Close
Enter your
text here

Outsourcing

When You Have a Lot of Custodians, Life Can Be a Batch: eDiscovery Best Practices

After Tom O’Connor and I hosted the webcast On Premise or Off Premise? A Look At Security Approaches to eDiscovery where we discussed the pros and cons of on premise and off premise (i.e., cloud) solutions last month (click here to check out the recording of it), I received a question from an attendee afterward, as follows: Isn’t another advantage of on premise solutions the ability to load large amounts of data from multiple custodians (i.e., multiple terabytes) to the eDiscovery platform?

Not necessarily.  For starters, not all cloud solution architectures are the same.  There are public cloud and private/protected cloud alternatives.  With a public cloud solution, the servers are controlled by the cloud provider (such as Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure), not by the eDiscovery provider.  Those servers could be located anywhere (even internationally), so loading data would typically be through File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or Secured File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) and would be reliant on your bandwidth and the bandwidth of the cloud provider.  Loading multiple terabytes to a public cloud solution could be extremely time consuming, perhaps excessively so.

In a private/protected cloud alternative, the servers are located in a data center controlled by the eDiscovery provider (and probably close by their offices).  To load multiple terabytes in that scenario doesn’t require FTP or SFTP, the provider can actually connect a drive provided by the client and copy the data up.  So, that is an alternative that can be essentially as fast as that of an on premise solution (because it is essentially on premise once the drive is received by the provider).

Does that mean it’s impossible to load large amounts of data to a cloud eDiscovery solution?  Not at all, if you effectively manage the data loading in multiple batches.  At CloudNine (shameless plug warning!), I can recall at least two recent clients within the past year or so that had a case with numerous (i.e., more than a hundred) custodians and those clients needed to get email stores (which had been exported out to Outlook PST files) loaded into our platform.  Because clients can load their own data (and because they didn’t check with us to see if there were faster alternatives), these two clients proceeded to load the data for their numerous custodians in multiple batches.  Because the load process is multi-threaded, they could have multiple batches going at once.

Each of the two collections was in excess of 3.5 terabytes (one was nearly 4 terabytes, at 3.92 TB), yet both clients were able to effectively get their data processed and loaded to get started on searching and review within their required time frame.

So, when considering eDiscovery solution alternatives that include cloud based solutions, it’s important to understand which are public cloud solutions and which are private/protected cloud solutions and what that means to you.  It’s also important to understand how data can be processed and loaded and whether the load process is multi-threaded.  And, it’s important to understand the pros and cons of on premise and off premise solutions to help you decide (Tom and I covered both in the webcast linked to at the top of the post).  Depending on your requirements, a combination of both on premise and off premise may be appropriate to meet your needs.

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.

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.

Ten Items to Keep in Mind When Considering Cloud Providers: Cybersecurity Best Practices

In my webcast discussion with Tom O’Connor yesterday, we had a terrific discussion of several pros and cons of both on-premise and off-premise (cloud) eDiscovery technology solutions as well as other factors to consider.  If you missed the webcast, you can check it out here.

While we talked about advantages of each approach, we also discussed how your overall eDiscovery solution could include both on-premises and cloud-based tools and mechanisms for a “best of breed” approach to meeting your eDiscovery needs.

But, if you’re considering a cloud solution, how do you know whether the solution(s) you’re considering have the security mechanisms your organization needs?

Earlier this week, Rocket Matter published an interesting post (written by Larry Port) that discussed vetting your cloud providers that might provide some insight.  While the article provided a link to the security standards developed by the Legal Cloud Computing Association (LCCA), it also provided a succinct list of ten items to address with your cloud provider to ensure that the provider can meet your needs.  Here they are:

  • You should own your data. The cloud provider should not own it.
  • You should be able to get your data out of a cloud system at any time in a usable format.
  • Encryption should be used to safeguard client information.
  • The cloud provider should be able to spell out their backup policies.
  • You need to determine who at the cloud provider has access to see your data and under what circumstances. You must be comfortable with the answer.
  • Find out if the company has had a breach before. If so, how did they respond to it?
  • What measures does the cloud company take to ensure cybersecurity on an operational level? In other words, aside from the application you’re spending money on, is the organization itself safe? Do they conduct background checks on employees? How do they manage passwords internally?
  • Does the application limit attempts to log in to prevent brute force and dictionary attacks?
  • Can you use two-factor authentication?
  • How does the company handle data destruction? It is important when you leave a service that copies of your data are not lying around.

This is a terrific list of guidelines to keep in mind when considering cloud providers and it’s a good idea to get an understanding of how they would address each of these areas.

Also, if you’ve been watching the news the past few days, you’ve seen the devastation in my hometown of Houston from Hurricane Harvey.  What can you do to help?  Consider donating online to the Houston Food Bank, Galveston County Food Bank or Corpus Christi Food Bank.  Or the Coastal Bend Disaster Recovery Group.  And, if you’re in the Houston area, you can volunteer at the American Red Cross here or by calling 713-526-8300.  Thanks for your help.

So, what do you think?  How do you evaluate cloud providers?  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’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.

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the 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 (for the first time) 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.

Also, if you’ve been watching the news the past few days, you’ve seen the devastation in my hometown of Houston from Hurricane Harvey.  What can you do to help?  Consider donating online to the Houston Food Bank, Galveston County Food Bank or Corpus Christi Food Bank.  Or the Coastal Bend Disaster Recovery Group.  And, if you’re in the Houston area, you can volunteer at the American Red Cross here or by calling 713-526-8300.  Thanks for your help.

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.

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.

New Report from The Aberdeen Group Cites Lack of Advanced Technologies, Offers Recommendations: eDiscovery Trends

While recovering from ILTACON and Vegas, I found an interesting report with some interesting statistics and observations from The Aberdeen Group about how many organizations are handling eDiscovery and what they could be doing better.

The report, Key Strategies to Improve the Performance of eDiscovery Teams, is written by Michael Caton an IT Research Analyst at Aberdeen, who surveyed technology solution users.  Here are some of the observations and statistics included in the report:

  • In terms of technology adoption, 82% of companies surveyed use an eDiscovery solution.
  • Currently, organizations are 50% more likely to use an on-premises solution than a cloud-based solution.
  • While 33% of organizations have implemented a cloud-based solution, organizations plan to implement on-premises and cloud-based technologies in nearly equal numbers – 24% and 27%
  • Just 29% of responding organizations have adopted technology assisted review.
  • The same holds true (no pun intended) for legal hold management – just 29% of organizations have software tools to notify employees of legal hold and to prevent the loss of data that should be subject to eDiscovery.
  • Finally, only 27% of companies employ direct connectors to key systems to automate the collection of data, such as content management applications and communications systems.

The on-premises vs. cloud numbers might be the most surprising to me, given all of the recent numbers and trends that I’ve seen regarding cloud adoption within the eDiscovery industry.  It looks like both implementation methods will have a place in eDiscovery for some time to come.

Caton also provides statistics regarding top business pressures related to eDiscovery, core eDiscovery capabilities in use and eDiscovery technologies with low adoption levels (among other findings).  He provides several recommendations at the end of the document for organizations currently assessing eDiscovery solutions, including evaluating technology assisted review technology, assessing legal hold management solutions, integrating eDiscovery software with critical applications and evaluating cloud or hybrid technologies to simplify onboarding.  I won’t steal all his thunder here – I’ll leave it to you to check out his report here to see additional stats and recommendations (the report is free, with free signup for an Aberdeen membership).

BTW, speaking of on-premise vs. cloud, just a reminder that, on Wednesday, August 30 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the 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. I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with eDiscovery thought leader Tom O’Connor.  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.

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 Whether an On-Premise or Off-Premise Solution is Right For You: eDiscovery Best Practices

Today, when consumers are considering their eDiscovery technology choices, there are more factors to consider 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.

On Wednesday, August 30 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the 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 (for the first time) 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.

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.

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.

Law Firms and the Billable Hour – The Debate Continues: eDiscovery Trends

Over four years ago, I asked the question of whether it’s time to ditch the per hour model for document review.  Back then, I referenced an overbilling situation discussed in an article by a law firm that was recently in the news for a ransomware issue.  But, the debate continues – should law firms still use the billable hour?

In Above the Law (Should Law Firms Still Use The Billable Hour?), in a conversation hosted by Zach Abramowitz (via his ReplyAll conversation mechanism), Zach facilitates a discussion between several legal experts regarding the billable hour and alternative fee agreements (AFAs).  They include: Patrick Lamb, founder of the Valorem Law Group; Adam Steiner, software engineer turned practicing lawyer; Alma Asay, former Gibson Dunn litigator & founder of Allegory; Brad Blickstein, founder of Blickstein Group; Ken Grady, former GC, lean law evangelist at Seyfarth, and adjunct professor at Michigan State University College of Law; Catherine Krow, former partner at Orrick and founder of Digitory Legal; Mike Knowles, firm administrator at Emmanuel Sheppard & Condon; and Keith Lee, lawyer, blogger, and founder of Lawyer Slack.

So, should law firms still be using the billable hour in 2017?  Here are some of the observations by the experts (and my comments in response):

Knowles: “One reason I feel the billable hour is such an ugly term is the surprise/shock the client experiences when they receive a bill. Having worked for 3 different firms, I think, most firms serve their clients well. But we do a lousy job of explaining the process and managing their expectations.”

Agreed – this is one of the biggest problems with the billable hour.  Too many clients are getting “surprised” with the bill with no advanced expectation of what they should expect to pay for the services being provided.

Lee: “Litigation is often about creating variance. Relentlessly, exhaustively, exploring every Avenue and every possibility. Efficiency is not part of the menu because what matters is not being efficient, what matters is winning.

So we’re left with the billable hour.”

Well, that’s great, but winning at what cost?  Is there an unlimited budget to “winning”?

Blickstein: “While there are some matters that are not predictable enough for AFAs (though I suspect if you chunk it up enough they probably are), I honestly think the single biggest reason that we are still using hourly bills is philosophical. Both lawyers and clients perceive the work as a function of time.”

Agreed, if the clients still perceive it that way, what motivation is there to change?

Asay: “When clients and law firms are on the same page about both expectations and curve balls, then whether fees are based on AFAs or billable hours or a mix of both, the relationship is ultimately a win-win.”

That’s ultimately the key.  Staying on the same page with clients takes work and communication.  Curve balls happen – there are always things that come up that you don’t expect – but, if you’re continuing to communicate with the client as those happen, you have a much better chance of keeping the client happy regardless of the billing arrangement.

These are just a sampling of the comments from the experts, click here to view the entire conversation.

So, what do you think?  Should law firms still use the billable hour?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, if you’re going to be in Houston this Thursday (July 20), Women in eDiscovery (WiE) Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law, will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  I will be participating as a panelist on the “State of the Industry” panel and my colleague, Karen, will be moderating the “Legal Operations and Litigation Support” panel.  Click here for more information about the conference, including how to register!

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

Court Rules Decisively in Battle Between eDiscovery Providers Over Hired Sales Agents: eDiscovery Case Law

In a lawsuit filed by DTI against LDiscovery and four former sales agents of DTI who were hired by LDiscovery, claiming they misappropriated trade secrets, interfered with client relationships and breached their contracts, an opinion provided by New York District Judge Jed S. Rakoff last week detailed his rejection of all arguments by DTI that led to his denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 16.

An article in Bloomberg Law (Judge Rakoff Shoots Down eDiscovery Trade Secrets Case, written by Gabe Friedberg) provides more information, noting that DTI filed its lawsuit in April against the four salesman (who had originally worked for Epiq prior to DTI’s acquisition of Epiq) and LDiscovery, after they resigned from DTI in January.  As the opinion notes, “the Individual Defendants signed employment agreements with LDiscovery whereby they agreed to resign from DTI by no later than January 31, 2017…The agreements set forth that the Individual Defendants will then take a ‘Sabbatical Year,’ during which LDiscovery will “not request and the [Individual Defendants] will not provide, any work, information, or services purported to be restricted by the Epiq [Employment Agreements].””  According to the article, LDiscovery agreed to pay $5.1 million in total bonus payments to the four agents during the “sabbatical year” alone.

Among the contentions by DTI was that the Individual Defendants “have breached or are threatening to breach their nondisclosure covenants by improperly copying and retaining DTI’s proprietary information” by failing to return two thumb drives in their possession, but Judge Rakoff concluded “that this was inadvertent rather than the result of a conspiracy” when forensic analysis failed to show either was used in copying files from DTI.  Another part of that contention was that one of the individual defendants had obtained an invoice spreadsheet from DTI, but Judge Rakoff determined that “DTI voluntarily forwarded the spreadsheet” to him to verify the accuracy of his commission checks and that, while that defendant forwarded it on to the other individual defendants so they could verify theirs as well, Judge Rakoff determined that there was no evidence that they had distributed it to any third parties, including LDiscovery.

DTI also contended that the Individual Defendants breached their employee non-solicitation clauses by jointly searching for new employment and also by allegedly soliciting two other DTI employees, but Judge Rakoff stated that agreement was “unenforceable insofar as it purports to prohibit at-will employees, who have yet to accept an offer of new employment, from “inducing” or even “encouraging” their coworkers to leave their present employer.”  Judge Rakoff also stated this:

“To be sure, if DTI desires to prevent its employees from coordinating their resignations, it is free to hire them pursuant to term employment agreements. DTI, however, cannot use restrictive covenants to supply itself all the benefits of term agreements while simultaneously retaining the right to lay off its personnel whenever it so desires. This is not a proper purpose for such a restraint on free market competition.”

With regard to DTI’s claims that the Individual Defendants breached their client non-solicitation covenants, Judge Rakoff stated that the “Epiq Employment Agreements do not require the Individual Defendants to cease all contact with their clients following their departure from DTI” and referred to “a suggestion by defendant Kreger to grab lunch or for a particular client to call him” (with no testimony provided that the Individual Defendants had solicited those clients for business) as “innocuous”.

As a result, Judge Rakoff dismissed the claims against LDiscovery and granted the individual defendants’ motion to move the case to a private arbitration.

Having heard stories about what some companies will do to enforce non-compete agreements, including sending cease and desist letters for a variety of perceived breaches of those agreements, this is the first instance I can think of where eDiscovery providers disputed the scope and validity of those agreements in court.  Given the huge compensation numbers and the dispute between two heavyweights in the industry (both backed by private equity firms), I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these types of disputes in the future.  While I cannot dispute the impact of a successful sales person in obtaining clients in the first place, I would have thought that a company’s software and/or services would be the primary factor in retaining those clients.  Silly me.

Bloomberg Law provides a link to the case docket where (if you’re a subscriber), you can click a link to view the opinion.  It’s an interesting and fascinating read.

So, what do you think?  How enforceable should non-compete agreements be?  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.

Also, if you’re going to be in Houston on July 20, Women in eDiscovery (WiE) Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law, will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  I will be participating as a panelist on the “State of the Industry” panel and my colleague, Karen, will be moderating the “Legal Operations and Litigation Support” panel.  Click here for more information about the conference, including how to register!

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.

Is the eDiscovery Business “Tide” Rising or Falling?: eDiscovery Trends

In eDiscovery business, are you swept away with optimism or feeling under water?  Voice your opinion in the latest quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey!  This time, it’s the Summer 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site.  It’s the second year of the quarterly survey and we’ve covered every round of the survey so far (2016 coverage of results are here, here, here and here, the Winter 2017 coverage is here and the Spring 2017 coverage is here).  Now, it’s time for the Summer 2017 Survey!

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.

This year’s survey consists of nine multiple choice questions focused on factors related to the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services and may be useful for eDiscovery-related business planning.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes less than a minute to complete.  Who hasn’t got a minute to provide useful information?  As always, individual answers are kept confidential.

The Summer 2017 Survey response period is between today and achievement of 100 responses or August 31, 2017 (whichever comes first).  If the past is any indication, chances are the survey will be closed way before August 31.  So, vote early if you want to be counted!  What more do you need?  Click here to take the survey yourself.

Now that we have entered a second year for the survey, we’ve started to evaluate year over year results to differentiate those variations from quarterly fluctuations and eDiscovery Daily will cover the results once again!

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.

Also, if you’re going to be in Houston on July 20, Women in eDiscovery (WiE) Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law, will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  I will be participating as a panelist on the “State of the Industry” panel and my colleague, Karen, will be moderating the “Legal Operations and Litigation Support” panel.  Click here for more information about the conference, including how to register!

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.

We Get By With a Little Help From Our Friends: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in or near my age bracket, you probably remember the similarly titled song by The Beatles (though I actually like the Joe Cocker version better – a rare Beatles re-make that could be argued to be better than the original).  Feel free to debate me on that – after you’ve watched his Woodstock rendition.  Anyway, for any provider working in eDiscovery today (whether law firm or eDiscovery software/service provider), there are instances where working with a partner just makes sense.

The LegalTech News article (Partnering for Success: The Role of the Partnership in Legal Tech, written by Gabrielle Orum Hernández, free subscription required), profiles the expansion of CloudNine’s partner program with our recently announced Alliance Partner Program expansion.  The program allows qualified and approved organizations to enrich the business value and technology competitiveness of their eDiscovery solutions through the integration, referral, and resell of CloudNine software and services.

CloudNine CEO Brad Jenkins told Legaltech News that the partner program is an attempt to leverage some of the strong loyalties and connections that exist within the legal sphere by essentially paying to develop relationships. “Probably the biggest reason [for the partner program expansion] is we have found that in this industry it very much falls into relationship-selling a lot of times,” he said.

The CloudNine Alliance Partner Program consists of three categories of partners:

  1. Technology Partners: Data and legal discovery developers who work with CloudNine to develop, integrate, and deploy solutions leveraging CloudNine technology. The business benefit for technology partners is the extension of their capability to access new customers and new markets.
  2. Referral Partners: Data and legal discovery consultants and providers who recommend CloudNine software and services to their customers. The business benefit for referral partners is direct compensation for the introduction and acceptance of CloudNine by end users.
  3. Channel Partners: Data and legal discovery service providers who sell CloudNine software and services to their customers as part of their portfolio of offerings. The business benefit for channel partners is the ability to resell CloudNine software and services as part of their solutions. CloudNine has long had an extensive channel partner network.

In her article, Hernández mentions several other companies that have made use of the partner model, including kCura (which is a CloudNine technology partner), Neota Logic and HighQ, and Discovia and Brainspace.

In noting that the partnership model allows eDiscovery adjacent companies to offer legal organizations the option of unbundling pieces of their service, Jenkins said “It’s a value-add, a way to meet the needs of the market that’s shifting to the self-service model…What we’ve been able to do is augment the tools that these companies have because now they can still leverage Relativity or their own product, but they have tools like ours which significantly reduce the cost and time of getting those smaller data sets, the day-in, day-out type of projects, in.”

So, if you’re a provider of eDiscovery services today, large or small, sometimes you get by with a little help from your friends.

To schedule a discussion about the CloudNine Alliance Partner Program or to sign up for a free trial of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform, contact us at 713.462.3885, info@cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Does your organization work partner with other companies to provide software or services?  As always, 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.

Are Investment Activities Slowing Down in eDiscovery?: eDiscovery Trends

Before I begin talking about that, this smiling boy above is my kid Carter.  He turns 9 years old today, so I thought I would give him a shout out.  Happy Birthday, Carter!

As I’ve discussed before and revisit from time to time, to get the latest list of mergers, acquisitions and investments in eDiscovery, you can go to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site.  His site keeps a running list of publicly disclosed mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry and goes all the way back to 2001 – over 15 1/2 years.  That’s even before Kroll merged with – wait for it – Ontrack!  You thought I was going to say “LDiscovery”, didn’t you?  Anyway, it’s a pretty extensive list containing 301 transactions, so it’s quite a comprehensive list.

With so much data to analyze, Rob has published another story discussing activity patterns over the years for eDiscovery mergers, acquisitions, and investments.  Here are some of the interesting findings:

  • There have been at least 300 M&A+I events in the eDiscovery ecosystem since 2001. (n=301)
  • 2012 has been the most active year for M&A+I events since with at least 49 total events.
  • 2017 appears to be off to the slowest start in terms of total M&A+I events since 2010 (January through May).
  • The decrease in total M&A+I between 2012 and 2013 appears to be the most significant yearly drop in terms of events and percentage of events since 2001.
  • May and June have been the most active months for M&A+I events since 2001.
  • April has been the least active month for M&A+I events since 2001.

Rob also provides a year by year total of activities.  So far in 2017, there have only been 8 M&A+I events.  Eight!  We’re on a pace for only 19 or 20 M&A+I events this year.  Compared to 2015 (40) and 2016 (36), that’s roughly half of the pace of the past two years.  Sure, there have been, as always, some notable events, including the acquisition of Altep by Advanced Discovery and the merger of Discovia and Lighthouse.  But, not near as many as recent years.

So, what do you think?  Is this simply a lull or a sign of a trend?  And, if it’s a trend, why?  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.