Recording Online Meetings: A Guide to eDiscovery Best Practices
Because of the potential for exposure that recorded calls may have, it is important to understand when and where those recordings can be used and if the risk of recorded online meetings is something you need to mitigate against.
November 08, 2019 at 11:09 AM
4 minute read
Using online meeting software is commonplace in business. If you haven't hosted a meeting using GoToMeeting, WebEx, Zoom or a host (no pun intended) of other software products, chances are you have likely attended an online meeting yourself, as it's increasingly necessary for individuals to meet online and share screens, video feeds, documents and side-conversations with up to hundreds of people at a time.
While online meetings can save companies time and travel expenses, the ability to record such meetings presents a unique challenge when litigation is involved. A quick review of the major meeting software products listed above shows that all include the ability for meetings to be recorded and saved for later use. Most allow the recording to capture not only what the speakers on the call say, but any screens that are shared, side conversations that occur in the "chat" window and a full list of participants who have logged into the meeting.
What happens to those recordings after the call ends? That depends largely on how the software administrator and/or individual host has set it up. Recorded files are saved either to the local machine of the person who hosted the call or on the server where the software resides; the host of the session makes this choice.
These records can cause issues on both ends of the call cycle. Firstly, when a meeting invitation is issued, users may not be aware that the meeting is being or could be recorded; therefore, a disclaimer may be necessary when an invitation to such a call goes out. Secondly, where the resulting recorded file is saved could affect which custodians and servers need to be included in an eDiscovery request.
As for the first issue, we recommend that all online meeting invitations be accompanied with a disclosure statement similar to the following:
"IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this {Name of Meeting Software} service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session. Rules regarding the recording of communications differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Please check the rules on this topic in your respective jurisdiction."
This prompts any potential attendees to ask if a recording will be made and opt out of the call if they feel it is problematic for any reason. Alternatively, potential attendees will have the option to request that the host not record.
To the second point, eDiscovery hinges on collecting the right electronically stored information from the right places. Those places can include such things as email boxes and network share drives from individuals who are involved in the suit. But as we have learned, eDiscovery professionals should also ask where meeting software file recordings are stored so that those locations can also be included the collection.
We have personally hosted or attended over 200 of such meetings, and that number could likely be exponentially larger for others. Because of the potential for exposure that recorded calls may have, it is important to understand when and where those recordings can be used and if the risk of recorded online meetings is something you need to mitigate against.
Gina M. Vitiello is a shareholder in the Atlanta office of Chamberlain Hrdlicka. Patrick Kennedy is the director of eDiscovery at Andrews Myers.
The views and recommendations expressed in this article are solely those of its authors. The Daily Report does not give legal advice and makes no warranties about the completeness or accuracy of recommendations offered in opinion pieces submitted by outside authors.
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 AllCould Everything Be Alright Without Me Knowing? The State of Professionalism Among Attorneys
Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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