Litigation: Essential steps for navigating e-discovery in the cloud
While use of cloud computing continues to grow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most state civil rules have not caught up with this technology.
August 29, 2013 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
While use of cloud computing continues to grow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most state civil rules have not caught up with this technology. Current rules do not provide any specific guidelines for preserving and producing electronically stored information (ESI) in a shared environment. And not surprisingly, there are few court rulings interpreting how the civil rules should operate in the cloud. This leaves in-house counsel and its outside counsel litigation team with little guidance when formulating a plan for managing company data stored in a cloud in the face of a large and complex piece of litigation.
If you find yourself in these shoes, here are some essential steps to take in order to fulfill your e-discovery obligations for preserving and producing data stored in a cloud.
1. Serve a litigation hold on your cloud vendor
It is safe to assume that moving ESI to a third-party provider's cloud does not remove a company's document retention requirements or obligations to review and produce ESI in response to discovery requests. Treat the ESI in the cloud the same way you would if it was stored on your company's own hard drives. As a result, immediately serve your cloud provider with a litigation hold when notified of a claim or that litigation is anticipated. Your cloud computing service level agreement (SLA) will likely have procedures for litigation holds. If your provider has no protocol for this procedure, still proceed with the written hold and communicate with your cloud provider to ensure it is taking steps to preserve relevant ESI.
2. Formulate a plan for complying with discovery requests
Do not wait until the discovery requests are served to come up with a plan for responding to them. Given the unique features of cloud computing, it is critical to understand very early in a case the entire process you will need to take in order to respond to discovery requests. An early understanding of all the relevant information in a cloud is required by Rule 26 initial disclosures anyway. Immediately after serving the litigation hold, map out how you will identify, collect, and review relevant ESI. Some cloud providers will have this procedure spelled out in the SLA. If not, engage personnel from your IT department and relevant business units to help put together a plan with the cloud provider. There are a host of important issues to consider during this mapping process. Does the provider have a built-in e-discovery tool to conduct searches or will it be more efficient to export the data out of the cloud to be searched with another application? What is the format of the data stored in the cloud and can all of it be searched and produced, including metadata? What are the additional costs the cloud provider will charge for complying with e-discovery requests? And finally, how quickly can all of this be done? Once you have this process mapped out, this knowledge will empower you in making objections and negotiating stipulations with the other party on ESI technical issues and cost production sharing. Keep in mind that Rule 26 grants some protection against producing ESI that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden and cost.
3. Secure the data and maintain the privilege
In the past few years, the American Bar Association and many state bars have issued ethics opinions that bless the use of a cloud in e-discovery provided that certain safeguards exist for protecting client data. This means you need to exercise due diligence and cannot blindly rely on the provider's word. Because the data is being maintained by a third-party host, steps must be taken to make sure the data is not being accessed by non-essential third parties to the relationship and that reasonable precautions are made to maintain confidentiality. Understand who else is storing data in the cloud. Many cloud providers use the same processors and storage devices to service multiple clients. Learn how the system works and is designed so that there is no risk of commingling or unauthorized access to the data. Confirm that the provider's written policies state that all company data will be kept confidential and secure.
4. Properly retain the data post-lawsuit
After the litigation is resolved, make sure the cloud provider is appropriately retaining the ESI. If the ESI must be retained for some reason (e.g., a subsequent insurance coverage case), put steps into place to ensure the provider is maintaining the ESI. Otherwise, important evidence could be destroyed due to a provider's scheduled deletion of data. If there is no reason to retain the ESI from the case, instruct the provider to treat data in accordance with company's standard document and data retention policies.
As the use of cloud computing becomes more prevalent due to the benefits of reducing infrastructure and power costs, the courts will provide more guidance for lawyers on how to operate in this new environment. In the meantime, taking an approach that treats ESI in cloud as if it were stored on your company's hard drives is the safest way to proceed.
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 AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute readLongtime Purdue GC Accused of Drunken Driving Hires Big-Name Defense Attorney
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame For Last Month's Air Disasters?
- 2Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
- 3A Message to the Community: Meeting the Moment in 2025
- 4Ex-Prosecutor Denies on Witness Stand That She Tried to Protect Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
- 5Latham's Lateral Hiring Picks Up Steam, With Firm Adding Simpson Practice Head, Private Equity GC
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