E-discovery: Top considerations for negotiating contracts with cloud providers
We all know the phrase get your head out of the clouds. Well, your head may not be in the clouds, but your companys computers may be if not now, very soon.
March 12, 2013 at 03:57 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
We all know the phrase “get your head out of the clouds.” Well, your head may not be in the clouds, but your company's computers may be … if not now, very soon. Cloud computing is the delivery of IT resources over the internet instead of local/internal servers that provide network, web hosting and data storage. In other words, cloud computing uses a remote server “in the clouds” to operate a company's computer systems, data storage, software, etc.
It is undeniable that cloud computing can offer many benefits from both an IT perspective (eliminating the need for large capital investments in internal hardware and individual software applications) and from an end user's perspective (facilitating collaborate workflow and permitting convenient access to data from almost any location). In light of the foregoing, together with the attractive cost savings achievable with cloud computing, increased use of cloud computing and cloud services is expected. In fact, recent surveys suggest that 40 percent of all financial services use some cloud services. In addition, in the next three years, it is estimated that more than 50 percent of Global 1000 companies will have stored customer-sensitive data in the cloud.
Thus, as companies consider this new platform, it is important to understand the associated legal ramifications. At the outset, although your company may store its data in the cloud, to the extent such data is responsive to discovery requests, federal courts have consistently treated data stored by third parties to be within a party's possession, custody and control under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a). Accordingly, if your company uses a cloud provider, your company will still be required to identify, preserve and collect electronically stored information (ESI) in the cloud. Such preservation and collection efforts may prove more difficult from a cloud platform when compared to traditional internal IT systems. Nonetheless, from a legal perspective, the data will be considered in your control, and consequently, you will have the initial burden to preserve and possibly collect and produce this data in a usable form.
When negotiating your company's contract with a third-party cloud provider, you should be aware of some key factors. For instance, is the cloud provider reputable? What level of data integrity does the cloud provider offer? Also consider such essential issues as the protocols and limitations for backup/disaster recovery, encryption and access management. Obviously, efficient, reliable and predictable access to your data is a necessity, and proper testing before transitioning to the cloud is a must. Under the guise of Rule 34(a), also ensure that the contract specifically provides that ownership and control of the data remains with your company, not the cloud provider.
In light of the ever increasing concerns regarding identity theft and privacy issues, these considerations should be addressed at the outset. For instance, specifying that the data is to be held in accordance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations may be important to your company. The cloud provider, however, may not fully understand HIPAA or its implications, so you want to be clear when establishing your contractual relationship with the cloud provider that the privacy parameters are fully defined and your expectations clearly delineated. Also, if you know you want the cloud provider to ensure segregation of duties, personnel screening, data privacy or other security measures, be sure they are likewise delineated in the contract.
Furthermore, in considering a cloud provider, investigate how the cloud provider responds to subpoenas. More importantly, regardless how the cloud provider typically responds to subpoenas, include language requiring the provider to promptly notify your company upon receipt of a subpoena for your data. Also, be sure your company has the ability to answer, challenge or even seek to quash the subpoena. Your ability to challenge such requests early on in the process may make all the difference in preventing unwanted access to your data.
Another key factor to consider is sustainability. What assurance do you have that your provider will be in business five years down the road? What if the cloud provider suddenly ceases activities, files for bankruptcy or otherwise breaches the service contract? What happens should you decide to end the relationship or use another cloud provider? Be sure the contract with the cloud provider provides continued access to and prompt transition of data to another cloud provider. Depending upon the amount of data, it may be simpler to just move the data back to your company and then upload it to new a supplier. If, however, the amount of the data is large, you should ensure that the contract provides for a secure transfer from the initial cloud provider to the new cloud provider. Regardless of the reason necessitating the transfer, you should ensure that sufficient remedies and safeguards are built in to the contract to provide the necessary security for your company's continued computer operations and the continued storage of and access to secure data.
Cloud computing certainly has advantages. It does not require hardware or software. It does not require individual maintenance by your company. It also does not require travel and typically provides fast downloading, quick data transfers and works around your schedule. However, ensuring your company's contract with its cloud provider is sound at the outset will help protect the integrity of your company's operations while also promoting compliance with its legal obligations.
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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
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