Busting the Myths About Mobile Device Discovery: eDiscovery Best Practices

Why aren’t legal professionals discovering data from mobile devices more? Maybe they are buying into the myths associated with mobile device discovery. This article from Forensic Discovery does a great job of busting the myths about mobile device discovery!

Their article Busting the Myths Associated with Mobile Device Discovery begins by discussing the Mobile Device Discovery results from eDiscovery Today’s 2022 State of the Industry Report (summarized here). The question posed to survey respondents was “What percentage of cases involve discovery of data from mobile devices?” Here are the overall results on that question:

  • 100% of cases involve data from mobile devices: 3.6% of respondents
  • Most cases (greater than 50%) involve data from mobile devices: 23.5%
  • About half (50%) involve data from mobile devices: 19.2%
  • Some cases (20% to 50%) involve data from mobile devices: 30.2%
  • Very few cases (less than 20%) involve data from mobile devices: 18.1%
  • 0% of cases involve data from mobile devices: 5.3%

Forensic Discovery then proceeds to discuss four myths about mobile device discovery and proceeds to go about busting the myths with some great information!

So, what are the four myths and what are their arguments that bust those myths? Check out their article here to find out! Let’s hope we all have success busting the myths about mobile device discovery in 2022!

BTW, you can get a FREE copy of the full 2022 State of the Industry Report (and any report eDiscovery Today publishes) simply by following eDiscovery Today via email. Scroll up and look to your right. There it is – the box to “Follow Blog via Email”! See! 😉

So, what do you think? Have you found busting the myths about mobile device discovery to be challenging? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: Forensic Discovery 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.

4 comments

  1. That mobile devices may contain information which must be collected because it is the only source is a given. That can happen and should always be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

    But… the aussmption by many that it is always the case is incorrect.

    This is the opinion that must change in the legal community (both plainitffs and defendants).

  2. Thanks for the comment, Hans! Of course, it’s not ALWAYS the case, but people frequently conduct business communications over text these days and, in many cases, those communications are discoverable. And text is just one form of potentially discovery ESI that doesn’t exist elsewhere. Mobile devices don’t ALWAYS have relevant information in every case, but investigation of whether they do have relevant information is ALWAYS appropriate. Well-crafted custodian interviews will help determine when they are relevant.

    Many legal professionals still don’t even CONSIDER mobile devices in discovery — that’s what needs to change.

    • Hi Doug,

      you certainly have a point there!

      So, going back to the drawing board, the consideration whether applicable needs to come first. This is indeed the very first, basic step.

      Once considered it will either be included or rejected. This inclusion or rejection needs to be documented so that if challenged as to why mobile data was not collected, it can be provided.

      But there are also those eDiscovery veterans who insist that “There must be mobile data!” Such veterans shoould also rethink their assumptions.

  3. Couldn’t agree more, Hans, especially with the comment about documentation. You don’t have to have mobile device data in every case, but it should be considered in pretty much every case. Seriously investigating whether there is potential relevant mobile device data is what matters. Too many legal professionals still dismiss it out of hand and don’t even consider it.

Leave a Reply