Forgetting Mobile Data Is 'Malpractice' but Remembering It's No Fun
Legalweek's "Mobile Data: Issues in Data Privacy and Data Protection" explored the ubiquity of mobile data and the problems it poses to attorneys.
February 05, 2020 at 02:06 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Remember when phones used to be for making calls? Now there's all kinds of data to be found on a mobile device, and the challenges of finding or obtaining that data was explored in great depth throughout the duration of the "Mobile Data: Issues in Data Privacy and Data Protection" panel at Legalweek 2020 in New York.
And to hear Ed McAndrew—a panelist and partner at DLA Piper—tell it, this is not an issue that attorneys can ignore.
"I think it's actually bordering on malpractice at this point not to exploit mobile data," McAndrew said.
To be sure, the category of "mobile data" isn't limited to just phones, which creates an issue in and of itself given the sheer volume of information that is floating in the ether. McAndrew pointed to the explosion of relevant data now pertinent to any given case as something with which courts are continuing to grapple. And it's only posed to get worse.
For example, panelist and solo practitioner Gail Gottehrer raised the specter of autonomous vehicles. While car companies have yet to reach the threshold of a vehicle that can drive itself under any conditions, today's motorists are already behind the wheel of machines that collect a tremendous amount of information. Features that allow a car to tell drivers when they are about to back into a tree or a fire hydrant rely on sensors and cameras that could be exploited as potential treasure troves of discoverable data.
"How much of that is your automaker keeping? How much of that is your insurance company getting?" Gottehrer said.
For lawyers, the amount of data that can surround any given case requires them to distill a matter down to its essential components. But just because an attorney may know exactly what data they want to retrieve, that doesn't necessarily make it any easier to obtain. A common dilemma faced by many companies is the intermingling of employees' personal and work phones.
While many organizations may opt to initiate a policy banning their workers from conducting business on personal phones—which could be difficult but not impossible to get during discovery—it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone will slip and text a client from their own device.
"It's really important to understand how people actually behave. You can write a policy down, but if people are not following the policy you are still at risk," said panelist Ines Rubio, head of information management and incident response at BSI.
Even if a phone is obtained for litigation, there are still technical hurdles that may need to be cleared before the information inside can be accessed. There are a wide variety of mobile devices on the marketplace, each of which may require a different approach or methodology in order to crack. People in their infinite variety also keep things interesting, since no two mobile device owners may store or label data the same way.
Of course, from a privacy standpoint, there may be some people who consider those difficulties to be welcome news. Shahaf Rozanski, head of Cellebrite business solutions, indicated that while most technology vendors are putting an emphasis on user privacy, there are still tools on the market that can be used to circumvent those measures.
Countermanding those countermeasures may require some creativity. According to Rubio, she typically cleans any unnecessary data from her device and transfers it to another network prior to traveling, which provides some comfort in the event that the phone is confiscated at a border or otherwise.
"If it doesn't have to be on my device I shouldn't bring it with me," Rubio said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute readGrabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
These Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250