Category Archives: ECA

December 16, 2025 · 9:13 AM

AI Without Data Movement: X1’s Webinar Reveals the Future of Secure Enterprise AI

By John Patzakis

X1’s recent webinar announcing the availability of true “AI in-place” for the enterprise was both highly attended and strongly validated by the audience response. The session did more than introduce a new feature; it articulated a fundamentally different architectural approach to enterprise AI—one designed explicitly for security, compliance, and scalability in complex, distributed environments. Our central message was simple: enterprise AI adoption has been constrained not by lack of interest, but by architectural and security requirements that existing platforms have failed to address.

That reality was most powerfully captured in a quote shared on the opening slide from a Fortune 100 Chief Information Security Officer, which set the tone for the entire discussion:

“Normally AI for infosec and compliance use cases is a non-starter for security reasons, but your workflow and architecture is completely different. This allows us – all behind our firewall — to develop our own models that are trained on our own data and customized to our specific security and compliance use cases and deployed in-place across our enterprise.”

This endorsement crystallized the webinar’s core insight: AI becomes viable for the most sensitive enterprise use cases only when it is deployed where the data already lives, rather than forcing data into external or centralized systems.

The technical foundation that makes this possible is X1’s micro-indexing architecture. Unlike traditional platforms built on centralized, resource-intensive indexing technologies, X1 deploys lightweight, distributed micro-indexes directly at the data source. This allows enterprises to index, search, and now apply AI analysis without mass data movement. As emphasized during the webinar, centralized indexing is not just expensive and slow—it is fundamentally misaligned with how modern enterprise data is distributed across file systems, endpoints, cloud platforms, and collaboration tools.

The session then highlighted how this architectural distinction resolves a long-standing problem in discovery, compliance, and security workflows. Legacy platforms require organizations to collect and centralize data before they can analyze it, introducing delays, high costs, and significant risk exposure. X1 reverses that workflow. By enabling visibility and AI-driven classification before collection, organizations can make informed, targeted decisions—collecting only what is necessary, remediating issues in-place, and dramatically reducing both risk and operational overhead.

The discussion also demystified large language models (LLMs), explaining that while model training is compute-intensive, models themselves are increasingly commoditized and portable. Critically, LLMs require extracted text and metadata— processed from native files—to function. This aligns perfectly with X1’s existing capability, as text and metadata extraction are already integral to our micro-indexing process. AI models can therefore be deployed alongside these indexes, operating in parallel across thousands of data sources with massive scalability.

The conversation then connected this architecture to concrete, high-value use cases. In eDiscovery, AI in-place enables faster early case assessment and proportionality by analyzing data where it resides. In incident response and breach investigations, security teams can immediately scope exposure across distributed systems without waiting months for data exports. For compliance and governance, AI models can continuously identify sensitive data, enforce retention policies, and surface risk conditions that were previously impractical to monitor at scale.

In addition to a live product demo showcasing this new capability, we concluded the webinar with several clarifying points and announcements. First, we emphasized that X1 does not access, monetize, or host customer data. Also, AI in-place is not an experimental add-on but an enhancement to a proven, production-grade platform. And notably, there is no additional licensing cost for the AI capability itself—customers simply deploy models within their own environment. With proof-of-concept testing beginning shortly and production deployments targeted for April 2026, the webinar made clear that AI in-place is not a future vision, but an imminent reality for the enterprise.

You can access a recording of the webinar here, and to learn more about X1 Enterprise, please visit us at X1.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Corporations, Cybersecurity, Data Audit, Data Governance, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise AI, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Governance

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2025 · 9:12 AM

X1 Expands Its Leadership in Microsoft Teams eDiscovery Collection

X1 Enterprise MS Teams Collection

By John Patzakis and Chas Meier

The rapid growth of Microsoft 365 has fundamentally changed the eDiscovery landscape. Among its most prominent data sources, Microsoft Teams now generates vast volumes of business-critical communications that must be identified, collected, and reviewed in litigation, regulatory, and compliance matters.

Yet most eDiscovery tools still rely on outdated methods: bulk copying massive amounts of sensitive data and transferring it to proprietary processing or review platforms. This approach is slow, costly, and disruptive. Bulk transfers frequently trigger Microsoft’s throttling controls, adding significant delays. More importantly, organizations that have invested heavily in Microsoft 365 do not want their data routinely exported out of its secure, native environment every time an eDiscovery matter or compliance investigation arises.

Recognizing these challenges, X1 has built upon its industry-leading Microsoft 365 collection capabilities to deliver unmatched support for Microsoft Teams—alongside OneDrive, Exchange, and SharePoint.

Key Benefits of X1’s Teams Collection Capabilities
• Precision targeting of Channels at scale – Quickly search all available channels, select, and target specific Teams channels, even in organizations with tens of thousands of them. This feature is not even available in Microsoft Purview!
• Granular control – Target individual custodians and message threads, avoiding unnecessary mass downloads.
• Contextual collections – Automatically include a designated number of preceding and subsequent messages, preserving conversational context.
• Seamless review integration – One-click upload of fully formatted in-context results directly into review platforms—no manual processing required.
• Unified approach – Search and collect across Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, Exchange, laptops, and file shares from a single interface.
• In-place indexing – Leverage X1’s patented technology to index, search, and process data where it resides, eliminating reliance on expensive third-party processing.
• True automation – A software-based solution that reduces dependency on manual, service-heavy workflows.

No other independent software provider matches the speed, precision, and scalability of X1’s Microsoft Teams eDiscovery collection. Our customers consistently report significant gains in efficiency, cost savings, and defensibility compared to legacy approaches.

As Teams usage continues to surge, legal and compliance professionals need solutions that deliver targeted, defensible collections without the inefficiencies of bulk exports. X1’s enhanced Teams support ensures organizations can meet these demands with speed, accuracy, and minimal disruption.

Seeing is believing—watch our short demo video to experience X1’s Teams capabilities in action.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, Enterprise Search, ESI, Hybrid Search, Information Governance, m365, MS Teams, OneDrive

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

August 5, 2025 · 9:57 AM

Why Most eDiscovery Tools and Online Archiving Offerings Are Terrible for Information Governance

By John Patzakis and Chas Meier

Many organizations assume that information governance initiatives—such as data privacy audits, purging ROT (Redundant, Obsolete, or Trivial) data, merger and acquisition-driven data separation, or data breach impact assessments—can be effectively addressed using eDiscovery tools or online archiving platforms. After all, eDiscovery solutions excel at identifying and searching through large volumes of unstructured data in high-stakes, reactive legal scenarios.

However, there is a critical distinction between eDiscovery and information governance workflows that organizations must understand when selecting the right solution. eDiscovery typically involves copying large volumes of data at multiple stages and continually moving that data upstream, eventually into third-party cloud platforms for processing and hosting. In contrast, duplicating and moving massive data sets is often the last thing you want to do in information governance projects, which are typically large-scale, enterprise-wide initiatives.

In fact, here are five major reasons why most eDiscovery tools and online archiving solutions are terrible for information governance. These tools:

  1. Dramatically Increase Risk
    Consider a scenario where an organization suffers a data breach and must assess 100 terabytes of data to identify compromised PII and determine reporting obligations. Most eDiscovery tools require a full copy of this data to be made and uploaded into a third-party environment—doubling the volume of sensitive material and compounding the risk. Instead of helping, this kind of mass data duplication exacerbates the compliance and privacy risks that governance initiatives aim to reduce. In fact, such inefficient data duplication directly conflicts with GDPR principles, which require data minimalization and proportionality.
  2. Are Exorbitantly Expensive
    Information governance is not a small, tactical effort—it is a broad, enterprise-wide initiative. At X1, we rarely see governance projects involving less than 50 terabytes of data. Using traditional eDiscovery pricing models, even with volume-based discounts, these projects can quickly rack up tens of millions of dollars in costs due to unnecessary processing, storage, and hosting workflows designed for litigation—not governance.
  3. Can’t Meet Time Constraints
    Copying, transferring, uploading, and indexing 100 terabytes of data into a third-party cloud platform can easily take six months or more, even in an ideal scenario. That timeline is incompatible with the urgent nature of most information governance use cases, such as data breach impact assessments or M&A-related audits. Worse yet, by the time the data has been copied and indexed, it will likely already be stale—undermining the integrity of the project from the outset.
  4. Create Remediation Roadblocks
    Suppose you incur the costs and risk to copy and upload a full data set in an external review platform and successfully identify sensitive or outdated data for remediation. Now what? You are merely working with copies of the data. The originals remain distributed across Microsoft 365, file servers, laptops, and other locations. Trying to trace back and manually remediate live data sources is costly, disruptive, and error-prone—defeating the very efficiency goals of the governance project.
  5. Do not Support Microsoft 365 Effectively
    Many so-called “governance” tools are simply rebranded email archiving systems that rely on bulk copying data out of Microsoft 365. Not only is this approach expensive and inefficient, but it also creates serious technical and compliance risks. Microsoft 365 does not support mass data exports at scale without significant friction, and errors are common—as illustrated in FTC v. Match Group, No. 3:19-CV-2281-K, 2025 WL 46024 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2025). In that case, Microsoft Purview exports into an archival system failed, resulting in court-imposed discovery sanctions. If a solution does not support index-in-place capabilities—allowing analysis directly upon the native data—it is simply not viable for modern information governance needs.

A Different Approach is Required
Information governance requires agility, precision, and a fundamentally different approach than traditional eDiscovery processes. Organizations must be wary of legacy eDiscovery tools and outdated archiving platforms masquerading as governance solutions.

X1 Enterprise was purpose-built to address the challenges and inefficiencies that plague traditional eDiscovery tools and archiving platforms when applied to information governance. At the core of the X1 Enterprise Platform is its patented micro-indexing architecture, which enables organizations to search, analyze, and act on data in place, without needing to first copy, move, or centralize it.

This index-in-place capability means X1 can connect directly to endpoints, file shares, Microsoft 365, and other enterprise data sources to perform fast, scalable, and highly targeted data sweeps and analysis—without duplicating the data or exposing it to unnecessary risk. Whether you are performing a data privacy audit, a breach impact assessment, or an M&A data separation project, you can run real-time searches across tens of terabytes and thousands of custodians—with results returned in minutes, not months, and the data remediation performed in-place.

By eliminating the need for data movement, X1 avoids the five major pitfalls of legacy tools:
• Risk: No mass duplication of data, reducing exposure and aligning with GDPR and other regulatory requirements.
• Cost: No massive ingestion or hosting fees—X1 dramatically lowers total project costs by working directly with live data.
• Time: Deploy and execute governance initiatives in a fraction of the time required by traditional methods.
• Remediation: Act directly on live data—flag it, move it, delete it, or apply tags—in the original source locations.
• Microsoft 365 Compatibility: X1 integrates natively with Microsoft 365 and other systems without requiring cumbersome exports or expensive additional licensing and services, enabling robust, reliable governance at enterprise scale. Simply put, we believe X1 provides the best available support for M365 data sources.

In short, X1 Enterprise offers a faster, safer, and far more cost-effective way to execute complex information governance projects—turning what used to be massive, reactive, months-long efforts into streamlined, proactive, and strategic workflows.

Learn more about how X1 Enterprise can streamline your next information governance project. Schedule a demo today at sales@x1.com or visit www.x1.com/solutions/x1-enterprise-platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, CaCPA, Cloud Data, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, GDPR, Information Governance, law firm, m365, Preservation & Collection, Records Management

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2025 · 11:43 AM

Courts Favor Targeted eDiscovery Collections, but It Is Up to In-House Teams to Enable Such Cost Saving Proportional Efforts

By John Patzakis

In-House Legal Teams Enable Cost Savings

Corporate legal departments face ever-increasing costs and risk related to eDiscovery, driven largely by excessive and indiscriminate data collection. Many organizations default to an overbroad “collect everything” approach out of an abundance of caution or due to inefficient workflows imposed by third-party service providers or even outside counsel. Over collection results in far higher costs upstream, critical delays and increased risk. However, for this reason courts consistently endorse proportional and targeted discovery practices that balance the needs of litigation with cost-effectiveness and reasonableness. But in order to best realize the benefits of proportionality, organizations should establish an in-house eDiscovery capability supported by best-practices technology.

Courts Support Proportional and Targeted ESI Collection
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) emphasize proportionality and reasonableness in discovery. Specifically, Rule 26(b)(1) limits discovery to information that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

Courts have routinely upheld this principle, encouraging parties to avoid overbroad collections:

  1. The Sedona Conference Principles
    While not binding, courts frequently rely on The Sedona Principles, which advocate for “reasonable and good faith efforts” to identify relevant ESI. (See The Sedona Principles, Third Edition, 19 Sedona Conf. J. 1 (2018)). Courts cite these principles to support reasonable limits on preservation and collection.
  2. In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562 (D. Ariz. 2016)
    Here, the court recognized the proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(1) and ruled that the defendant’s proposed targeted discovery approach—using custodians, date ranges, and agreed-upon search terms—satisfied its obligations.
  3. Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 322 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2017)
    The court rejected broad discovery requests that lacked proportionality, holding that the producing party could limit its search for ESI to agreed-upon custodians and relevant date ranges. The court emphasized that broad, burdensome demands are contrary to Rule 26(b)(1).
  4. Hernandez v. City of Houston, No. 4:16-CV-3577, 2020 WL 2542625 (S.D. Tex. May 19, 2020)
    Here, the court denied a motion to compel additional production of ESI beyond agreed search terms, explaining that the requested expansion was disproportionate given the marginal relevance and substantial burden of additional collection.

These and other decisions (further analysis available here) demonstrate that targeted, proportional collection efforts are not only defensible but expected by the courts. Overcollection is hardly mandated by the court and, in fact, can increase risk by preserving irrelevant or privileged information unnecessarily.

So, the problem is not the law. The challenge is that many eDiscovery service providers favor full disk imaging or other forms of massive data over-collection for two reasons: 1) As they are not integrated into a company’s IT data architecture with an established and repeatable process, they revert to a reactive, once-off effort to collect everything that could possibly be relevant; and 2) They are financially incentivized to collect as much data as possible.

Advantages of In-House eDiscovery Capabilities for Targeted Collections
To align with the principles of proportionality, legal departments should move away from the outsourced collection model that favors bulk extraction. Instead, maintaining an in-house eDiscovery capability provides the following key advantages:

  1. Integrated, Precise Search and Collection
    Solutions like X1 Enterprise are designed to index data in place, allowing corporate legal and IT teams to search, cull, and collect only what is relevant—without moving massive volumes of unnecessary data. This reduces costs and minimizes data exposure.
  2. Iterative, Defensible Process
    With in-house capabilities, legal teams can collaborate directly with IT to conduct collections iteratively. They can refine search criteria and custodians in real-time, in response to case developments or meet-and-confer negotiations, ensuring defensibility and responsiveness.
  3. Faster Response Times and Lower Costs
    Deeply integrated technology removes reliance on expensive, reactive third-party vendors who often require full data exports up front. By indexing data where it resides, in-house teams can respond quickly to litigation holds and discovery deadlines.
  4. Enhanced Compliance and Risk Management
    By avoiding massive data dumps, corporations reduce the risk of producing irrelevant, privileged, or sensitive data unnecessarily. Proportionality helps mitigate privacy risks and comply with data minimization principles under privacy laws like the GDPR and CCPA.
  5. Control and Repeatability Across Multiple Use Cases
    In-house solutions preserve institutional knowledge and workflows. Future cases can reuse workflows and search parameters, creating repeatable, consistent, and auditable processes. Further, the same process can be readily leveraged for various information governance and other compliance use cases.

Conclusion
Courts expect discovery to be proportional, targeted, and reasonable—not excessive or indiscriminate. Establishing an in-house eDiscovery capability with proven integrated technology like X1 Enterprise allows your organization to operationalize this legal standard. By doing so, you will reduce costs, minimize risks, and demonstrate good faith compliance with discovery obligations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, CaCPA, Cloud Data, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, GDPR, m365, Preservation & Collection, proportionality

Tagged as , , , , , , ,