Category Archives: Preservation & Collection

April 23, 2024 · 10:04 AM

Index-In-Place eDiscovery Tech is in High Demand, but Beware of False Vendor Claims

By John Patzakis

Proportionality-based eDiscovery is a goal that all in-house corporate legal teams want to attain. 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. However, most core eDiscovery costs (outside of attorney review) stem from over-collection of electronically stored information (ESI), and over-collection thwarts the ability to attain proportionality. Law firm Nelson Mullins notes that “over preservation tends to have its own costs relating to storage of large amounts of electronically stored information (ESI) and the resources needed to manage it; leads to increased downstream e-discovery costs associated with collection, processing, and review.”

This is why accurate pre-collection data insight is a game-changing capability that enables counsel to set reasonable discovery limits and ultimately process, host, review and produce much less ESI. Counsel can further use pre-collection proportionality analysis to gather key information, develop a litigation budget, and better manage litigation deadlines. Such insights can also foster cooperation by informing the parties early in the process about where relevant ESI is located, and what keywords and other search parameters can identify and pinpoint relevant ESI.

And the means to enable this capability is distributed index and search in-place technology. Indexing and search in-place in this context means that a software-based indexing technology is deployed directly onto fileservers, laptops, or in the cloud to address cloud-based data sources. This indexing occurs without a bulk transfer of the data to a central location. Once indexed, the searches are performed in a few seconds, with complex Boolean operators, metadata filters and regular expression searches. The searches can be iterated and repeated without limitation, which is critical for large data sets.

However, with this capability being highly valued, many vendors have parroted this messaging, but have offerings that do not qualify as true index-in-place. True distributed index-in-place means that the search indexes are forward-deployed, and are actually installed on the target laptop, Mac computer, fileserver or into the cloud near where the target cloud data sources exist. Transferring data in bulk to a central appliance or server farm via a collector agent or Robocopy function does not qualify. A true index-in-place capability uniquely enables scalability, targeted collection and also minimizes security and data governance risks in eDiscovery and information governance matters.

Conversely, a process requiring massive data copying, migration and centralization does not scale and creates significant data, governance and privacy issues by needlessly duplicating data. For instance, if a matter requires that 10 terabytes be scanned to determine if relevant ESI exists within that data corpus, and the eDiscovery collection platform being used has no index-in-place capability, then all 10 terabytes must be copied and transferred to the tool for indexing and analysis. These limitations stem from tool vendors simply utilizing open source indexing platforms like Lucene or Elastic Search that are not forward-deployable and must reside in centralized locations with a very large amount of computing resources to make them viable for the type of data and data volumes typically seen in discovery and information governance matters.

This is why X1 leverages proprietary and patented index and search technology that is readily forward deployable and thus can scale and allow true distributed indexing in-place. X1 Enterprise Collect significantly streamlines the eDiscovery workflow with integrated culling and deduplication, thereby eliminating the need for expensive and cumbersome ESI processing tools. That way, the ESI can be populated straight into Relativity from an X1 collection without multiple hand offs, extensive project management and inefficient data processing.

The ability to directly and transparently collect data from custodian laptops, desktops, Microsoft 365 and other cloud sources into a RelativityOne/Relativity workspace is a game-changer that enables attorneys to begin review in hours rather than weeks.

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, ECA, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, law firm, Preservation & Collection, proportionality

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

February 27, 2024 · 11:38 AM

Modern, Targeted ESI Collection Can Cut eDiscovery Costs by Over 90 Percent

By John Patzakis and Chas Meier

eDiscovery can be an expensive and time-consuming process when traditional data collection methods are employed. With legacy processes, it can take weeks for electronically stored information (ESI) collections to finally end up in review. Time is money, and utilizing dated processes can dramatically increase costs as well as risk. One of the biggest drivers of excessive eDiscovery costs is over-collection of irrelevant or unnecessary information. This in turn leads to a larger amount of data entering the processing and initial review funnel.

In fact, old school manual collection efforts require employing multiple tools, data copies, and manual steps into your litigation workflow. The majority of ESI processing consists of data culling and filtering, deduplication, text extraction, metadata preservation, and then staging the data for upload into a review platform, often in the form of a load (DAT) file. Some ESI processing solutions require deployment of non-integrated on-premise hardware appliances that further increase costs and add time delays. Manual collections, multiple generations of data duplication, and disjointed handoffs exponentially increase costs and risk while significantly delaying documents being available for review.

If you are still using stand-alone processing tools, you are doing it wrong and subjecting your clients to extensive costs and time delays. Modern collection technologies combine targeted collection with in-place processing of data which is automatically collected, processed, and uploaded into a review platform such as Relativity in one fell swoop.

The graph below established that the cost for collection, processing and first month hosting under a traditional preservation process can be upwards of $12,000 per custodian:

Properly targeted preservation initiatives are favored by the courts for purposes of civil eDiscovery and enabled by next generation software to search data sources quickly and effectively in-place throughout the enterprise. The value of targeted and proportional preservation is recognized in the Committee Notes to the recent FRCP amendments, which urge the parties to reach agreement on the preservation of data, keywords, and other metadata to identify responsive materials. See also, In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, (“Preservation efforts can become unduly burdensome and unreasonably costly unless those efforts are targeted to those documents reasonably likely to be relevant or lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.”)

X1 Enterprise Collect significantly streamlines the eDiscovery workflow with integrated culling and deduplication, thereby eliminating the need for expensive and cumbersome ESI processing tools. That way, the ESI can be populated straight into Relativity from an X1 collection without multiple hand offs, extensive project management and inefficient data processing.

The ability to directly and transparently collect data from custodian laptops, desktops, Microsoft 365 and other cloud sources into a RelativityOne / Relativity workspace is a game-changer that enables Attorney’s to begin review in hours rather than weeks.

The second chart shows how this streamlined approach, based upon a detailed ROI analysis, reduces eDiscovery costs by over 90 percent:

So, in terms of the big picture, X1 Enterprise Collect provides a complete platform to implement a properly targeted preservation strategy in the enterprise enabling organizations to save a lot of time, save a lot of money, and be able to make faster and better decisions.

When you accelerate the speed to review and eliminate over-collection and inefficient processing, you gain much better early insight into your data and can increase efficiencies on many levels.

Finally, the calculations represented in the charts were generated from a customizable ROI cost calculator created by Chas Meier, based upon his more than 20 years’ experience in eDiscovery service provider roles. If you would like a copy of this ROI calculator, please contact Chas at CMeier@x1.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, Corporations, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Management, Preservation & Collection

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

December 13, 2023 · 12:02 PM

X1 Expands Cutting Edge MS 365 Support With Very High and Unmatched Throughput Capabilities

By John Patzakis

Earlier this year, X1 launched MS 365 data connectors to our X1 Enterprise Collect platform to provide a previously unmet critical need for enterprises to conduct cost-efficient yet highly scalable eDiscovery search and collections of MS 365 data. The response has been tremendous, with X1 seeing record demand. This is because X1 Enterprise Collect provides users the unique ability to search and collect MS 365 data in-place, in a targeted and iterative manner, at speeds and throughput far exceeding other tools, including Microsoft Purview Premium.

And now, X1 has released X1 Enterprise Collect 5.1, which features two major advancements:

  1. Full support for modern attachments in MS Mail to go along with our support for modern attachments 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.
  2. Even greater speed and scalability. 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 now at speeds 10x that of other approaches.

Many customers report to us that Microsoft Purview Premium’s documented inability to timely handle anything other than small matters due to their 2GB per hour throughput limit (which X1 is not subject to due to our direct connection approach) is disqualifying for them. eDiscovery and investigation matters need to be addressed expediently. X1 can address a matter involving 100 custodians at 10GB of MS 365 data each within 24 hours (search, collection and export), while Microsoft Purview Premium, per Microsoft’s own documentation, would take up to several weeks.

In addition to the aforementioned enhancements with version 5.1, X1 Enterprise Collect offers the following additional unique benefits unmatched by other independent software providers:
• The ability to target individual custodians and specific messaging threads, displacing any need to mass download channels in Teams or Mail
• Unified search and collection of on-premise and cloud data sources, including Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, Mail, laptops and file-shares for an optimized approach
• X1’s patented technology enables the indexing, searching and processing of the targeted data in-place, removing any reliance on premium processing or supplemental services
• One-click upload into Relativity for review, for a streamlined end-to-end process
• A truly automated product solution, as opposed to a service-based offering

Winston & Strawn eDiscovery partner Bobby Malhotra notes: “With the vast number of users and unyielding amount of data in collaboration applications such as Teams, having the ability to target and triage data by specific custodians and threads allows organizations to handle discovery in an efficient and pragmatic manner. X1 provides the unique ability to seamlessly collect and search across numerous data sources.”

X1 Enterprise Collect version 5.1 is now available for deployment in the cloud, on-premise, or 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 Authentication, Best Practices, Cloud Data, collection, Corporations, Data Audit, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Access, Information Management, MS Teams, OneDrive, Preservation & Collection, proportionality, Relativity, SharePoint, SharePoint content

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 , , , ,