COVID-19 Is Turbocharging the Migration to Remote E-Discovery Collection
Remote collection is becoming more prevalent as more employees work outside the office, but e-discovery companies say it's part of a larger trend that will continue after COVID-19 subsides.
April 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
Remote data collection could become the norm as e-discovery companies and their clients look for data collection alternatives amidst an increasingly dispersed and remote workforce.
"The legal community tends to adopt technology only reluctantly or is forced to by clients or circumstances," said X1 Discovery Inc. CEO Craig Carpenter. "A migration to remote collection had been happening for several years but relatively slowly. [With] coronavirus it will be expedited."
X1 looked to capitalize on that migration with the recent launch of X1E Remote Collection On-Demand, a remote, cloud-based data collection solution.
"It can be remote collection on-demand as they need it. That's new and in response to the new remote-from-work mandate we all have," Carpenter noted.
To be sure, as COVID-19 has forced many to work remotely, the novel virus also makes the traditional e-discovery workflow of physically going to a data custodian's location and manually using forensic image software to capture their computer or device less practical, noted Infinnium co-founder and chief innovation officer Nirav Avaiya.
Earlier this month, Infinnium also released a remote collection feature for its information governance suite 4iG. Avaiya said that COVID-19 was the "motivation to speed up the process" of developing and launching the feature. However, the new feature was also in response to a broader trend of companies leveraging cloud-based solutions, such as G Suite, Office 365 and Slack, that made collecting data from hard drives less needed, he added.
Additionally, e-discovery providers collecting data on-site will likely overcollect data to avoid missing pertinent information, but that can put a provider's client at risk of violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other regulations, Avaiya noted. E-discovery providers are also exposed to more risk if hard drives, and not select data, is mishandled, he added.
Remote collection introduces a new "modern" workflow that involves filtering out what is collected before the software copies the file, Carpenter said. He noted, "It's more surgical from the onset and that's why clients love it."
Still, remote collection comes with challenges when attempting to collect from certain devices, he explained.
"Cellphones are their own little universe with completely different [operating systems] and storage methodologies, so they are handled by very specialized tech like Cellebrite," he said. Similarly, tablets have unique operating systems that are difficult to remotely collect from.
While remote collection has its limitations, e-discovery vendors copying necessary files shouldn't bog down the client's internet, Avaiya noted. "[It] doesn't use the bandwidth of the organization, it can just use the open bandwidth of the data center or vendor and the company can work as usual without the slowness."
Ayaiya argued there aren't many challenges unique to remote collection that providers wouldn't face when traditionally collecting data for clients. Those common issues vary by client but can include encountering encrypted data and working with the client's IT and legal team to understand the company's data retention and backup programs.
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 AllTrending 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