and help it win a spot in their Best Legal Blogs Hall of Fame.  You can cast a vote for the blog here.  Thanks!

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 Voted as a Leader in Multiple Categories in The Recorder’s Best of 2017 Reader Ranking Survey

Eleventh Annual Issue of The Recorder’s Best Highlights eDiscovery-Centric Recognition of CloudNine

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today highlighted its recent recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in the eleventh annual issue of The Recorder’s Best Survey.

The Recorder’s BEST OF 2017 issue was published in September with the top three responses in each of more than 80 categories shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following three reader ranking categories:

  • Best Online Review Platform (3)
  • Best Predictive Coding Solution (2)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (2)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot beginning in April of 2017.

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audit efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

Rob Robinson, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent