Companies around the country started the year off by bracing themselves for the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). California consumers are now granted rights to their personal information (PI) that is being shared across organizations. Business operators must ask the question – do we fall into CCPA’s purview? Those that do, must take action to cover their bases and make sure they fully abide by the regulations the law enforces. But, who is most impacted and how should they prepare for what’s to come? Also, how should the legal industry prepare for the inevitable changes in workflows caused by the CCPA coming into effect?

Who is most impacted by CCPA?

All organizations and companies handling PI that belong to California residents are impacted by CCPA. Additionally, CCPA impacts third parties that purchase PI from a business, and service providers that process PI on behalf of a business. It’s important to note that nonprofit organizations fall outside of CCPA’s scope. 

This means a wide variety of business types are affected, however, those that deal with personal data directly are impacted the most, such as digital advertising agencies, like LiveRamp or Drawbridge, that are involved with disclosing personal data. If they do not meet the protocols perfectly, they can accrue unnecessary costs through fines. 

These entities need to communicate to California consumers (1) that they are in fact collecting their data, (2) how they are collecting their data, and (3) how users can opt-out of sharing their data with said entity. The purpose of jumping through these hoops is to protect the consumer’s privacy. However, it is at the expense of the businesses that meet CCPA’s determined thresholds. 

Companies have spent weeks or even months reviewing their privacy policies, updating their websites, and changing internal processes. All of which equates to time and money spent on implementing new procedures and technologies. Though, getting ahead of it now prior to undergoing expensive lawsuits and fines is definitely the cheaper option.

How does CCPA impact the legal industry?

There are a number of ways legal workflows are affected by CCPA. On the one hand, similar to the implementation of EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), lawyers may see an increase in volume of privacy-related work. The need for their services to advise on how to avoid disputes and allegations of privacy infringement is critical. This means more work overall for legal teams, and more involvement in counseling businesses on how to navigate new regulations. 

Additionally, the implementation of CCPA causes an uptick in the complicated nature of a certain area of legal practice. It is undeniable that with CCPA, there is a rise in Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs), which is already considered an expensive burden for businesses. CCPA requires a timely response to these requests, and if not met, can result in steep fines. When “John Doe” requests personal data, executing this request can result in complex workflows and can take a great deal of time. Teams must establish a flexible and transparent process to sustain DSAR requests. Utilizing technology can assist in saving time and adding visibility into workflows. It is in a legal teams’ best interest to seek a well-rounded eDiscovery solution that can alleviate and mitigate these new complexities by increasing efficiency and accuracy when searching and reviewing documents.

Conclusion

CCPA, like GDPR, is causing upheaval in the corporate world and in the legal industry. How do these organizations and firms really feel about it? Stay tuned for our next blog that will discuss the perspectives of law firms, corporations, and eDiscovery professionals.

Part Two of a Two-Part Article

Cybersecurity Law & Strategy partnered with our ALM sibling Legaltech News to ask cybersecurity and e-discovery experts what they thought the key trends of 2019 and what they expect to see in 2020. Part Two looks at e-discovery.

ybersecurity Law & Strategy partnered with our ALM sibling Legaltech News to ask cybersecurity and e-discovery experts what they thought the key trends of 2019 and what they expect to see in 2020. Part One, last month, covered cybersecurity; Part Two looks at e-discovery.

As we come to the end of 2019, what was the biggest development in e-discovery for you?

To read the full article, visit LawJournalNewsletters.com.

Every frosty early February, legal technology vendors, visionaries, and even villains have huddled in the bowels of the Midtown Hilton to show their wares and evangelize about the future of the legal profession. Hotel space in New York is relatively cheap during this window between New Year’s and anything approaching a pleasant climate — it’s a logical time to book up a giant hotel and schedule some meetings with high-profile clients.

As usual, Legalweek offered three days of non-stop information. Unlike the algorithms that vaguely drive every product on the floor, it was more than I could process in such a tight window. 

Read the rest on AbovetheLaw.com.

Customer adoption of Casepoint eDiscovery platform exceeds all forecasts; the number of matters running on the platform is up 453% from previous year.

TYSONS, Va., Feb. 4, 2020 — Casepoint, a leader in enterprise eDiscovery technology, today announced a series of dramatic growth indicators from 2019 that position the company for further success in 2020. Last year marked the release of a transformative upgrade to Casepoint eDiscovery running on Casepoint Platform. The ensuing growth includes the addition of a number of major clients, a more than quadruple increase in the number of matters running on the company’s eDiscovery platform, and a massive expansion of its employee base.

Among the client wins are Vandeventer Black LLP, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, Spilman Thomas & Battle, and Ryley Carlock & Applewhite. “Casepoint has been a valuable and cost-efficient eDiscovery resource tool for both our attorneys and our clients. The all-inclusive TAR/analytics/AI features, self-service options, user-friendly interface, and experienced project management support are key. In addition, the transparent and competitive pricing model helps us with cost predictability and cost containment for our clients,” said Phi Tran, Esq., Director of eDiscovery at Ryley Carlock & Applewhite. Also in 2019, Casepoint was selected in October by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct a cloud-based eDiscovery pilot after undergoing a rigorous multi-step evaluation process. Several of the new clients have elected to standardize on Casepoint eDiscovery across the entire enterprise, which has allowed them to replace multiple tools from other vendors and/or internal tools with Casepoint’s integrated solution.

“As soon as we released a transformative upgrade of Casepoint eDiscovery last year, we experienced accelerated growth and quickly began hiring, with a particular focus on the product team,” said David Carns, Chief Revenue Officer at Casepoint. “Since then we have added multiple new features and enhancements to the platform, and plan to make additional improvements in the next few months. We are now well-positioned to respond to the rapidly increasing demand for our products and services in the year to come.”

At the end of 2019, the number of legal matters running on Casepoint had increased by 453% over 2018. To accommodate this dramatic increase in its business and prepare for additional growth in 2020, Casepoint has been busy expanding its workforce. The company now has a total of 550 employees, up from 370 in July 2019 and 45 in 2015. The product team count currently stands at 320, up from 175 in July and 15 in 2015. The focus on expanding the product team reflects Casepoint’s ongoing commitment to continual improvement and rapid responsiveness to client feedback and requests.

“The new numbers and client wins suggest that Casepoint eDiscovery running on Casepoint Platform is quickly becoming the industry standard,” said Haresh Bhungalia, Chief Executive Officer at Casepoint. “Many of our customers have switched to Casepoint from Relativity, Recommind, Case Logistix, Ipro Eclipse, Nuix, or other platforms. They made the switch to Casepoint after experiencing our platform’s industry-leading speed, its unprecedented flexibility, and extensibility, the power of fully integrated AI and the ease of managing the entire eDiscovery process within a single, user-friendly interface.”

Now in its twelfth year, Casepoint offers blazing-fast, enterprise-class tools for full-spectrum eDiscovery, including cloud collections, data processing, advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, full-strength review, and customizable productions. Casepoint supports workflows across millions of documents, multiple terabytes of data, thousands of legal matters, and unlimited numbers of users.

About Casepoint
Casepoint empowers legal departments, law firms, and public agencies by providing smarter legal technology combined with award-winning client service. Casepoint eDiscovery is the fast, enterprise-class, and next-generation eDiscovery suite from Casepoint, based on more than 11 years of innovation in the industry. It is built upon Casepoint Platform, a highly scalable, secure, and configurable application environment that meets the demands of sophisticated clients within eDiscovery and beyond. Whether SaaS, on-prem, or hybrid, Casepoint eDiscovery features cloud collections, data processing, advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, review, and production – all in an easy-to-use web interface. Casepoint customers benefit from the ability to support sophisticated workflows across millions of documents and hundreds of users, with custom reporting and data management tools built-in. Simple, elegant, and intuitive, Casepoint represents the next generation of litigation technology that will empower your global legal team.

Media Contact:
Shana Graham
Plat4orm PR
206-661-6336
shana@plat4orm.com

Jake Sanders and Paul Julius of the LAWsome Podcast talk legal tech and business trends in 2020. They also talk about legal project management and how to get agile and lean with Jessica Robinson, the Vice President of Client Services at Casepoint. Listen to the full podcast on thelawsomepodcast.com.

It’s the second week of a new decade and there are already new regulatory changes that have major implications for corporate legal departments. On January 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) took effect requiring businesses to alter privacy policies to abide by new consumer regulations for 2020 and beyond. Piggybacking on Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), CCPA sets new rights and requirements for the distribution of California consumers’ personal information. Corporations across the country, and perhaps internationally as well, will be impacted by this new law.

Companies that adapted to GDPR, otherwise considered the new global standard for data privacy protection and undoubtedly the inspiration for CCPA, will inherently attempt to use similar protocols for CCPA compliance. Tech giants like Facebook and Google might come out unscathed using this method, because they have the means and resources to resolve issues as they arise. But other organizations, who do not have the same budget, may encounter a few hiccups at the onset. Because, while similar, there are distinctive differences between the two laws.

What is CCPA and why is it significant?

The purpose of CCPA is to enhance privacy rights and consumer protection for the residents of California. It gives California residents the right to access their personal information, request that a business delete their personal information, and opt out of having their personal information disclosed or sold.

This greatly impacts an organization’s privacy policy that does business in California and satisfies the required thresholds; the implementation of CCPA will affect the way these businesses collect and manage data. It creates a morass of new processes and technologies being put into place to abide by these new procedures.

Furthermore, it opens the door for other states to pass similar legislation in the years to come, perhaps even at the federal level. So the cost of not enforcing such procedures can cost a company more later down the line due to fines. Therefore, commiting to meet these requirements now, will save money in the long run. Businesses need to be prepared to respond and adhere to such regulations now and potentially in the future.

How does CCPA differ from GDPR?

There are a number of differences between CCPA and GDPR. While they both require detailed privacy notices, the content required to meet the criteria for each differs. A privacy policy that meets GDPR requirements will not likely satisfy CCPA requirements. Additionally, the requirements and general specifics of the law differ.

Similar to GDPR, CCPA grants individuals the right to opt-out of the disclosure and sale of their personal information. This means businesses are obligated to add the opt-out option when accessing their website or mobile apps. However, CCPA does not provide all of the same consumer rights as GDPR. One of the most significant differences being that legal basis is not required for processing personal data.

Who will be most impacted by CCPA and how does this apply to the legal industry?

The implementation of CCPA will create a new and complicated world for data privacy. The biggest question is who will be the most impacted by CCPA? And the question everyone is dying to know – how does it apply to the legal industry? We will cover this and more in our next blog in this 3 part series. Stay tuned for the next blog!

Cybersecurity Law & Strategy partnered with our ALM sibling Legaltech News to ask cybersecurity and e-discovery experts what they thought the key trends were in 2019 and what they expect to see in 2020.

Cybersecurity Law & Strategy partnered with our ALM sibling Legaltech News to ask cybersecurity and e-discovery experts what they thought the key trends were in 2019 and what they expect to see in 2020. We’ll present the results in two parts: Part One covers cybersecurity; Part Two, next month, will be e-discovery.

Read the rest on Law Journal Newsletters.

Tomorrow, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is officially enacted, with full compliance expected by July 1. If you have California customers, are you ready? Maybe, maybe not, but either way it’s clear that it’s going to have an effect on your how organizations hold its data.

When I solicited opinions for privacy predictions in 2020, it’s little surprise that a large number of them had to do with the CCPA’s impact on the law. So, with CCPA Day less than 24 hours away, I decided to put all of those predictions in one place. Here’s what attorneys and technologists alike see for the CCPA this upcoming year, which could be one of the more turbulent for privacy in the U.S. in a while.

This is the second in a six-part series of 2020 predictions from Legaltech News. Yesterday, we ran experts’ predictions for e-discovery in 2020. Check back on Thursday for the rest of our predictions for privacy in 2020, Friday for cybersecurity, and next week for artificial intelligence and other innovative technologies. The quotes below are in alphabetical order by name, and some have been edited for length.

David Carns, chief revenue officer, Casepoint: “In the wake of GDPR, 2020 will usher in a new and complicated world of data privacy. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which goes into effect in January, will have a major impact in the U.S., and organizations will have to be ready to respond to additional privacy legislation and regulations in other states and possibly at the federal level. Organizations that regularly litigate in other countries and deal with data sources from multiple jurisdictions will need to pay close attention to ensure compliance and avoid hefty penalties. Flexible, proactive and efficient data management technologies will become absolutely essential. Because 2020 is an election year, the chances are next to zero that we’ll see national cybersecurity or privacy regulation in 2020, but just wait for 2021.”

Read the full article on Law.com.

Buyers must consider the cost implications of on-premise solutions compared to cloud-based solutions. The unspoken burdens that arise after committing to an on-premise solution can put a large dent in your wallet. There are a number of hidden costs and fees associated with on-premise solutions that are not present at the forefront when purchasing the technology.

Here are four cost implications of on-premise solutions compared to cloud-based solutions.

Legal Technology Hardware Considerations

On-premise solution buyers spend significant money on servers, systems, and maintenance. When legal teams consider an on-premise option, it is important to consider all the costs of installing, managing, and maintaining hardware behind a firewall. Buyers will also want to factor ancillary costs to run on-premise eDiscovery hardware. 

Legal Software Elements

It is important that buyers do not underestimate the costs of supporting software necessary to run separate, on-premise eDiscovery tools. Many eDiscovery software tools are on-premise and single-purpose. Legal teams can buy separate products for legal hold, collection, early case assessment, review, and analytics. Most of these vendors then charge additional fees for analytics and machine learning software. Buyers that go in this direction will encounter a morass of licensing fees.

Resource Burdens in Legal Infrastructure

Buyers often overlook resource burdens; it’s important to delve into the staffing requirements for managing, maintaining, and using the technology before making a purchase. On-premise eDiscovery hardware and software requires IT resources for management, security, maintenance, and update activities. So buyers need to calculate these personnel costs into their total cost estimates. 

Efficiency in Legal Operations

Lastly, buyers also need to evaluate efficiency gains that will accrue to the organization, departments, and users. eDiscovery data sets are massive and deadlines to produce results are extremely tight. Organizations want a solution that provides infrastructure speed, software usability, and mobile workforce access. When litigation support lacks the compute power for rapid data loading, processing, indexing, and publishing, big delays happen – and we all know that can cause serious problems. Server capacity, time efficiency, quality control measures, and many other factors are heavily affected by the buyer’s choice of eDiscovery solutions.  

Conclusion 

Investing in legal technology isn’t a matter to be taken lightly. As outlined, there are four cost implications of on-premise solutions compared to cloud-based solutions that buyers must consider before taking the plunge. Our free buyer’s guide will inform you on all the factors that contribute to the total cost of ownership for eDiscovery.

A Functional Workspace Platform for the Future

Enterprises in just about every industry are creating virtual workspaces and customized applications on aggressive timelines to streamline collaborative work, automate labor-intensive tasks and reuse existing data in creative and powerful new ways. Why not law firms and legal departments?

Until recently, legal organizations have lacked the technological expertise, IT staff and development tools to make it possible or practical. But with the emergence of highly flexible, low code or even no code application development tools on platforms designed specifically for diverse legal workflows, the dynamic is beginning to change. It is now becoming practical for legal IT employees and even non-IT staff, like lawyers and paralegals, to quickly create customized functional workspaces and applications for everyday business purposes.

Legal organizations are finally catching on to the fact the data they are sitting on – whether it is generated from eDiscovery, litigation, billing, financial, risk management or other activities – is not just a byproduct of tools and workflows to be used, stored and archived, but an underutilized resource that can generate tremendous value. The data can be integrated and repurposed in novel ways to create new efficiencies, reduce cost and risk, increase transparency and accountability, and produce game-changing business intelligence. Creating functional workspaces and other applications to quickly adapt to new challenges and opportunities is a promising way to leverage the power of that data.

To read the full article, go to page 16 in ILTA’s Peer to Peer quarterly magazine.

David Carns is the Chief Revenue Officer of Casepoint. He joined Casepoint as a Director of Client Services in 2010, rose the ranks to Chief Strategy Officer until his most recent promotion in 2019. In addition to being a recovering attorney, David possesses a lifelong passion for technology and its advancements. His career has always found him at the intersection of technology and the legal field given his intimate knowledge of both. Today, David leads Casepoint in its global sales and marketing strategy with foresight. In addition to business development strategy, David is very well-versed in Casepoint’s solution and technological prowess. David is attuned with the Casepoint application and its development since inception. He has also been on the client-side of the Casepoint application in his previous positions. Prior to joining Casepoint, David Carns’ positions included Director of Practice Technology at a premier global law firm, Technology Consultant, and Director of Technology. Carns holds a Juris Doctorate from The John Marshall Law School and a Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy from DePauw University.ou can connect with her on LinkedIn.

It’s difficult to predict precisely whether legal tech consolidation will continue as quickly next year as it did in 2018 and 2019, but industry observers agree that “platformization” will be a key driver for those legal tech providers who are in fact looking to combine forces.

The legal market in 2020, experts said, is likely to feature vendors looking to “platformize,” by increasing the number of individual apps and software programs they can offer to law firms and corporate law departments.

Expanded platforms appeal to lawyers anxious to handle the same tasks—from managing their client workflow to organizing contracts they’re overseeing—through the use of fewer tech tools.

Technology is revolutionizing discovery — young lawyers need to find a new way to learn the process.

The “practice-ready” law school model is oft-discussed and rarely implemented, but maybe technology will finally force law schools to focus on teaching practical skills. Joe and Kathryn chat with Jessica Robinson, Vice President of Client Services at Casepoint about the maturation of the eDiscovery process, the project management lessons that fuel effective discovery, and the importance of learning the theory of discovery before entering an increasingly automated practice.

While much of current commentary on electronic discovery is focused on enterprises in the private sector, government agencies also routinely face demands for the production of electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation, investigations, examinations, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and other core activities. Many of the e-discovery-related challenges faced by large corporations and government agencies are similar, but requirements for public sector organizations stand out due to the very large scale of many productions, the diversity of data types and formats, and the extensive and stringent data security protocols driven by government regulations and standards programs.

Complicating these fundamental challenges are recent public-sector initiatives that bring new urgency to efforts to move agency data and technology tools to a cloud computing environment. These initiatives include:

• Cloud Smart, a relatively new strategy developed by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) “to accelerate agency adoption of cloud-based solutions” and provide practical implementation guidance.
• The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), which was passed by Congress in December 2014; FITARA permits CIOs to establish cloud service working capital funds and is the driving force behind new “scorecards” that grade agencies on their progress in various components of IT modernization, including migration to the cloud.
• The Modernizing Government Technology Act, attached as an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which plays an important role by providing capital for modernization initiatives that include adoption of commercial cloud technology.

To read the full article, visit Law.com.

Experienced Vice President Client Services with a demonstrated history of working in the information technology and services industry. Skilled in IT Strategy, Management, Account Management, Process Engineering, and Business Development. Strong business development professional with a Master’s degree focused in Information Technology from The Johns Hopkins University – Carey Business School. ou can connect with her on LinkedIn.

Even 20 years after cloud computing made an entrance on the scene (Salesforce in 1999, AWS in 2003), there are surprisingly a wide number of organizations that still have not made the transition to the cloud. Law firms and legal departments are among the slowest groups still debating: to move to the cloud or not to move to the cloud? 

The advantages of the cloud far outweigh those of on-premise infrastructure. Cloud solutions are more cost-effective, and the speed and scalability they provide greatly benefit a firm or legal department in the long run.

At Casepoint, we had the vision and innovation to build our technology in the cloud before anyone else in the market – 11 years ago. We have continually built and refined our cloud-based technology year over year. Casepoint offers a mature platform compared to other solutions. Many solutions have just started to implement cloud-based technology in the past few years and are still trying to learn how to walk before they run.

What are the benefits of cloud-based eDiscovery?

The top three reasons that cloud solutions are better than on-premise solutions are: the total cost of ownership, the overall speed and efficiency, and scalability. 

1. Cost
Hosting an eDiscovery solution on-premise or in-house incurs more costs than what may seem at first glance. The total cost of ownership of an on-premise solution needs to include not only the eDiscovery software cost, but also the hardware, network infrastructure, personnel, to name a few. These costs can quickly add up. Cloud solutions alleviate your budget by reducing or eliminating these costs because there is zero infrastructure to manage.

2. Speed, Speed, and More Speed
For a law firm or corporation, high-speed processors or bandwidth is a high priority. Cloud solutions provide fast results. Instead of spending unnecessary time on various tasks, cut the time it would normally take to execute them significantly. The speed of the cloud will give you the opportunity to repurpose your time, for legal review or strategy, rather than waiting for a document to load or encountering connectivity issues.

3. Scalability
One of the biggest advantages of the cloud is the ability to scale quickly. The ability to ramp up (or down) capacity based on need is critical for both cost and performance. Another key aspect of scalability isn’t just the hardware that runs these environments, but the application itself. It too needs to be architected for scalability to handle massive document volumes, large user bases, resource-hogging tasks from processing complex file types, artificial intelligence, and advanced analytics at any given time. 

Visit our eDiscovery features page for more information on Cloud Analytics and Collections.

Creating a career that is all your own.

In the latest episode of The Jabot podcast, I speak with Jessica Robinson who recently joined Casepoint as Vice President of Client Services. She didn’t start off in legal technology, and we discuss how the twists and turns of her career led her there. Along the way, we tackle the impact of LA Law, management styles, the value of having a JD and MBA, and how, as a black woman, Jessica has to work extra hard to prove herself.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Most of us own a smartphone.  And, if you’re like me, you keep a lot of important stuff on your phone.  In this constantly evolving world of everything digital, the question remains:  do I have a right to privacy in the records on my cell phone? In a closely watched recent United States Supreme Court decision, the high court says YES in Carpenter v. United States.

On June 22, 2018, in a landmark 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in Carpenter that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location records.  In its far-reaching decision, the court held that a person’s historical cell site location records – that is, records of every place a person’s phone has been –  is a Fourth Amendment search, because obtaining such records violates the person’s “legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of her physical movements.” The court also held that accessing those records requires a search warrant. The court’s decision dramatically both expands the scope of the Fourth Amendment – which protects people from unlawful searches and seizures –  and updates it for modern times, providing new and robust constitutional safeguards to the right to privacy. As predicted, Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, reversing the Sixth Circuit’s decision. He was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The remaining four justices, Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each filed separate dissenting opinions.

Renowned eDiscovery expert Judge John Facciola, retired United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, believes the Carpenter decision may signal the end of the Third-Party Doctrine.  The Third-Party Doctrine is a legal theory which holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties – such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs) or SaaS companies – have no “…reasonable expectation of privacy.”  The expectation of privacy is crucial to distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search from an unreasonable one. Judge Facciola agreed with the decision in Carpenter, because the Roberts’ court seems keenly aware that, “…we are now faced with an entirely different species of business record – something that implicates basic Fourth Amendment concerns about arbitrary government power much more directly than corporate tax or payroll ledgers. When confronting new concerns wrought by digital technology, this Court has been careful not to uncritically extend existing precedents.”  The court seems to understand the importance of electronic privacy, especially in light of the high court’s previous decisions in U.S. v. Jones (2011) which required a warrant before police placed a GPS tracker on a vehicle and Riley v. California (2014) which forbade warrantless searches of a cell phone during an arrest.  

Judge Facciola notes that settling a warrant standard for cell phone records access isn’t the end of the discussion, but just the beginning. I agree with Judge Facciola. Today, we all have a digital footprint, and the question of relevancy must be addressed, i.e. a search warrant can be issued only based on “probable cause,” but it must particularize what is to be searched and seized. As evidenced by Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Carpenter, I believe more members of our judiciary will lean in this direction. After all, even our most senior judges now have cell phones and their respective right to privacy is impacted just like everyone else. Given the extent of everything digital in our lives and our respective digital footprints, for a consumer to give up “every historical file” would be overreaching and overly broad. No doubt much of the data would not be relevant to whatever the court was reviewing, especially in light of the fact that an individual’s digital footprint may be over 20 years old. Thus, relevancy is critical.

So, the good news is the SCOTUS decision in Carpenter may indeed be the start of the courts affording us more protections – and yes  “a reasonable expectation of privacy” – in our digital footprint beyond our cell phones — like my Facebook page, or the GPS location now on my iPhone etc.  What is really mine? Stay tuned.

 Barbara J. Klas, Esq. is an account manager based in Casepoint’s Minneapolis/St.Paul office. Barbara supports national corporate and law firm clients with litigation management, electronic discovery, technology and consulting services.  She began her practice as a litigation attorney at Rider Bennett, LLP in Minneapolis where she focused on commercial, employment and personal injury defense litigation. You can connect with her on LinkedIn.

In our last post on 4 Reasons why you should switch from Relativity, we took a look at some of the complaints we’ve been hearing from Relativity users:

• Relativity is expensive
• Relativity is slow
• Relativity is not easy to use
• Relativity is a tired product – more and more users want a new, better alternative

Let’s say you have made the decision to switch from Relativity, what should you do next?

First, review and understand your existing Relativity and add-on product obligations.

Before you make a move, it’s essential to understand the parameters of your Relativity contract in detail and the full the extent of your obligation with Relativity and any add-on products. Given Relativity is not a complete eDiscovery solution, customers may also have contractual obligations for LAW PreDiscovery or NUIX to process data, Brainspace or NexLP for analytics, iPro for productions, in addition to Relativity for review. The use of multiple products not only makes the eDiscovery workflow more expensive but less efficient and prone to data integrity risks of transferring data between systems. This is a key reason customers repeatedly choose Casepoint because we can meet all of these needs in a single platform and lower cost. If you perceive any technical or cost hurdles as you determine how to make a switch, call us. Casepoint will work with you to overcome any of those challenges and mitigate any risks.

Second, issue an RFP.

Issuing an RFP allows you to define, document, and establish all of your key eDiscovery needs. The RFP should detail your organizations data volumes, file types that need to be supported for processing, advanced analytics (communications analysis, word clouds, email threading, etc.), review capabilities (such as the ability to customize tags and issue codes or dynamic TAR), production requirements, compatibility with your existing eDiscovery workflows, price considerations, past performance, and so on. Resist the temptation to take shortcuts. The RFP and the responses you receive will form the basis for contract negotiations when you are close to a final decision, so be sure to involve all key stakeholders in your organization to both define your needs and evaluate responses.

Here are three tips for your RFP process:

• Tip #1: Make product demonstrations a key part of your RFP process.
• Tip #2: Don’t have time or bandwidth to conduct a full RFP issuance and evaluation process? Make a list of key/core requirements and require vendors to provide their RFP responses in the form of a PowerPoint presentation and product demo. This gives you a chance to not only see the product hands-on, but also meet the company and people with whom you will be partnering. You wouldn’t hire a new employee without seeing reviewing their resume, interviewing them, and asking for references, would you?
• Tip #3: Long-term contracts will open the door for better terms and pricing.

We are very proud of our solution here at Casepoint and we highly recommend that you do a point-by-point comparison of Relativity and Casepoint based on the criteria outlined in your RFP.

Third, create a smart transition plan.

Once you have selected your new solution (such as Casepoint), here are different ways to ensure a smooth transition:

If you want to switch over immediately:

• Bring together key stakeholders from your organization and the vendor to finalize a migration plan. Any good vendor will have well-defined migration processes, communication protocols, risk management approaches, technical support protocols, SLAs, workflow best practices, etc. All of those items will be addressed as part of the transition plan.
• As defined by the transition plan, work to export all data out of Relativity and securely send it based on agreed upon data submission and chain of custody guidelines pre-defined in your transition plan. Exporting Relativity ARM files is often the easiest and most complete way to export Relativity data. Thankfully, Casepoint can easily ingest ARM files, which makes switching just that much easier.
• Test each of your matters after migration has been completed.
• Be absolutely certain that all your data is wiped out of the Relativity hosting provider’s servers and that there is no digital footprint. Ask your existing provider for a certificate of destruction.
• Provide initial and ongoing training for everyone who will use the platform.
• Encourage feedback on ease of use. How does it compare to Relativity? (We think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.)

If it makes sense to switch more gradually due to the complexity of your environment:

• Ensure that any transition plan considers critical or complex matters (including nearby production or trial dates), unique technical or functional specifications, and priority cases.
• Send any new matters directly to Casepoint.
• Next, migrate any matters that are either inactive or have low-level of activity.
• Finally, migrate remaining matters based on timelines and complexity. Ensure there is frequent communication between your end users and your vendor to make sure all needs are addressed.

Once you’ve made the choice to switch from Relativity, the processes can be smooth and efficient. Just remember to review your current contract obligations, issue an RFP, and make a smart transition plan. And if you need help, please feel free to contact us here at Casepoint. We’ve helped numerous clients switch from Relativity and we can help you through the process, too.