Category Archives: Information Management

February 28, 2023 · 2:26 PM

A Tectonic Shift is Occurring in eDiscovery

Guest Blog Post by Insight Optix
Original post date by IO: February 23, 2023

Editor’s note: Today we are featuring a guest blog post from legal technology company Insight Optix on the changes occurring in eDiscovery with reference to key survey reports by Doug Austin and Rob Robinson.

Are you tired of hearing about high eDiscovery costs? Legal professionals spend countless hours talking about it, yet year after year the only thing that changes is that costs continue to rise. Will 2023 be any different? We’re seeing a number of indicators pointing to yes.

The eDiscovery software and services market is expected to grow from $14.05 billion in 2022 to $22.31 billion in 2027, according to Rob Robinson’s An eDiscovery Market Size Mashup: 2022-2027 Worldwide Software and Services Overview (complexdiscovery.com). With current economic pressures, it is difficult to see how corporations can continue this trajectory without making significant changes in how they manage eDiscovery.

Corporate legal departments are starting to say enough is enough. While we have recently seen legal departments bringing more work inhouse and moving discovery responsibilities to mid-sized firms or boutique practices, we’re now seeing an even bigger shift — corporate legal departments are actively seeking innovation in the delivery of legal services that drastically reduces discovery spend.

Evidence of this change can be found in eDiscovery Today’s third annual State of the Industry Report Survey published in January. When asked what the top eDiscovery challenge is that not enough people are talking about, the second-highest answer from the 410 respondents was the move to the left of the EDRM and indexing in place, with nearly double the percentage than was received in 2021. As Doug Austin stated in his 5 Legal Tech Predictions for 2023 blog post, “I’m hearing more legal and eDiscovery professionals than ever talk about the importance of information governance, early data assessment (EDA) and targeted collection in discovery.”

Recent technology innovations that focus on identification and collection are shining a spotlight on these critical early stages of the EDRM, finally making it achievable to counteract the high costs of eDiscovery. Insight Optix’s early case strategy and discovery scoping solution, Evidence Optix® and the X1 Enterprise Collect iterative search and targeted collection platform are two examples of innovative solutions that can achieve significant cost reduction.

Corporations that embrace innovation, such as Evidence Optix and X1 Enterprise Collect, are positioning themselves to counteract the rising volume of data and the proliferation of data sources to accomplish what the 2015 amendments to the FRCP intended — right-sized discovery.

While many law firms continue to maintain the status quo, innovative firms who recognize the value of blending early-stage solutions into their case strategies to impact their clients’ bottom line are emerging. These firms are focused on assisting their clients with building better workflows to reduce costs, while also differentiating their services in a highly competitive market.

This past year, many eDiscovery service providers began talking about the early stages of the EDRM and strategically planning a move to the left. This is one of the most telling indicators of the tectonic shift that is changing the landscape of eDiscovery.

How is your company or firm addressing this shift? If you would like to leverage recent technology innovations and get out in front of this important trend, contact us at info@insightoptix.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Management

December 6, 2022 · 10:23 AM

Significant Microsoft 365 eDiscovery Challenges Require a New Approach

By John Patzakis

The adoption of cloud-based Microsoft 365 (“MS 365”) by enterprises continues to grow exponentially, with the company recently reporting 300 million monthly active users, and the addition of over 100 petabytes of new content each month. There is no question that MS 365 is now a major data source for eDiscovery, second only to file-shares and laptops, and as such provides challenges to every legal and eDiscovery practitioner.

While MS 365 includes built-in eDiscovery tools in the Security and Compliance Center, many users look to third party alternatives due to the high cost, perceived concerns over the accuracy of search results, and other key challenges. However, most non-MS eDiscovery tools collect from MS 365 by simply making bulk copies of data associated with individual accounts, and then attempting to transfer that data en masse to their own proprietary processing and/or review platform. This problematic approach is counter-productive to the very purpose of why you put data in the cloud.

Such an effort is very costly, time consuming, and inefficient for many reasons. For one, this bulk transfer triggers data transfer throttling by Microsoft, causing significant time delays. But the main problem is that clients who are investing in MS 365 do not want to see all their data routinely exported out of its native environment every time there is an eDiscovery or compliance investigation. Organizations are fine with a targeted set of potentially relevant ESI leaving MS 365. What they do not want is a mass bulk export of terabytes of data at great expense because eDiscovery and processing tools need to first broadly ingest that data in their disparate platform in order to even begin the indexing, culling and searching process.

Additionally, organizations, especially larger enterprises, rarely house all or even most of their data within MS 365, with hybrid cloud and on-premise environments being the norm. MS 365 eDiscovery tools can only address what is contained within MS 365. Any on-premise data, including on-premise Microsoft sources (SharePoint, Exchange) cannot be readily consolidated by MS 365, and neither can data from other cloud sources such as Google Drive, Box, Dropbox, etc. And of course, laptops and file-shares are critical to eDiscovery collections and are also not supported by the MS 365 eDiscovery tools, with Microsoft indicating that they do not have any plans to address all of these non-MS 365 data sources.

So, eDiscovery software providers need to have a good process to perform unified search and collection of MS 365 and non-MS 365 sources. To achieve requisite efficiency and the minimization of data transfer, this process should be based upon a targeted search and collection in-place capability, and not simply involve mass export of data out of MS 365 for downstream processing and searching.

To answer this unmet critical need, X1 has added MS 365 data connectors to our X1 Enterprise Collect platform. X1 Enterprise Collect provides users the unique ability to search and collect MS 365 data in-place. X1’s optimized approach of iterative search and targeted collection enables organizations to apply proportionality principles across both cloud and on-premise data sources with clear and consistent results for effective eDiscovery. The search results are returned in minutes, not weeks, and thus can be highly granular and iterative, based upon multiple keywords, date ranges, file types, or other parameters. This approach typically reduces the eDiscovery collection and processing costs by at least one order of magnitude (90%).

The X1 Enterprise Collect Platform is available now from X1 and its global channel network in the cloud, on-premise, and with our services available on-demand. 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, Cloud Data, Corporations, Data Audit, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Governance, Information Management, OneDrive, Preservation & Collection, SharePoint

Tagged as , , , ,

June 15, 2022 · 12:33 PM

Industry Experts: Proportionality Principles Apply to ESI Preservation and Collection

By John Patzakis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may discover any non-privileged material that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Lawyers that take full advantage of the proportionality rule can greatly reduce cost, time and risk associated with otherwise overbroad eDiscovery production. In a recent webinar, eDiscovery attorney Martin Tully of Redgrave LLP, addressed how to use processes and best practices to operationally attain this goal, particularly in the context of preservation and collection. In addition to being a partner at the Redgrave firm, Tully is currently the chair of the Steering Committee of the Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1), providing additional import to his comments on the subject.

During the webinar, Tully noted that the “duty to preserve is directly aligned with what is within the scope of discovery….so if something is not within the scope of discovery – that is its either not relevant or its not proportional to the needs of the case — then there should not be an obligation to preserve it in the first place.” Tully discussed at length the recent case of Raine Grp. v. Reign Capital, (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022), which holds that under FRC 26(a), parties “have an affirmative obligation to search for documents which they may use to support their claims or defenses.” In meeting these obligations, the court provided that a producing party may utilize search methodologies, specifically mentioning search terms. Tully explained that the court—in addressing the concept of reasonable, proportional discovery under the Rules – provides that producing parties are obligated to search custodians and locations it identifies on its own as sources for relevant information as part of its obligations under Rule 26, but that such identification and collection efforts should be proportional.

Further to these points, Tully weighed in on overbroad practice of full-disk imaging, noting that it should not be the default practice for eDiscovery collection: “Too often there is a knee jerk approach of ‘let’s just take a forensic image of everything – just because.’” According to Tully, alternative and more targeted search and collection methods were more appropriate for eDiscovery and can better effectuate proportional efforts: “Indexing in-place is key because it doesn’t just preserve in-place and reduce costs, but it can give you insight (into the data) to further justify your decision not to collect it in the first place, or if you need to, you are in much better shape to go back and collect the data in a tailored and focused way.”

Co-presenter Mandi Ross, CEO of Insight Optix also provided keen insight, outlining her typical workflow applying the aforementioned proportionality concepts through custodian and data source ranking and keyword searching performed in an iterative manner to identify key custodians, data sources, and the potentially relevant data itself. To effectuate this, Mandi noted that the enterprise eDiscovery collection and early data assessment process should enable a targeted, remote, and automated search capability, with immediate pre-collection visibility into custodial data.

In fact, both Tully and Ross emphasized in their comments that none of the cost-saving, targeted collection efforts permitted under the Federal Rules can be realized without an operational capability to effectuate them. Ideally, the producing party can employ a defensible, targeted, and iterative search and collection process in-place, prior to collection to effectuate the proportional discovery process approved by the court in this decision. However, without such a capability, the alternative is an expensive, over-collection effort, where the data is searched post collection. Enabling the search iteration and targeted collection upstream brings dramatic cost savings, risk reduction, and other process efficiencies.

A recording of the webinar on proportionality can be accessed here.

Leave a comment

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

May 12, 2022 · 11:06 AM

Usage-Based Pricing Model Increasingly Driving eDiscovery Software Growth

by John Patzakis

Legal Tech software CEOs often grapple with two competing challenges: Growing revenue in a manner that supports how customers buy their products for their individual cases, while at the same time maximizing shareholder value by recording recurring revenue, which the investor community typically favors. Recurring revenue generally comes in the form of fixed annual or monthly subscription licenses.

However, eDiscovery software providers are increasingly aligning their SaaS pricing strategy with the amount of product usage their customers consume. Instead of paying a fixed rate, the pricing is based upon actual usage. The benefits of this approach include a shorter and simpler purchasing process and increased customer satisfaction and retention.

In the eDiscovery space, customers often prefer to pay by “matter”, i.e., per lawsuit or legal case. Law firms and service providers typically utilize eDiscovery SaaS software specific to an individual case on a pass-through cost basis, where their end-client ultimately pays for the services. In the case of corporate law departments, oftentimes the organization prefers to purchase annual subscriptions for eDiscovery and apply the license over multiple matters in the course of the year. However, such buying decisions vary by organization, with corporate counsel sometimes deferring eDiscovery workflow and tech decisions to their law firms, which favors a usage-based pricing model.

While tech companies with recurring annual term revenue will typically garner higher valuations, eDiscovery software firms with usage-based pricing models are now seeing similarly elevated valuations. Investors are recognizing the very unique economics and buying dynamics specific to the eDiscovery software space. But it is incumbent on eDiscovery software execs, their investment bankers, and board members to educate the broader market on this dynamic unique to the eDiscovery space. In some situations, investors new to this space attempt to apply a steep discount to usage-based SaaS revenue, as it doesn’t fit in with their “paint by the numbers” ARR models. Rick Weber, Managing Director of Legal Tech investment banking firm Arbor Ridge Partners notes, “while the usage model is not annual recurring, it is ‘monthly re-occurring,’ and thus projections and modeling can be made based on company history and industry norms and should be treated like ARR contracts.”

In fact, usage-based pricing is now gaining wider acceptance in the broader SaaS software market beyond legal tech. Cloud infrastructure providers AWS and Microsoft Azure are obvious examples of successful usage-based pricing strategies, but many startups and medium sized companies have successfully implemented the model as well. While usage-based revenue may seem less predictable compared to other pricing models, companies using this model are often growing faster, retaining more revenue, and valued at high revenue multiples. But again, this realization requires a closer look by investors and an intelligent education effort by the companies and their advisors.

One caveat for investors is to confirm that the value of the SaaS usage offering is mostly based upon proprietary software tech versus services that are dressed up as SaaS. Some eDiscovery service providers attempt to position their services as SaaS, without a true standalone propriety software component. An analysis of the cost of sales/gross margins and assessment of the actual proprietary nature of the software is determinative. Gross margins should be at least 80 percent. And while some services are often provided in conjunction with a SaaS usage-based offering, a qualifying factor is whether the software is also separately offered purely as a traditional license to end users without any services required, which is how many customers will opt to buy.

But for true usage-based SaaS offerings, the flexibility, simplicity and supporting of legal customers purchasing dynamics are key to rapid growth and customer satisfaction. As summarized by Weber, “many of the PE firms and investors that have made big bets on such companies in recent years seem to understand the nuance and opportunity while many still lag behind and simply need to think outside of their box.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, Corporations, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, Information Management, SaaS, Uncategorized

September 28, 2021 · 10:51 AM

Dark Data is an Unmet Cyber Security Challenge

By John Patzakis

Enterprises today are creating and storing massive volumes of unstructured, data distributed across the enterprise at a very fast pace. IT experts refer to this data type as “dark data.” Research advisory firm Gartner defines dark data as “the information assets organizations collect, process and store during regular business activities, but generally fail to use for other purposes.” according to Rahul Telang, professor of information systems at Carnegie Mellon University, “[o]ver 90% of the data in business is dark data.”

Dark data exists due to organizational silos and a highly distributed and mobile workforce, a trend that proliferated during the COVID pandemic and has now solidified as the new normal. As a result, there is a proliferation of unmanaged data stored in file shares, laptops, unarchived email accounts, shared cloud drives such as OneDrive and Dropbox and many other repositories. According to Anthony Juliano, CTO of Landmark Ventures, “dark data is exploding rapidly with the dissolution of the perimeter; it’s a largely unaddressed risk vector. A vast majority of the CIOs and CISOs I speak with are now prioritizing solving this problem not only going forward, but also backwards – and it’s not easy.”

Cyber security platforms generally have a good handle on perimeter integrity, encryption, and other key priorities such as zero day network attacks and malware. However, while these measures are clearly important, distributed dark data is largely a blind spot for cybersecurity tech, and as such organizations have very little visibility into the content of such data. GDPR, CCPA and other recent privacy regulatory requirements add increased urgency to this challenge.

CISOs and legal and compliance executives often aspire to implement information governance and security programs like defensible deletion, data migration, and data audits across their unstructured data to detect risks and remediate non-compliance. However, without an actual and scalable technology platform to effectuate these goals, those aspirations remain just that.

One tactic attempted by some CIOs to attempt to address this daunting challenge is to periodically migrate disparate data from around the global enterprise into a central location, such as an archiving platform. But boiling the ocean through data migration and centralization is extremely expensive, highly disruptive, and frankly unworkable for numerous reasons. While such a concept may seem like a good idea when drawn up on the whiteboard, originations quickly learn that you cannot just migrate hundreds of terabytes of distributed dark data to an archive, mainly due to network bandwidth and other logistical constraints, as well as the reality that you are merely copying and duplicating the data being migrated, which actually makes the situation worse.

Another tactic is data loss prevention (DLP). Again, this approach is thwarted by the new normal of a distributed, global workforce. Additionally, DLP tools are traditionally hampered by an inability to have deep content insight to unstructured data, resulting in false positives, inaccurate classification and unacceptable disruption to employee and business workflows.

What has always been needed is gaining immediate visibility into unstructured distributed data across the enterprise in-place, through the ability to search and report across several thousand endpoints, file shares and other unstructured data sources, and return results within minutes instead of days or weeks. None of the other approaches outlined above come close to meeting this requirement and in fact actually perpetuate information security and governance failures.

Born and bred to address global eDiscovery challenges, X1 Enterprise platform (X1E) represents a unique approach to dark data, by enabling enterprises to quickly and easily search across multiple distributed endpoints and data servers in place through a true distributed, parallelized computing architecture. Legal, security and compliance teams can easily perform unified complex searches across both unstructured content and metadata, obtaining statistical insight into the data in minutes, instead of days or weeks. With X1E, organizations can also automatically migrate, collect, or take other action on the data as a result of the search parameters. Built on our award-winning and patented X1 Search technology, X1E is the first product to offer true and massively scalable distributed searching that is executed in its entirety on the end-node computers for data audits across an organization. This game-changing capability vastly reduces costs while greatly mitigating risk and disruption to operations.

Leave a comment

Filed under CaCPA, Cyber security, eDiscovery & Compliance, GDPR, Information Governance, Information Management