Access Denied: Data Centers' 'No-Entry' Policies May Benefit Law Firms
Despite some concerns over data centers implementing restricted access protocols due to COVID-19, many say law firm data is in better hands with limited access.
April 29, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Data centers are doing their part to stem COVID-19 spread by implementing no-entry policies to limit exposure to the contagious virus. Those efforts can leave law firms without direct access to their data. But observers say their data is likely still far safer than if it were hosted at a firm's office.
Starting March 23, international data center Equinix announced its no-entry policies for its U.K., Spain, France, Germany and Italy locations. Visitors, customers, customers' contractors and non-critical Equinix employees and vendors are barred from accessing its offices for anything other than critical and essential work. Only clients with "special permissions" and government-issued critical infrastructure status will be allowed to schedule a visit for "critical and essential work," which the data center didn't define in its blog post.
Equinix pointed to its remote management, installation and troubleshooting support service as a tool clients can use while its no-entry policy, outside of Asia-Pacific, is effective "until further notice."
Steve Cairns, chief technology officer of legal outsource services provider Exigent, argued law firms are better off leveraging data centers with restrictive access.
"By preventing access I think it happens to add another layer of protection," he said. "In fact, in some ways you may feel it's a safer environment because you don't have other companies allowing their staff in that may breach data."
To be sure, most data centers previously limit who and where someone can access their buildings, noted Cairns and Bell Nunnally & Martin partner Jared Hays.
"Even in normal times, there's really mostly restrictive access," said Hays, whose real estate practice includes transactions involving data centers. He noted most data centers require several levels of approval and security checks, visitor badges and escorted walks to the final destination.
Still, a new no-entry policy should be checked against the client's contract and local statutes regarding limiting access, Hays added.
"There could be liability for a provider in these types of restrictions. I think it's important from the provider's perspective that they word their policies carefully and try to limit the amount they are restricting access to what is only necessary," he said.
While legal rights may vary per jurisdiction and contract, Hays said clients' data doesn't face heightened risk when data centers limit client access. Many cyber risk surveillance and mitigation tools are available to data center employees' remotely, he noted.
However, new restrictions and rearranged schedules could eventually lead to malfunctions, Hays warned.
"Where I would be concerned [is] when we are having to delay preventive maintenance and delay inspections. If we are not checking, our hardware might have problems down the road." He added, "If you put that stuff off too long, the risk of electrical and mechanical failure increases because it's not supposed to operate so long without that maintenance."
Still, Cairns argued data centers further restricting access, and encouraging non-critical clients to leverage a portal to remotely assist them, is a practice that will likely outlive any stay-at-home mandate.
"Like Amazon Web Services, the security, fire prevention and air conditioning, we give you a view into it with a portal," he said. "Data centers see that as a model going forward that moves the needle a little more."
However, some law firms may struggle with letting go of the access.
"If you are still old school thinking and you think your IT should manage everything in that building those should be the companies that are worried because you may have to relinquish some of that control," Cairns 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
© 2025 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 All'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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