Securing a Document Review Center: A Practical Guide
Some key factors to effectively maintain data security during the document review phase of e-discovery, and in particular securing document review centers against malicious and inadvertent data leaks.
May 13, 2015 at 06:44 AM
12 minute read
Much ink has been spilled in recent years about information security, hacker exploits and hardware and software products used to thwart hackers. Not a single day goes by without news pertaining to the discovery of vulnerabilities in the software we use and cherish, and to hacker exploits affecting the companies we use in our daily lives. Compromises at JP Morgan Chase, Target, Home Depot, Ebay, Adobe and Apple, to name a few, have led to the leakage of hundreds of millions of records. These infractions lead to billions of dollars of aggregated losses and can be financially devastating to an organization. A 2014 study by the Ponemon Institute, for example, puts the cost of the average data breach at $5.9 million dollars and the cost per record of a breach in the U.S. at over $200. See, “2014 Cost of Data Breach Study: United States (May 2014).”
The legal industry has been a late comer to the information security frenzy, but the situation has changed over the last 18 months, driven by corporations' realization that law firms and the legal ecosystem orbiting around them has access to some of their most sensitive data. This realization triggered a series of security audits targeting law firms and, in some cases, e-discovery vendors. Corporations spend millions of dollars on information security to build a defensive dome around their data (JP Morgan, for example, announced to its shareholders that it spent $250 million on information security in 2014), and their angst about the safety of that data when it resides on third-party networks is therefore understandable.
The one discipline that is increasingly under the microscope of Chief Information Security Officers (CISO) is e-discovery, where terabytes of some of the most sensitive corporate communications leave the relative safety of the corporation's defensive perimeter and are touched by myriad legal services providers spanning the EDRM continuum. Providing the tightest security possible to every step of this process is no longer optional. Service providers must implement stringent security protocols or risk losing their largest corporate clients.
This content has been archived.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 AllLawyers Are Adopting Gen AI Five Times Faster Than the Cloud
Mitigating Off-Channel Communications: A Guide for In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals
12 minute readE-Discovery Services Company Repario Taps Former UnitedLex VP as New GC
From In-House at AstraZeneca to an E-Discovery Startup: New Fileread GC Discusses Major Career Move
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
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