In our e-newsletters this past year, we have covered many aspects of discovery: articles covering subjects from eDiscovery trends to new technology for legal collaboration, from amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to how to take an expert deposition, and from use of social media as evidence to document preservation best practices. Most of these articles were written by renowned professionals in their fields of endeavor. All of these newsletters and articles are accessible on our website at depo.com in the “Client Resources” tab.
Altitude Woes: Avoiding the Dangers of BYOC in EDiscovery
By John Reikes
In a recent article, my Kroll Ontrack colleague, Michele Lange, discussed the ominous presence of the Bring Your Own Cloud (BYOC) movement within corporations. As with all new technologies, the BYOC movement has its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, by allowing employees to use personal cloud storage systems, there is an increase in efficiency, a decrease in the cost of sharing data, and greater access to corporate information. However, there are lurking risks associated with such benefits. Last week’s Legaltech News included an article called Avoiding the Dangers of Bring Your Own Cloud in E-Discoverywhich discussed these issues in detail.
Interconnection of Devices
The greatest strength of cloud storage – the ease of access and efficiency – is also one of its major weaknesses. Cloud services are interconnected, which means that when users upload corporate information onto one device with cloud storage, the cloud server replicates the files and makes them available to other connected devices, creating multiple copies of potentially confidential data or documents across devices which may lack proper security measures. One employee’s decision to use a third-party cloud may seem inconsequential, but when hundreds or thousands of employees begin storing important documents and data on third-party clouds outside the control of corporate security, problems arise.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants in an SEC case highlight the importance of proportionality between asymmetrical parties. In such cases, one side has all of the electronically stored information for discovery requests; the other side does all the requesting. However, the smaller party can have an extremely high burden reviewing any produced ESI, especially if searchable features have been removed.
Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre in City of Sterling Heights Gen. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Prudential Fin., (an opinion not for publication) did a great job balancing the proportionality interests between a motion to add additional search terms and custodians to the dispute.