The development of new file-sharing techniques creates a dynamic challenge for legal professionals and raises significant questions about electronic discovery. Most organizations now utilize cloud-based file systems for file creation, organization, and sharing. Rather than cluttering emails with attached documents, links to files stored in web-based clouds are sent, directing recipients straight to the source document. These hyperlinks, often called “modern attachments” or electronic “pointers,” mark a shift in document-sharing practices. This shift has led to a decline in the use of traditional email attachments. While the impact on e-discovery is still evolving, it is one of the key areas to watch this year. Despite the growing prevalence of the use of hyperlinks, only a handful of courts have addressed the issue of modern attachments to date.

Traditionally, email attachments have been regarded as part of an email’s “family” during discovery. However, with the emergence of modern attachments, these files are not part of the underlying message file—therefore, the traditional notion of a “family” is absent. Whether courts will treat these modern attachments as attachments in the traditional sense remains to be seen. Notably, the Sedona Conference defines a “document family” as “a collection of pages or files produced manually or by a software application, constituting a logical single communication of information, but consisting of more than a single stand-alone record.” This definition suggests that a hyperlinked file shared in an email could be considered part of a “document family.” These family associations are important to understanding the context of the documents. Emails without their attachments often lack significance. The documents exchanged within emails are often more important evidence. As with all ESI, the discoverability of the link’s target focuses on whether the (nonprivileged) target is responsive and within the care, custody, or control of the producing party. If the link is part of a relevant, responsive, non-privileged communication, it must be produced. However, courts have begun to distinguish between traditional and modern attachments for discovery purposes.