Navigating the Shift: Understanding Modern Attachments in E-Discovery
Despite the growing prevalence of the use of hyperlinks, only a handful of courts have addressed the issue of modern attachments to date.
June 10, 2024 at 11:54 AM
7 minute read
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.
This content has been archived.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 AllThe Importance of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Its Impact on Privilege
6 minute readNavigating the Shifting Sands of E-Discovery and Information Governance in 2025
6 minute readAn Employer's Rule 34 'Possession, Custody and Control' Over ESI on 'BYOD' Devices
Trending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
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