This week’s Hanzo post comes from Dave Ruel, who provides the second part in his series on Gmail. This post discusses eDiscovery challenges with Gmail data!

In the article A Look At Ediscovery Challenges With Gmail Data (available here), Dave discusses why Gmail data can be difficult to preserve, collect, and review.

There are ways to get to Gmail data, collecting and exporting it for use in discovery review platforms. For example, users can access their Gmail data through Google Vault—but doing so raises two major challenges. Here’s one of them:

IT bottlenecks.

As organizations switch between multiple platforms to manage legal holds and data collection across all of their various data sources, they run headlong into the second challenge with modern data preservation: workflow disruptions caused in many organizations by overreliance on a stressed IT department to manage various aspects of preserving and collecting data.

That’s one of the eDiscovery challenges with Gmail data, check out Dave’s post here for the other! And if you missed part 1, check it out here! In the final part of his three-part series, Dave will discuss addressing the challenges through the use of tools that work across different data sources to streamline and simplify legal holds and data collection—while being intuitive enough to navigate with reduced reliance on the IT department.

So, what do you think? How important is Gmail for eDiscovery in your organization? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: Hanzo 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.