Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Evolution of eDiscovery Automation – Looking Back and Looking Forward: eDiscovery Trends

How has eDiscovery automation technology evolved over the years?  Where is it headed?  What is the current state of acceptance for Technology Assisted Review (TAR) within courts and within the bar?  How do the different TAR approaches work?  Has the promise of TAR been fulfilled?

Those are just a few of the questions presented and discussed last Thursday in our E-Discovery Day webcast 10 Years Forward and Back – Automation in eDiscovery which was presented by ACEDS and sponsored by CloudNine.  If you missed the webcast, you’re in luck – the webcast was recorded!

Moderated by Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS, the webcast highlighted the progress of eDiscovery automation technology over time and took a look at the present state of the technology and where it could be headed.  Speakers included:

  • George Socha, Co-Founder of EDRM and Managing Director at BDO, who turned on the “wayback” machine to look at the evolution of eDiscovery technology for well more than ten years back (more like 30 when the term “eDiscovery” didn’t even exist yet) and took a look forward toward what to expect for the future;
  • David Horrigan, E-Discovery Counsel and Legal Content Director at kCura, who discussed the evolution and current state of acceptance of TAR by courts and within the bar;
  • Bill Dimm, Founder and CEO of Hot Neuron, who discussed what we’ve learned about improving TAR technologies and how to effectively measure results, as well as how each of the most common TAR approaches work;
  • Bill Speros, Principal of Speros & Associates, who discussed the current state of the practice of TAR and whether TAR (and machine learning technology in general) is currently living up to its promise or it has reached the peak of inflated expectations.

I spoke as well about factors that are driving practitioners and providers alike toward discovery automation technology, the evolution of that technology to where we are today and whether any of the current automation technologies has the potential of becoming a disruptive innovation that revolutionizes how discovery is conducted.  The panel also addressed several questions from the audience over the course of the 90 minute session.

The webcast was well attended with several of the attendees rating the webcast as “Excellent” and a number of them commenting that the webinar was very informative and provided excellent information about the use of TAR and the history of eDiscovery technology.

Now is your chance to find out if you agree.  Below is the video recording of the webinar.

You can also check it out here and also download a PDF copy of the slides (though I should note that many of the slides have animations, so the best way to get the full effect is to watch the video).  Feel free to drop me a line and let me know what you think.

So, what do you think?  Did you attend an E-Discovery Day event?  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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Defendant Ordered to Produce Source Code Responsive to Agreed Upon Search Protocol: eDiscovery Case Law

In ACI Worldwide Corp. v. MasterCard Technologies, LLC et. al., No. 14-31 (D. Nebraska, Oct. 27, 2016), Nebraska Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of the defendant’s Full Source Code in part, “to the extent there are any files that MasterCard has not produced responsive to the parties’ previously established joint Search Protocol.”

Case Background

In this action where the plaintiff alleged the defendants violated a licensing agreement and disclosed confidential information regarding the plaintiff’s software, the disclosure of the defendant’s source code had been the subject of ongoing discovery disputes for more than a year.  In an order dated July 13, 2015 (and covered by us here), the court found the plaintiff had shown the relevance and a particular need for electronically stored information (“ESI”) constituting or containing the plaintiff’s proprietary information, but, because the court did not have the expertise necessary to determine the best way to retrieve the requested information, the parties were directed to devise a joint search protocol or methodology to retrieve the information requested by the plaintiff; otherwise, the court would appoint a special master.

The parties then generally agreed to a search protocol, but were unable to reach a full agreement on the search terms to be used.  In August 2015, the court ordered the defendant to run the plaintiff’s “Counterproposal Search Protocol” and produce the search results no later than September 16, 2015; after the defendant’s objections were overruled, the parties subsequently conferred and agreed that the defendant would run the Search Protocol and produce the requested materials by October 9, 2015. The defendant continued to hesitate to produce actual source code without an additional protective order, and after another motion to compel by the plaintiff, the court again ordered the defendant to run the Search Protocol and produce the requested information, which included source code. In February 2016, the court denied the defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration, but stated it would entertain inclusions of additional provisions to the protective order in place, if the parties agreed. In March, the court adopted the parties’ joint protective order for source code.

Ultimately, the plaintiff filed the current motion to compel disclosure of the entire source code, claiming that the defendant had not produced all items identified by the Search Protocol, stating production of the entire source code was warranted due to “MasterCard’s history of refusing to produce clearly relevant source code” and alleging that the source code produced to date supported its allegations of misappropriation. The defendant counters that the remedy is the production of missing files pursuant to the Search Protocol, and not the production of the entire source code.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting its previous emphasis that “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . emphasize that electronic discovery should be a party-driven process”, Judge Gossett ruled that:

“ACI’s request now for the entire source code to the MDS is not proportional to the needs of the case, would include information irrelevant to ACI’s claims, and would defeat the purpose of the protracted efforts by the parties to reach a compromise regarding production of MDS source code…To the extent MasterCard’s production has been deficient, the remedy is not to compel the production of its entire source code for the MDS. Rather, the court will compel MasterCard to produce only the source code retrieved using the parties’ joint search protocol that MasterCard has not yet produced.”

So, what do you think?  Given the defendant’s numerous delays in producing source code, should the court have granted the plaintiff’s motion in total?  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.

Today is E-Discovery Day 2016!: eDiscovery Trends

Today is December 1.  As we mentioned last week, that means today is E-Discovery Day!

As the site for E-Discovery Day states, “[o]n December 1, 2016, thousands of Legal and IT professionals will gather both online and off to discuss e-discovery. They will be met with a full day worth of informative webcasts, in-person networking events and more—all hosted by E-Discovery Day sponsors.”

Last year, according to their site, there were 1,351 webcast participants, 26 eDiscovery experts who presented and 83% of last year’s participants said they would participate again this year.

In last week’s post, we covered the webcasts that will occur over the course of the day.  Webcast sessions start at 11:15am ET this morning and run through 7:00pm ET this evening, giving you a full day of sessions to choose from!

I’m excited to be presenting again with my colleagues Mary Mack, George Socha, David Horrigan, Bill Dimm and Bill Speros at the 10 Years Forward and Back – Automation in eDiscovery webcast session – it was very well received at The Masters Conference in DC in October.  So, if you missed it then, you can catch it today at 1pm ET!  Click on the link here to register.

You can also click on the link here to check out our previous post regarding the all of the webcasts and register for any of them via the links provided.

In addition, there will be in-person networking events in Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Orange County and New York.  Click on the appropriate link to register for the in-person event near you!

So, what do you think?  Do you plan to attend an E-Discovery Day event?  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.

By 2020, 92 Percent of Everything We Do Will Be in The Cloud: eDiscovery Trends

In this case, I guess you could say that foresight is 2020… :o)

Before I begin, though, I should note that: Today is the last day to participate in the quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey being conducted by Complex Discovery and ACEDS!  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.  The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  Click here to take the survey yourself.  Don’t forget!

According to an article on Forbes.com, by 2020, 92 percent of computing workloads will be processed by cloud data centers; versus only eight percent being processed by traditional data centers.

The article (With Internet Of Things And Big Data, 92% Of Everything We Do Will Be In The Cloud, written by Joe McKendrick and released earlier this month) references estimates released by Cisco that show that cloud traffic is likely to rise 3.7-fold by 2020, increasing 3.9 zettabytes (ZB) per year in 2015 (the latest full year data for which data is available) to 14.1 ZB per year by 2020.  (FYI, a zettabyte is one billion terabytes!)

Not surprisingly, Big Data and associated Internet of Things are a big part of this growth, according to the study’s authors.  By 2020, database, analytics and IoT workloads will account for 22% of total business workloads, compared to 20% in 2015. The total volume of data generated by IoT will reach 600 ZB per year by 2020, 275 times higher than projected traffic going from data centers to end users/devices (2.2 ZB); 39 times higher than total projected data center traffic (15.3 ZB).

The survey also finds that public cloud is growing faster than private cloud. By 2020, 68 percent (298 million) of the cloud workloads will be in public cloud data centers, up from 49 percent (66.3 million) in 2015.  However, the authors attribute much of that growth to hybrid cloud strategies, such as cloud bursting, which is “an example of hybrid cloud where daily computing requirements are handled by a private cloud, but for sudden spurts of demand the additional traffic demand — bursting — is handled by a public cloud.”  The authors also see a rise in Software as a Service (SaaS) for online applications, where by 2020, 74 percent of the total cloud workloads will be SaaS workloads, up from 65 percent currently.

Needless to say, with more data than ever in the cloud by 2020, eDiscovery will be conducted on more and more cloud-based data.  Fasten your seat belts and put your tray tables up!

So, what do you think?  Do you find yourself using the cloud more in your organization?  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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

With No Proof of Duty to Preserve or Bad Faith, Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions is Denied: eDiscovery Case Law

In Reyes et. al. v. Julia Place Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., et. al., No. 12-2043 (E.D.L.A., Oct. 7, 2016), Louisiana District Judge Carl J. Barbier, in denying the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, stated that the plaintiffs “have failed to produce sufficient evidence proving that [defendant] Parkview had a duty to preserve the ledgers, that Parkview acted in bad faith in destroying the ledgers, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim”.

Case Background

In this class action lawsuit brought by condominium owners throughout New Orleans against their various condo associations alleging debt collection practices that violate state and federal law, the Court had previously certified a “a class of past and present condominium owners who have paid allegedly usurious late fees”.  During the course of the litigation, one of the defendants (Parkview Condominium Homeowners Association) filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that that the plaintiffs had not introduced any evidence that a current or former Parkview unit owner paid an allegedly usurious fee, so Parkview should be dismissed from the lawsuit.

In response, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to an adverse inference sanction due to Parkview’s “intentional” destruction of ledgers that would have proven Parkview condominium unit owners paid allegedly usurious late fees.  The plaintiffs had made a similar request for these ledgers and an adverse inference sanction in a motion to compel in Magistrate Court and that motion was denied.

Here, the plaintiffs claimed that they first requested this information in September 2012 and, in response to this request, “Parkview threatened sanctions . . . but never provided this critical evidence.”  The plaintiffs also argued that Parkview did not initially contend that the documents were lost or otherwise unavailable, but simply refused to comply with the plaintiffs’ request.  In response, Parkview stated it informed the plaintiffs that it was not in possession of that information, because the documents were “inadvertently destroyed prior to the commencement of this litigation. There were no backups of any of the files that were located on the damaged computer and hard drive.”  Parkview also contended that it had no duty to preserve that information, noting that it was unreasonable to believe that the originally named plaintiff, who was never an owner at Parkview, would sue Parkview and seek ledgers for the two years preceding the litigation.

Judge’s Ruling

In ruling on the plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Judge Barbier stated:

“Plaintiffs have failed to produce sufficient evidence proving that Parkview had a duty to preserve the ledgers, that Parkview acted in bad faith in destroying the ledgers, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs ask this Court to infer that Parkview intentionally, and in bad faith, destroyed its ledgers solely because Parkview did not initially tell Plaintiffs that it had inadvertently destroyed the ledgers prior to litigation…This is a leap this court is unwilling to make. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to an adverse inference for purposes of this motion nor trial.”

Also, observing that “[n]otably absent from Plaintiffs’ evidence is anything demonstrating that a past or present condominium unit owner has paid an allegedly usurious late fee”, Judge Barbier granted Parkview’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Parkview from the case.

So, what do you think?  Did the plaintiff make too big a leap in assuming “intentional” destruction of the ledgers?  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.

Legal Talk Network: Podcast with Doug Austin on The Hot Topics in eDiscovery

Extract from Legal Talk Network interview with CloudNine’s Doug Austin

The rapid embrace of emergent technologies has flooded the legal marketplace with new tools and processes to help make attorneys’ daily lives better in every way. In this episode of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek sit down with CloudNine Vice President of Professional Services Doug Austin to discuss the hottest changes and trends surrounding e-discovery.

To listen to the complete podcast and read the transcript, click here.

 

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

The Top Hot Topics in eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

I recently had the opportunity (and pleasure) to sit down for a podcast interview with Sharon Nelson and John Simek for their podcast series Digital Detectives on the Legal Talk Network.  Here’s how you can listen to that interview.

They conducted the interview with me a couple of weeks ago and we talked about a variety of topics, including: automation as an emerging trend in eDiscovery, debate and the state of technology assisted review (TAR) today, the emergence of SaaS automation solutions, where attorneys are today in embracing technology, as well as other trends in eDiscovery and “gotchas” to watch out for.  And, of course, I talk about the joys of writing a daily blog!

The podcast was published last week and is available here.  It is less than 24 minutes, so it’s a quick listen.  Hope you’ll check it out.

Thanks so much to Sharon and John for the interview!  I’m such a big fan of their podcast series and also of Sharon’s blog Ride the Lightning – which has been my go to source for cybersecurity topics – and I very much appreciate the opportunity to be interviewed.

Usually, when coming back from a nice Thanksgiving break, I have to write a blog post on Sunday.  This time, I was able to make my voice heard by using my actual voice – via the podcast.  It’s somewhat nasally, but it’s what God gave me.  Enjoy!

So, what do you think?  What do you think are the top hot topics in eDiscovery?  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.

E-Discovery Day 2.0: eDiscovery Trends

We’ve recently celebrated Halloween, we’re about to celebrate Thanksgiving.  Guess what we celebrate next?  You guessed it, it’s…E-Discovery Day!*

As the site for E-Discovery Day states, “[o]n December 1, 2016, thousands of Legal and IT professionals will gather both online and off to discuss e-discovery. They will be met with a full day worth of informative webcasts, in-person networking events and more—all hosted by E-Discovery Day sponsors.”

Last year, according to their site, there were 1,351 webcast participants, 26 eDiscovery experts who presented and 83% of last year’s participants said they would participate again this year.

This year, there are several excellent webcasts scheduled, including:

  • Mainstream News & E-Discovery: What You Should Be Watching Out for in 2017: Panelists Craig Ball, Robert Cruz, Tara Jones and Zach Warren will recap what news events you should be tracking and proactively advising your legal team on to ensure you’re prepared to take on new e-discovery risks in 2017. Presented by Actiance and Exterro.  TIME 11:15 AM ET / 8:15 AM PT
  • Rule 26(b)(1): How to Make a Persuasive Proportionality Argument: In this webcast, learn tips for making a persuasive proportionality argument that will hold up in court and how offering alternative remedies to overbroad productions requests can heighten your changes for a favorable ruling from panelists Judge Joy Conti, Ralph Losey and Maura Grossman. Presented by Exterro.  TIME 12:30 PM ET / 9:30 AM PT
  • 10 Years Forward and Back – Automation in eDiscovery: This unique session highlights the progress of eDiscovery technologies during the last decade and looks forward through the lens of innovation to the next ten years data discovery. Panelists including Mary Mack, George Socha, Doug Austin, David Horrigan, Bill Dimm, Bill Speros will be sharing their thoughts and considerations regarding the use of Technology-Assisted Review. Presented by ACEDS and CloudNine.  TIME 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT
  • What is E-Discovery Costing Your Organization?: In this webcast, benchmark your organization’s e-discovery costs against others and learn what metrics you should be focusing on to accurately track your e-discovery spend with panelists William Hubbard, Ross Dubinsky and Bobbi Basile. Presented by HBR Consulting, Exterro and Morae Legal.  TIME 1:45 PM ET / 10:45 AM PT
  • Rule 37(e): Less Sanctions, More Negotiating: In this webcast, learn how the courts are currently interpreting this new spoliation standard and get tips for safeguarding your organization from future spoliation sanctions with panelists Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Judge John Facciola (Ret.) and David Rohde, Esq. Presented by Epiq and Exterro.  TIME 3:00 PM ET / 12:00 PM PT
  • Why Every Firm/Legal Department Needs to Invest More in Legal Project Management: In this webcast, learn how to utilize legal project management principles and tools to get tasks completed faster and discover how other legal teams have incorporated legal project management at their organizations with panelists Seth Eichenholtz, David Yerich, Esq. and Thomas Mullane. Presented by Exterro and LTPI.  TIME 4:15 PM ET / 1:15 PM PT
  • E-Discovery Training for 2017: In this webcast, learn how to take your e-discovery acumen to the next level with insights from legal/e-discovery teachers on the topics you should be learning more about and how to get involved with educational e-discovery groups in 2017 with panelists Mary Mack, William Hamilton, Eric Mandel and George Socha. Presented by ACEDS, EDRM, Exterro and LTPI.  TIME 5:30 PM ET / 2:30 PM PT
  • eDiscovery 101 – An Alternate Career Path: Lighthouse eDiscovery will host a free educational webinar on eDiscovery Day 2016. Geared towards law students and others considering entering the ediscovery profession, this webinar will highlight how and when ediscovery fits into litigation, outline who the players are, and provide a glimpse into a day in the life of ediscovery work. Presented by Lighthouse Discovery.  TIME 6:00 PM ET / 3:00 PM PT

In addition, there will be in-person networking events in Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Orange County and New York.  Click on the appropriate link to register for the in-person event near you!

I’m excited to be presenting again with my colleagues at the “10 Years Forward and Back – Automation in eDiscovery” session – it was very well received at The Masters Conference in DC in October.  So, if you missed it then, you can catch it on E-Discovery Day!

So, what do you think?  Do you plan to attend an E-Discovery Day event?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

*You thought I was going to say “Festivus”, didn’t you?

Speaking of Thanksgiving, eDiscovery Daily will return next Monday.  Happy Thanksgiving!

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.

The Fall Version of The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey Has a Canadian Influence: eDiscovery Trends

With everything else we’ve been covering, we’ve been remiss to mention that it’s time for another round of the quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site.  The fall survey is currently going on through the end of November.  In addition to the affiliation with the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS), the survey now has a new Canadian influence.

As discussed last week on LegalTech News (What’s the Difference With E-Discovery in Canada? A Heavy ECA Focus, to Start, written by Zach Warren), Commonwealth Legal is now teaming with ComplexDiscovery and ACEDS for the survey, bringing a Canadian perspective to the formerly U.S.-exclusive results.

“While Canada is a smaller market north of the border, our cultural and jurisdictional differences contribute to the advancement of eDiscovery in distinct ways”, said Jennifer Johnson, Vice President of Commonwealth Legal. “This survey offers a unique opportunity for Canadian eDiscovery professionals to have their insight measured and heard.”

As before, the eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services.  The purpose of the survey is to provide a subjective baseline for understanding the trajectory of the business of eDiscovery through the eyes of industry professionals.

Also as before, the survey asks questions related to how you rate general business conditions for eDiscovery in your segment of the eDiscovery market, both current and six months from now, a general sense of where you think revenue and profits will be for your segment of the market in six months and which issue do you think will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months, among other questions.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.  Who hasn’t got a minute to provide useful information?

Individual answers are kept confidential, with the aggregate results to be published on the ACEDS website (News & Press), on the Complex Discovery blog, and on selected ACEDS Affiliate websites and blogs (we’re one of those and we’ll cover the results as we have for the first three surveys) upon completion of the response period, which concludes November 30.

The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  What more do you need?  Click here to take the survey yourself.  Don’t forget!  Let’s set a record!

Additionally, you can join Mary Mack, George Socha, Eric Mandel, Zach Warren, David Horrigan on December 14 for a webinar to review the results of the survey.  Click here to register for the webinar.

So, what do you think?  Are you confident in the state of business within the eDiscovery industry?  Share your thoughts in the survey and, as always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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.

Here’s an Independent Review of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

If you love to read about legal technology, you probably have signed up for newsletters via Technolawyer.  Technolawyer has several useful newsletters for the tech-interested legal professional, including BlogWorld and LitigationWorld.  Recently, CloudNine was reviewed by Technolawyer with the resulting review published in the LitigationWorld newsletter.

Jennifer Dixon conducted the review.  The review was completely independent and not sponsored by CloudNine (all we did was provide a brief overview to her before she proceeded to review the platform).  Here are a couple of observations from Jennifer’s review of the platform:

  • “During my litigation career, I spent hours of my time on the phone with technical support attempting to coordinate uploading, review, and production. In light of these experiences, I find the CloudNine self-service model incredibly refreshing. It puts power into the reviewer’s hands, enabling you to customize your screen views, metadata, filtering, and production. The analytics tools provide simple visualizations of document batch contents, reducing surprises and confusion down the road. All the review tools you need for a well-organized document review are present and easy to use. CloudNine handles all of the most common document types found in today’s discovery projects. Sorting through thousands of emails will be a breeze.”
  • “For small cases in particular, CloudNine enables you to do it all yourself, saving you time and money. For larger cases, CloudNine offers consulting services for collection and processing. CloudNine easily earns a TechnoScore of A-.”

Thanks to Technolawyer and to Jennifer for the review of our platform.  We really appreciate it!

If you want more information or to check out the review, you can do so on our site here.  Here’s your chance to learn more about CloudNine, from an independent source!

So, what do you think?  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.