Discovery of Slack Data is Not Only Relevant, It’s Also Proportional: eDiscovery Best Practices

My latest blog post for IPRO’s blog is about how data from the collaboration app Slack has become a common source of ESI in litigation, investigations, and other eDiscovery-related use cases, how discovery of Slack data has become routine and how it has also become proportional in discovery for litigation as well.

If an organization uses Slack, and it is under a duty to preserve potentially responsive ESI in litigation, discovery of Slack data (or any collaboration app used within the organization) has to be considered as one of those sources of potentially responsive ESI.  But a lot of legal professionals still don’t routinely consider data from Slack and other collaboration apps (or even mobile devices for that matter).

In the 2021 State of the Industry report issued by eDiscovery Today (and sponsored by EDRM), only 26.8% of respondents said they always or usually have mobile device or collaboration data in their cases, while 20.2% said they rarely or never have either of them.


So, why should legal professionals routinely consider discovery of Slack data in their cases?  And what recent case illustrates what courts are saying about the proportionality of Slack discovery (hint: I covered it last month!).  You can find out on Ipro’s blog here. 😉  It’s just one more click!

So, what do you think?  Are you regularly considering discovery of Slack data in your eDiscovery workflows?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: Ipro is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.


Leave a Reply