Digital White Papers

ILTA WHITE PAPER: JUNE 2014 WWW.ILTANET.ORG 34 prioritized and then shared among attorneys, clients and adverse parties. The cloud typically comes into consideration and use when e-discovery data becomes large, complex and when it needs to be shared among multiple parties. The need to share the data internally and externally typically drives the motivation to host e-discovery data with an outside vendor. Most law firms don't want to open up their internal systems, essentially poking a hole in their security, to let in adverse parties — expert witnesses, judges, arbitrators or even clients. The best practice in these types of cases is to host the data in the cloud and grant access to authorized parties. In addition, the life cycle of e-discovery data is often much shorter than data saved in a DMS, typically lasting only for the duration of the case or an appeal. WHERE TO HOST YOUR DATA Cloud-based e-discovery solutions are not the only option for firms when large, complex cases are presented. Some choose to host this data internally on their own e-discovery platforms and infrastructure. The decision of whether to host an e-discovery data set internally or externally is complicated. Litigation support managers and CIOs should ask several key questions: • How much data is involved in the matter? • What e-discovery platform will be used? • How many people need access to the data? • How long will the data be stored? • How much will it cost? Who is paying the bill? • What are our current data storage and backup capacities? • Do we have any regulatory or compliance issues with this case? • Is the data subject to any additional privacy or security statutes? • Do we have a qualified e-discovery cloud provider that we trust? Many times the sheer size of the data involved in the case will be the deciding factor that the only option is the cloud. Purchasing hardware and infrastructure on the fly to house terabytes of data representing millions of documents for a short period of time (while the case is active or on appeal) is not typically the best use of firm resources. When the case concludes and the e-discovery data are no longer needed, the internal infrastructure will often sit idle. Paying for excess capacity for the "what if" potential case is expensive and has a challenging ROI calculation. SO…WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? Let's ask this again: Why is the cloud acceptable for one type of law firm data but not the other? It comes down to control and the agreement between parties. When a firm's DMS data are outside the control and watch of senior management and IT, people get nervous. You also have cloud providers that run shared infrastructure and shared storage between multiple clients. While there are several cloud-based DMS solutions, first-generation offerings have clunky interfaces and often force users to a Web browser to do any type of file manipulation. You'd get frustrated if you had to open the Web browser or remember a URL Web link every time you wanted to open a document, save a document, search your file system or browse a client folder. It is cumbersome to bulk-import and -export documents and email messages in cloud DMS systems. Users want an application to be integrated into their desktop tools with a simple and clean end-user interface. Some firms have gone to the cloud with their DMS despite the security, privacy and interface concerns. They are seeing some users enjoy the experience, but others not so much. For e-discovery systems, often the parties involved in the case accept the risks and acknowledge the cloud is the most practical and cost-effective method to house the data. Likewise, it is not the original or only copy of the data, so some concerns are passified. DIFFERENT DATA, DIFFERENT SECURITY?

• Cover