Category Archives: Case Law

September 30, 2025 · 9:45 AM

The Business Case for In-House eDiscovery: Lessons from Two Prominent Corporate eDiscovery Counsel

By John Patzakis

Building a Business and Legal Case for In-House eDiscovery

In a recent webinar hosted by Ad Idem, a non-profit legal education provider for in-house counsel, attorneys Kelly Twigger and Eric Stansell offered a compelling roadmap for corporate legal departments looking to bring eDiscovery and information governance (InfoGov) in-house. Their insights cut through the complexity of traditional discovery models and emphasized the strategic, operational, and legal advantages of internalizing these processes. For legal professionals navigating mounting data volumes and rising litigation costs, their discussion provided both practical guidance and a call to rethink legacy workflows.

Eric Stansell, Senior Counsel for Discovery at Tyson Foods, opened with a candid reflection on how his role was created to address the company’s need for a more efficient eDiscovery program. He emphasized that building a business case for in-house capabilities starts with understanding the “why”—whether it’s cost savings, risk reduction, or process defensibility. Stansell emphasized that standardizing internal processes not only improves consistency but also enhances defensibility and reduces exposure by limiting data sprawl across external vendors.

Kelly Twigger — who is one of if not the top eDiscovery lawyer in the field in my opinion — built on Stansell’s narrative by stressing the importance of conducting a thorough assessment before launching any in-house initiative. She encouraged legal teams to break down business cases into manageable chunks, identifying quick wins such as revising email retention policies. Twigger noted that internal culture shifts and stakeholder alignment are just as critical as technology adoption. Her approach favors incremental change backed by measurable ROI, rather than sweeping transformations that risk overwhelming legal and IT teams.

Both speakers underscored the importance of engaging multiple stakeholders. Stansell shared Tyson’s experience with cross-functional collaboration, highlighting how legal, IT, audit, and compliance teams must be involved from the outset. As one example of such collaboration, Stansell noted that eDiscovery enterprise search and collection software procured by the legal team can also address key IT security priorities such as PII data audits and internal investigations.

Twigger also delivered a deep dive into the proportionality principles now codified under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, urging legal teams to build factual arguments early in the discovery process. She explained that proportionality isn’t just about cost—it’s about narrowing scope through targeted custodians, refined date ranges, and iterative search terms. Stansell added that understanding custodians’ roles and historical relevance can help avoid unnecessary data collection, further supporting proportionality claims in court.

One of the most pressing issues Twigger addressed was the evolving case law around hyperlinked files. She traced the trajectory from Nichols v. Noom, Inc.—where hyperlinks were deemed not attachments—to more recent rulings that treat them as discoverable content depending on technological capabilities. Twigger cited In re Uber and Young v. Salesforce to illustrate how courts are increasingly expecting parties to preserve and produce hyperlinked documents, especially when shared via chat platforms or collaborative tools.

Twigger warned that failing to understand your organization’s tech stack could lead to costly missteps. She recommended that in-house counsel proactively assess their systems—especially Microsoft 365 environments—to determine what’s feasible when it comes to hyperlink preservation and production. She also highlighted X1 Discovery’s capabilities, noting that X1’s software can automate the collection of contemporaneous versions of hyperlinked documents in M365, support targeted Teams chat collection as well as many other data sources, making X1 a valuable solution for defensible in-house eDiscovery.

In closing, both Twigger and Stansell made it clear that bringing eDiscovery and InfoGov in-house isn’t just a cost-cutting measure—it’s a strategic imperative. With the right mix of technology, process, and cross-functional collaboration, legal departments can gain control, reduce risk, and improve outcomes. Their insights serve as a blueprint for legal teams ready to evolve beyond reactive discovery and toward a proactive, integrated approach.

The recording of the webinar can be accessed here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Case Law, Cloud Data, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Governance, m365, MS Teams, Preservation & Collection

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 17, 2024 · 1:59 PM

Dale vs. Deutsche Telekom AG Illustrates the Importance of Effective ECA to Attain Proportionality

By John Patzakis

In Dale v. Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 22 C 3189 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2024), a class-action antitrust litigation stemming from the 2020 merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to expand a proposed custodian list from fifty custodians to sixty, including three in-house attorneys. The court stated that adding the additional custodians would be “out of proportion to the needs of the case.”

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole began the order by quoting Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hosp.: “The discovery rules are not a ticket to an unlimited, never-ending exploration of every conceivable matter that captures an attorney’s interest. Parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to investigate the facts—and no more.” He also added: “The inescapable reality is that discovery has come to dominate civil litigation…Proportionality, like other concepts, it is not self-defining; it requires a common sense and experiential assessment…In other words, all are agreed that discovery has gotten out of hand over the years and needs to be reigned in.”

The Court’s opinion detailed the ill-fated negotiations between the parties, with a key take-away being the lack of visibility Deutsche Telekom’s in-house counsel had into their own custodians’ data, which stymied their ability to effectively eliminate guess work and limit the number of custodians. This case illustrates that while there is a keen awareness of proportionality in the legal community, realizing the benefits requires the ability to operationalize workflows as far upstream in the eDiscovery process as possible. For instance, when you are engaging in data over-collection, which in turn incurs extensive labor and processing costs, the ship has largely sailed before you are able to perform early case assessments and data relevancy analysis, as much of the discovery costs have already been incurred at that point. The case law and the Federal Rules provide that the duty to preserve only applies to potentially relevant information, but unless you have the right operational processes in place, you are losing out on the ability to attain the benefits of proportionality.

However, traditional eDiscovery services typically involve manual collection, followed by manual on-premises hardware-based processing, and finally manual upload to review. These inefficiencies extend projects by often weeks while dramatically increasing cost and risk with purposeful data over-collection and dozens of manual data handoffs. The good news is that solutions and processes addressing the first half of the EDRM involving collection and processing are now far more automated.

To accomplish the goals of gaining early visibility into your data to foster more intelligent early case assessment, informed discovery negotiations with opposing counsel, and targeted, proportional data collection, corporate legal department should utilize index and search in-place technology. Indexing and search in-place in this context means that a software-based indexing technology (as opposed to an expensive and cumbersome stand-alone hardware appliance) is deployed directly onto the laptop, file server or in the cloud for Microsoft 365 data sources. This indexing occurs without a bulk data transfer of the data. Once indexed, you can search through terabytes of information in seconds, with complex Boolean operators, metadata filters and regular expression searches. Legal teams can iterate and repeat their searches without limitation, which is critical for large data sets.

These capabilities supporting targeted and proportional collection of loose files, emails, and large network file shares and M365 are uniquely provided in the X1 Enterprise Platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Case Law, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Governance, m365, Preservation & Collection, proportionality

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

March 13, 2024 · 2:06 PM

Microsoft 365 Modern Attachments Pose Significant eDiscovery Challenges and Risk

By John Patzakis

In their excellent publication, 2023 eDiscovery Case Law in Review, Winston and Strawn, LLP, one of the top law firms in the US, highlights the challenges legal and eDiscovery professionals face with modern attachments. Modern attachments, also known as hyperlinks, are URL pointers that link to files or emails stored in another location. They are commonly found in Microsoft 365 Mail and Teams.

Winston and Strawn reports that “[r]equesting parties are increasingly sophisticated about this issue given the proliferation of Microsoft 365…and thus we have noted an uptick in requesting parties demanding that linked attachments be produced along with transmittal emails—in essence demanding that traditional email families be assembled from these pieces.” In re StubHub Refund Litig., 2023 WL 3092972 (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2023) is a case cited by the authors as a recent decision requiring the production of modern attachments in discovery.

The one area I disagree with in the report is its view that without investing in expensive services and Microsoft Premium licensing it may be very challenging and burdensome to identify and collect modern attachments. If you rely on Microsoft Purview for eDiscovery compliance and information governance, you must upgrade to expensive premium licensing that can add up to tens of millions of dollars in additional expense for larger enterprises. And even then, there are significant throughput and defensibility challenges.

eDiscovery service providers have stepped into the mix to provide manual services to address MS 365 challenges. But throwing services at the problem is disruptive, inefficient, and expensive as well.

X1 provides a different approach. X1 Enterprise Collect provides full support for modern attachments in MS Mail and in Teams. X1 is the only solution we and our partners are aware of that supports the search and collection of modern attachments in MS 365 without the need for a Premium (E5) license or additional manual services. This is because X1 Enterprise Collect does not operate by simply making bulk calls to the MS Graph API, like most eDiscovery tools, which also require a premium license to collect the key data such as modern attachments. X1 employs a targeted, custodian-based approach that minimizes 365 API calls, and does not rely on the MS Search Index, which has been demonstrated to be untrustworthy and with limited throughput. X1’s approach enables a very scalable, defensible, and robust data collection at speeds 10x that of other approaches.

The X1 Enterprise Collect Platform is available now from X1 and its global channel network in the cloud and on-premise. For a demonstration of the X1 Enterprise Collect Platform, contact us at sales@x1.com. For more details on this innovative solution, please visit www.x1.com/x1-enterprise-collect-platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Case Law, Cloud Data, Corporations, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, law firm, MS Teams, OneDrive

Tagged as , , , ,

September 21, 2023 · 2:04 PM

An Estimated 500,000 Litigation Matters Involved Social Media Evidence in the Past 12 Months

By John Patzakis

As we have mentioned many times, nearly every litigation matter involves social media evidence. If your case does not feature such important evidence, it is likely because you are not looking for it. By analogy, Taylor Swift’s music is all around us, but you won’t hear it unless you tune into it on the radio or your streaming music site of choice. Similarly, you have put some effort to tune into the torrential rivers of social media evidence.

To illustrate this point, we sought to identify some metrics reflecting the ubiquity of social media evidence in litigation matters. While this is an inexact science, we searched online legal databases of state and federal court decisions across the United States to identify the number of cases from the past twelve months where evidence from social networking sites played a significant role. The search was limited to five social networking sites: Facebook, LinkedIn, X/Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok for the period September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023. The preliminary result was 5,623 cases. However, according to UCLA Law, less than 1 percent of litigation matters result or otherwise generate a published opinion, noting that “less than half of intermediate appellate opinions tend to be published. State trial court opinions are never published, and only a tiny fraction of federal trial (district) court opinions are published.”

So, by extrapolating the percentages, we very conservatively estimated that the 5,623 cases represented 1 percent of all cases involving social media evidence, bringing the actual estimated number to 562,300. We then employed a sampling method to determine that about 10 percent of the results were merely situations where the social media company was a named party or de minimis mentions — defined as cases with merely cursory or passing mentions of social media, so we pared down the results to an even half million.

This survey is an important data point establishing the ubiquitous nature of social media evidence and the importance of best practices technology like X1 Social Discovery to “tune in” to this evidence by searching and collecting social media evidence for litigation and compliance requirements.

Leave a comment

Filed under Authentication, Best Practices, Case Law, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, law firm, Preservation & Collection, Social Media Investigations, Social Media Metadata

August 30, 2023 · 12:52 PM

Best Evidence Rule Requires Post-Level Collection for Social Media Evidence

By John Patzakis

The Best Evidence Rule, as codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, provides that an original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove the contents of the document. This rule was formulated in a paper document dominated era, and aimed to prevent fraud and inaccuracies that could arise from secondary or duplicate evidence. However, the prevalence of electronically stored information (“ESI”) prompted exceptions to this rule when it comes to computer-generated evidence. Specifically, FRE 1001(d) was drafted to provide clarification for how ESI was to be treated under the Best Evidence Rule: “For electronically stored information, ‘original’ means any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information.”

FRE 1001(d) means that for most forms of ESI, including electronic documents, emails, digital photos, and video files, an exact copy of those items will suffice under the Best Evidence Rule. And because it is very easy to create an exact copy of electronic evidence (as any eDiscovery practitioner who has ever “de-duped” ESI can attest to), the Best Evidence Rule has been almost forgotten in the ESI era. However, it is very different when it comes to screen shots of social media posts. Because screen shots are truncated images of the full native social media posts, they are not exact copies of the original as defined under FRE 1001(d). In fact, given the unfortunately extensive but erroneous reliance on screenshots of social media evidence, The Best Evidence Rule could be cited far more frequently by opposing counsel seeking to contest the admission of such evidence.

A case out of the federal courts in Texas addressed this issue head on. Edwards v. Junior State of America Foundation, is a civil litigation matter involving the intentional destruction (spoliation) of social media evidence. The plaintiff had deleted his Facebook account resulting in lost evidence critical to the case. The court cited an affidavit submitted by an eDiscovery expert witness who noted that when X1 Social Discovery was used to collect from the Plaintiff’s Facebook account, key evidence that existed prior to the litigation was missing because it had been deleted by the Plaintiff prior to the X1 Social Discovery collection.

As a result of the spoliation established in large part by the X1 Social Discovery examination, the Court imposed severe evidentiary sanctions on the plaintiff, including the exclusion of evidence and claims related to the destroyed Facebook data, and adverse jury instructions.

The plaintiffs’ had sought to offer screenshots as evidence of the Facebook communications instead of the deleted native files. The court ruled that the metadata and full context of the native files were essential to satisfy the Best Evidence Rule. The court held that screenshots were not an output that accurately reflected the substance and context of the native file, since they could not show that the messages were authentic, nor could they “be used to prove that Harper sent the Facebook Messages contained in the screenshots.” Failure to produce the native files prejudiced the Defendants, in part, because it deprived them “of the ability to substantiate or refute the authenticity of the alleged messages.” In a key passage the court states:

“Here, the screenshots will not suffice as an ‘original’ because the screenshots are not an ‘output’ that accurately reflects the information. Only native files can ensure authenticity. Additionally, although the Best Evidence Rule allows for an original ‘photograph’ to prove the contents of the photograph, this does not mean that the screenshot here can be used to prove that Harper sent the Facebook Messages contained in the screenshots.”

Edwards demonstrates that the collection and preservation of full native social media posts is vital to both that evidence’s authentication and obtaining the full context and substance of the posts under the Best Evidence Rule. The court found that screenshots, which truncate social media posts and omit key metadata, do not suffice. As a result, attorneys should be aware that courts are unlikely to find that screenshots alone are sufficient to authenticate a social media post and will likely insist on the native files. To ensure this data is collected defensibly, attorneys should work with best practices software and methods to preserve and collect social media evidence and underlying metadata so that they can be properly authenticated and admitted in court.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Case Law, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery, ESI, law firm, Preservation & Collection, Social Media Investigations, Social Media Metadata

Tagged as , , , ,